Angry, Murdering, God

[D1B]

Understand, but you can't take historical context out of the equation. Not too long ago, every one of those stories was believed as fact until scientific and other evidence deemed them bunk. Now we are to believe the resulting excuses, primarily from the catholic church are solid? Bullshit. Just like the Greek myths, it all was and still is bullshit. We don't need em anymore.

The fact that they still exist and people still have faith with them has nothing to do with their validity and everything to do with 1700 years of brutal oppression for non-belief and the practice of brainwashing children from birth.

Again, the acceptance of biblical stories as allegory goes back as far as Augustine in the Catholic Church.

I don't know why even post things. This all you have to say:

You'd think a decent, intelligent god would have been more clear from the beginning.

Instead he sets up this impossible game where his pieces must have a divinity Phd. from Fordumb to make sense of anything. And, he creates billions of other people and sets em up with a false religion knowing he will send them to eternal suffering for not worshipping him.

Realizing he fucked up, he decides to clone himself by raping and impregnating a married virgin who will then give birth to him so he can save the world from essentially himself.

Saving the world is not enough. He allegedly passes the torch to one of the most fucked up and evil organizations in the history of world in the Catholic church to carry on his legacy. 2000 years and countless atrocities and the coward refuses to show his face, except on pieces of toast and to morons in sparsly populated shitholes.

Now this Church is known for rampant corruption and raping children.

[Grizalltheway]

For a bunch a guys who collectively have spent about 5 minutes studying theology, you guys sure are a bunch of experts on the subject.

Why don't you guys go back to those things about which you are experts, like talking out of your asses on subjects you know nothing about. Wait a minute. That's what you're doing here.

Hey, Cleets, why don't you tell us again about how the Rothschilds and other European bankers owners own the Federal Reserve?

Internet experts.

You seem a bit peevish today Joe.

What is it that makes you more qualified to speak about fantasy and myth, anyway?

He's an internet crusader.

[UNI88]

I don't understand how being an "arrogant prick" is relevant as an observation about the wrongness of something...The world is FULL of arrogant pricks and ass-holes who are making valid points.

I understand William Shakespeare was an arrogant prick
as well as Siegfried Glenzer

Donald Trump is an arrogant prick too... but are all arrogant pricks just like The Donald..?

I don't think JoltinJoe is an arrogant prick in real life.

"What if he went to some crappy third-tier law school? Like Fordham or Arizona State."






Heard that on television the other night and thought of Joe.

[D1B]

I don't think JoltinJoe is an arrogant prick in real life.

"What if he went to some crappy third-tier law school? Like Fordham or Arizona State."






Heard that on television the other night and thought of Joe.

Joe's a good egg. Trust me, he don't believe a tenth of the shit he says here. He's essentialy D2B.

[Ibanez]

"What if he went to some crappy third-tier law school? Like Fordham or Arizona State."






Heard that on television the other night and thought of Joe.

Joe's a good egg. Trust me, he don't believe a tenth of the shit he says here. He's essentialy D2B.

D2b?! Heaven help us!!!!!!

[D1B]

Joe's a good egg. Trust me, he don't believe a tenth of the shit he says here. He's essentialy D2B.

D2b?! Heaven help us!!!!!!

It's all a ruse. Joe is a foil essentially created by me and him to highlight my brilliant secular prose and religious knowledge.


You fools. I love it.


Why do people here hate me so much?

[houndawg]

"What if he went to some crappy third-tier law school? Like Fordham or Arizona State."






Heard that on television the other night and thought of Joe.

Joe's a good egg. Trust me, he don't believe a tenth of the **** he says here. He's essentialy D2B.

Just the kind of move you'd expect from an angry god...

[D1B]

Joe's a good egg. Trust me, he don't believe a tenth of the **** he says here. He's essentialy D2B.

Just the kind of move you'd expect from an angry god...

Don't know who you are, but you better drop that name. Respect the deceased.

BTW, I have some tasty photos and narrative from houndawg's funeral coming shortly. Stay tuned. It was a riot.

[houndawg]

Just the kind of move you'd expect from an angry god...

Don't know who you are, but you better drop that name. Respect the deceased.

BTW, I have some tasty photos and narrative from houndawg's funeral coming shortly. Stay tuned. It was a riot.

He always threw great parties, I wear his name with pride and honor.

This forum just wouldn't have the same intellectual heft without a houndawg in the house..

[JohnStOnge]

There is a standard pat answer to anything like what the guy said:

"God is an all knowing being. He is way advanced beyond you. You are trying to make what God does understandable in human terms. But human beings to God are, intellectually, less than amoeba are to human beings. You are not capable of understanding it."

Yes, I know it's very convenient. But if there were to be a God that would be the way it is. You'd be foolish to try to rationalize what God does with your limited human intellect.

[JohnStOnge]

And, besides, without God there is nothing immoral about murder anyway. That's what really gets me about atheists. This thing they have where they think there can be morality without the "something else" that sets the rules.

Yes I know we've been through it many times. People have proposed basis for morality in the absence of the "something else" and none of them hold up. So I guess it's about to happen again.

[houndawg]

And, besides, without God there is nothing immoral about murder anyway. That's what really gets me about atheists. This thing they have where they think there can be morality without the "something else" that sets the rules.

Yes I know we've been through it many times. People have proposed basis for morality in the absence of the "something else" and none of them hold up. So I guess it's about to happen again.

Nonsense, it holds up just fine. Morality is a human invention, just like god.

[YoUDeeMan]

There is a standard pat answer to anything like what the guy said:

"God is an all knowing being. He is way advanced beyond you. You are trying to make what God does understandable in human terms. But human beings to God are, intellectually, less than amoeba are to human beings. You are not capable of understanding it."

Yes, I know it's very convenient. But if there were to be a God that would be the way it is. You'd be foolish to try to rationalize what God does with your limited human intellect.

Yes, God made us an amoeba, when he could have made us able to understand things better.

God sure is a stupid, arrogant fvck.

[∞∞∞]

This thing they have where they think there can be morality without the "something else" that sets the rules.

Atheists, including myself, know there can be morality without a god because...we actually exist.

It's also a bit ironic that you have Voltaire quoted in your sig. The man basically believed in a world created by God(s) whom didn't set rules for humanity. I mean his last words were basically a big FU to organized religions.

[kalm]

Again, the acceptance of biblical stories as allegory goes back as far as Augustine in the Catholic Church.

I don't know why even post things. This all you have to say:

You'd think a decent, intelligent god would have been more clear from the beginning.

Instead he sets up this impossible game where his pieces must have a divinity Phd. from Fordumb to make sense of anything. And, he creates billions of other people and sets em up with a false religion knowing he will send them to eternal suffering for not worshipping him.

Realizing he fucked up, he decides to clone himself by raping and impregnating a married virgin who will then give birth to him so he can save the world from essentially himself.

Saving the world is not enough. He allegedly passes the torch to one of the most fucked up and evil organizations in the history of world in the Catholic church to carry on his legacy. 2000 years and countless atrocities and the coward refuses to show his face, except on pieces of toast and to morons in sparsly populated shitholes.

Now this Church is known for rampant corruption and raping children.

This is some fine work right here and I know Joe is smart enough to appreciate it. Whether he'll admit it or not.

[kalm]

This thing they have where they think there can be morality without the "something else" that sets the rules.

Atheists, including myself, know there can be morality without a god because...we actually exist.

It's also a bit ironic that you have Voltaire quoted in your sig. The man basically believed in a world created by God(s) whom didn't set rules for humanity. I mean his last words were basically a big FU to organized religions.

Yep. Cooperation and sense of democracy even occur in other species. The only question is who instilled that. JSO and JJ have set such a low bar for God.

[AZGrizFan]

Atheists, including myself, know there can be morality without a god because...we actually exist.

It's also a bit ironic that you have Voltaire quoted in your sig. The man basically believed in a world created by God(s) whom didn't set rules for humanity. I mean his last words were basically a big FU to organized religions.

Yep. Cooperation and sense of democracy even occur in other species. The only question is who instilled that. JSO and JJ have set such a low bar for God.

How do you know those other species don't have an equivalent God? What did you do, ask them?

[kalm]

Yep. Cooperation and sense of democracy even occur in other species. The only question is who instilled that. JSO and JJ have set such a low bar for God.

How do you know those other species don't have an equivalent God? What did you do, ask them?

Maybe I did!

[BlueHen86]

And, besides, without God there is nothing immoral about murder anyway. That's what really gets me about atheists. This thing they have where they think there can be morality without the "something else" that sets the rules.

Yes I know we've been through it many times. People have proposed basis for morality in the absence of the "something else" and none of them hold up. So I guess it's about to happen again.

Okay, so you do what you think God wants you to do, and that makes you moral.
An atheist does the exact same thing because he thinks it's right and he is not moral?

Sorry, not buying it.

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death."
— Albert Einstein

[Chizzang]

And, besides, without God there is nothing immoral about murder anyway. That's what really gets me about atheists. This thing they have where they think there can be morality without the "something else" that sets the rules.

Yes I know we've been through it many times. People have proposed basis for morality in the absence of the "something else" and none of them hold up. So I guess it's about to happen again.

Because you don't understand morality without God doesn't mean that everybody else doesn't understand it just fine...

Does suffering happen with and without God..?
Yes it does - Then morality exists with or without God
It is not any more complicated than that

[JoltinJoe]

For a bunch a guys who collectively have spent about 5 minutes studying theology, you guys sure are a bunch of experts on the subject.

Why don't you guys go back to those things about which you are experts, like talking out of your asses on subjects you know nothing about. Wait a minute. That's what you're doing here.

Hey, Cleets, why don't you tell us again about how the Rothschilds and other European bankers owners own the Federal Reserve?

Internet experts.

You seem a bit peevish today Joe.

What is it that makes you more qualified to speak about fantasy and myth, anyway?

Not peevish. Ironical, in a way which flies under the radar here.

You see, you guys are the arrogant pricks. You make fun of people of faith, dismissing faith a "myth," or "fantasy," and that their belief is comparable to belief in Santa Claus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or to some bearded man living on a cloud. And after you see up your straw man position, you then denigrate anyone who would believe in God as a fool or an idiot.

But when someone steeped in theology shows up, sees such argument, and then throws out that there's no point in discussing theology with foolish people who've never earned a single college credit, you call me peevish. Don't you see I've placed the shoe on the other foot, and now I get called peevish and arrogant? Well, that's precisely what you guys do all the time. You don't engage in honest discussion. You just mock the intellect of any person of faith, as if they had an ounce of a brain, they would no doubt agree with you.

Get it?

BTW, I have 29 college credits in theology, including seven in world religions, and another four in Modern Jewish Thought. In contrast, I have no college credits in any course which studied Catholicism exclusively. But I have studied (at least) the basics for every major world religion in my world religion classes.

So I don't claim any standing to discuss "myth" and "fantasy." (You sound peevish for asking such a sarcastic question). I do have some standing to discuss theology.

[JoltinJoe]

And, besides, without God there is nothing immoral about murder anyway. That's what really gets me about atheists. This thing they have where they think there can be morality without the "something else" that sets the rules.

Yes I know we've been through it many times. People have proposed basis for morality in the absence of the "something else" and none of them hold up. So I guess it's about to happen again.

Because you don't understand morality without God doesn't mean that everybody else doesn't understand it just fine...

Does suffering happen with and without God..?
Yes it does - Then morality exists with or without God
It is not any more complicated than that

Straw man stuff.

The question isn't whether a person can be moral without a belief in God. Of course someone can.

The question is whether, in the absence of God, there is any objective basis which commands adherence to a humanist morality. The answer to that question is undoubtedly no.

As Nietzsche mused, once you remove the concept of God as the objective source of a society-wide moral code, what replaces God as the source of an obligation to be moral? Stalin, Mao and others answered that question -- the state. You see, once you remove God as the objective source of morality, you can replace it with anything. In other words, while it is wonderful you have a humanist outlook, there is nothing which compels that.

Under your position, it is rational, and perhaps even more rational, to adopt a more "pragmatic" morality. Since we are finite creatures ultimately with no significance, why not adopt a moral code which allows you to lie, steal, and cheat to maximize your personal enjoyment so long as you are here? As long as you can keep your corruption in a gray area (think Wall Street), you can cheat and steal without fear of the law. Also, again think of Mao and Stalin.

[D1B]

You seem a bit peevish today Joe.

What is it that makes you more qualified to speak about fantasy and myth, anyway?

you then denigrate anyone who would believe in God as a fool or an idiot.

Now, now, Joe. Every one of us is on record, including me, as a believer in some kind of higher power or god. At the very least, we admit we don't know.

Any perceived denigration is directed at your god as revealed by your church's dogma...often ridiculous dogma and your arrogance in claiming you know what god is thinking. That's all.

We all know you're very intelligent, OK?...but that doesn't mean you're not delusional or a victim of indoctrination.

[JoltinJoe]

you then denigrate anyone who would believe in God as a fool or an idiot.

Now, now, Joe. Every one of us is on record, including me, as a believer in some kind of higher power or god. At the very least, we admit we don't know.

Any perceived denigration is directed at your god as revealed by your church's dogma...often ridiculous dogma and your arrogance in claiming you know what god is thinking. That's all.

We all know you're very intelligent, OK?...but that doesn't mean you're not delusional or a victim of indoctrination.

I am not delusional or a victim of indoctrination.

You say, you believe in some higher power, which is great, but you don't seem to have any idea of what the nature of that higher power is. Is it a personal higher power -- let's call "higher power" a "God" of some undefined nature)-- a personal God who maintains an interest in those he has created, both individually or collectively? That's the key question. And ultimately, I submit that a personal God is the only God which makes sense, for numerous and various reasons.

[D1B]

Because you don't understand morality without God doesn't mean that everybody else doesn't understand it just fine...

Does suffering happen with and without God..?
Yes it does - Then morality exists with or without God
It is not any more complicated than that

Straw man stuff.

The question isn't whether a person can be moral without a belief in God. Of course someone can.

The question is whether, in the absence of God, there is any objective basis which commands adherence to a humanist morality. The answer to that question is undoubtedly no.

As Nietzsche mused, once you remove the concept of God as the objective source of a society-wide moral code, what replaces God as the source of an obligation to be moral? Stalin, Mao and others answered that question -- the state. You see, once you remove God as the objective source of morality, you can replace it with anything. In other words, while it is wonderful you have a humanist outlook, there is nothing which compels that.

Under your position, it is rational, and perhaps even more rational, to adopt a more "pragmatic" morality. Since we are finite creatures ultimately with no significance, why not adopt a moral code which allows you to lie, steal, and cheat to maximize your personal enjoyment so long as you are here? As long as you can keep your corruption in a gray area (think Wall Street), you can cheat and steal without fear of the law.

Slippery Slope - blah, blah, blah

How bout the rest of the story regarding the death of god?

Stalin, Mao - Strawmen - blah, blah, blah

Joe, you're a schoolyard philosopher.