RIP Christopher Hitchens

[JoltinJoe]

In point of fact, Christians do not kill, rape, or torture others. If someone engages in such acts, they are not truly Christians. They may say they are Christians, but they are not conforming their conduct to the standards of Christianity. And I can say that because we have an objective belief in what is right or wrong and their conduct falls outside what we know to be objectively "right." So I can condemn their actions, objectively, and say that they are not actually Christians, because their actions speak louder than their surface claim of being a Christian,.

On the other hand, when Stalinists engage in a wrongful act, what is the objective standard of right or wrong espoused by atheism by which you can objectively condemn their actions? Even Nietzsche admitted that there was none. Can you say that Stalin was not truly an atheist? Of course he was. And a bad one, one who used the license of relative morality to ignore the "humanism" Nietzsche called for. You see, Nietzsche hoped for humanism, but in the end, it was just one man's word against another.

I disagree. Christianity is a religion of those who follow Christ. Using the bible, the commonly accepted word of God among Christians, those who believe that Christ was the son of God form their own philosophy and "sect" using that scripture. There are multiple sects, with many different beliefs, and the most hard-line for their particular belief can conclude that others are not in that belief are not apart of their religion. For instance, I know of Baptists who don't believe Presbyterians or Methodists or Lutherans are Christians because, according their interpretation of the bible, they don't follow the word of God. Basically, to discard those whose actions and interpretations of scripture are different from your own as "not Christian" would be essentially saying that only those who share your beliefs are in fact Christian. Simultaneously, they can justify their actions with scripture just as well as you can. So how do you justify what is and what is not a Christian? Is it someone who claims to follow Christ and uses scripture to shape their philosophy and actions or is it simply just a matter or perspective in that there is just one righteous path while the others are wrong? Culturally, non-Christians view anyone who claims they follow Christ as Christian. Are they right or are the particular sects whom have their own standards right? Objectively, I believe that one can only conclude that the former is true.

To put it this way, Religion Pigeon says:



Man interprets scripture as he personally believes is righteous and he can justify it to be that way if he is rational. People have different beliefs of righteousness from their personal experiences and thus they will interpret and rationalize scripture accordingly. If Christianity is the righteous path, which sect is righteous afterall? If you're not interpreting scripture the right way, you're not interpreting God's word right and thus you are in the wrong and your actions will be sinful in nature. The mainstream Christian doesn't believe that, instead he decides to play it towards the middle and decide that anyone who believes in Christ and has actions coinciding with the teachings of Christ, he is a Christian. That is, of course, unless the mainstream Christian views another sects beliefs as morally wrong and thus they condemn their actions and beliefs as such. Then the discussion comes down to a discussion about scripture, and I personally believe both sides have a rational interpretation that isn't more "right" than the other. I personally feel like the misogynistics and homophobes have a one up though. But they're all Christian to me.

To the point on Stalin, I can condemn his actions as morally wrong and objectively morally wrong for our species because his actions did not benefit the species, as well as the fact that it made it in the best interest of the soviet people to homogeneous in their political beliefs for the sake of survival, this suppression of thought defies nature and ultimately cannot aid in the evolution of man, but rather devolution instead...... and I personally don't like the concept of someone being able to kill me and thus I condemn the actions of doing said action to others as wrong and strive to prevent such action from happening as a precautionary way to prevent it from happening to me.

You're right. There is no God. Life is pointless so max out on fun while you can. And since you're right, why follow the Golden Rule at all? What's so rational about following the Golden Rule? Let other suckers fall for that, and you just play along.

PS -- I would agree with you that the so-called "negative" expression of the Golden Rule (which really isn't the Golden Rule at all) is rational. If you do something miserable toward someone, they are going to get you back, so it's rational not to do that. Bu there is nothing rational about being kind and generous toward others, i.e., the "positive" expression of the Golden Rule (the GR of the Old Testament and the New Testament).

PPS -- Your dad is a wise man. Listen to him.

[JoltinJoe]

In point of fact, Christians do not kill, rape, or torture others. If someone engages in such acts, they are not truly Christians. They may say they are Christians, but they are not conforming their conduct to the standards of Christianity. And I can say that because we have an objective belief in what is right or wrong and their conduct falls outside what we know to be objectively "right." So I can condemn their actions, objectively, and say that they are not actually Christians, because their actions speak louder than their surface claim of being a Christian,.

On the other hand, when Stalinists engage in a wrongful act, what is the objective standard of right or wrong espoused by atheism by which you can objectively condemn their actions? Even Nietzsche admitted that there was none. Can you say that Stalin was not truly an atheist? Of course he was. And a bad one, one who used the license of relative morality to ignore the "humanism" Nietzsche called for. You see, Nietzsche hoped for humanism, but in the end, it was just one man's word against another.

Uhh, again Simple Joe. Atheism is not a belief, ethical or moral system. Now, there are several humanist standards that could condemn the actions of the communist states. MOF, they were all contained in that document you refused to read or sign.

Victims of tyrants die because they're powerless. Stalin's in particular died primarily due to the extreme ruthlessness coupled with a poor peasant/serf population beaten into submission for centuries by czars and tyrants, many of whom derived their power from the orthodox church. If these people lived by humanist principals, none of that **** would have happened.

F

[YoUDeeMan]

You're like that kid in the class didn't do any of the readings and then tries to monopolize the conversation in class. You really don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. Worse for you, D1B, the board patsy, agreed with you. By that alone, you're done.

Skip the questions and attack the questioner...the last line of defense for the beaten.

JoltinJoe: In point of fact, Christians do not kill, rape, or torture others. If someone engages in such acts, they are not truly Christians.

Cluck U: So let me get this straight...any priest who molests little boys is not a Christian?

Joe, what is so hard about that question? We'll take them one at a time if that makes it easier for you.

[D1B]

You're like that kid in the class didn't do any of the readings and then tries to monopolize the conversation in class. You really don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. Worse for you, D1B, the board patsy, agreed with you. By that alone, you're done.

Skip the questions and attack the questioner...the last line of defense for the beaten.

JoltinJoe: In point of fact, Christians do not kill, rape, or torture others. If someone engages in such acts, they are not truly Christians.

Cluck U: So let me get this straight...any priest who molests little boys is not a Christian?

Joe, what is so hard about that question? We'll take them one at a time if that makes it easier for you.

Joltin Joe

[youngterrier]

I disagree. Christianity is a religion of those who follow Christ. Using the bible, the commonly accepted word of God among Christians, those who believe that Christ was the son of God form their own philosophy and "sect" using that scripture. There are multiple sects, with many different beliefs, and the most hard-line for their particular belief can conclude that others are not in that belief are not apart of their religion. For instance, I know of Baptists who don't believe Presbyterians or Methodists or Lutherans are Christians because, according their interpretation of the bible, they don't follow the word of God. Basically, to discard those whose actions and interpretations of scripture are different from your own as "not Christian" would be essentially saying that only those who share your beliefs are in fact Christian. Simultaneously, they can justify their actions with scripture just as well as you can. So how do you justify what is and what is not a Christian? Is it someone who claims to follow Christ and uses scripture to shape their philosophy and actions or is it simply just a matter or perspective in that there is just one righteous path while the others are wrong? Culturally, non-Christians view anyone who claims they follow Christ as Christian. Are they right or are the particular sects whom have their own standards right? Objectively, I believe that one can only conclude that the former is true.

To put it this way, Religion Pigeon says:



Man interprets scripture as he personally believes is righteous and he can justify it to be that way if he is rational. People have different beliefs of righteousness from their personal experiences and thus they will interpret and rationalize scripture accordingly. If Christianity is the righteous path, which sect is righteous afterall? If you're not interpreting scripture the right way, you're not interpreting God's word right and thus you are in the wrong and your actions will be sinful in nature. The mainstream Christian doesn't believe that, instead he decides to play it towards the middle and decide that anyone who believes in Christ and has actions coinciding with the teachings of Christ, he is a Christian. That is, of course, unless the mainstream Christian views another sects beliefs as morally wrong and thus they condemn their actions and beliefs as such. Then the discussion comes down to a discussion about scripture, and I personally believe both sides have a rational interpretation that isn't more "right" than the other. I personally feel like the misogynistics and homophobes have a one up though. But they're all Christian to me.

To the point on Stalin, I can condemn his actions as morally wrong and objectively morally wrong for our species because his actions did not benefit the species, as well as the fact that it made it in the best interest of the soviet people to homogeneous in their political beliefs for the sake of survival, this suppression of thought defies nature and ultimately cannot aid in the evolution of man, but rather devolution instead...... and I personally don't like the concept of someone being able to kill me and thus I condemn the actions of doing said action to others as wrong and strive to prevent such action from happening as a precautionary way to prevent it from happening to me.

You're right. There is no God. Life is pointless so max out on fun while you can. And since you're right, why follow the Golden Rule at all? What's so rational about following the Golden Rule? Let other suckers fall for that, and you just play along.

PS -- I would agree with you that the so-called "negative" expression of the Golden Rule (which really isn't the Golden Rule at all) is rational. If you do something miserable toward someone, they are going to get you back, so it's rational not to do that. Bu there is nothing rational about being kind and generous toward others, i.e., the "positive" expression of the Golden Rule (the GR of the Old Testament and the New Testament).

PPS -- Your dad is a wise man. Listen to him.

I've already addressed the "point" you've made multiple times, so there's no sense in me repeating.

[D1B]

An early example of the Golden Rule that reflects the Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BCE): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you."

[D1B]

You're right. There is no God. Life is pointless so max out on fun while you can. And since you're right, why follow the Golden Rule at all? What's so rational about following the Golden Rule? Let other suckers fall for that, and you just play along.

PS -- I would agree with you that the so-called "negative" expression of the Golden Rule (which really isn't the Golden Rule at all) is rational. If you do something miserable toward someone, they are going to get you back, so it's rational not to do that. Bu there is nothing rational about being kind and generous toward others, i.e., the "positive" expression of the Golden Rule (the GR of the Old Testament and the New Testament).

PPS -- Your dad is a wise man. Listen to him.

I've already addressed the "point" you've made multiple times, so there's no sense in me repeating.

YT, Joe is a fucking maroon. He's an arrogant dandy who explodes when backed into a corner, which you did nicely. Whatever you do in school, don't get too full of yourself or you'll get your ass kicked daily by athletes and girls, like Joe did. You'll also find yourself singing in a barbershop quartet and jerking off 8 times a day to pictures of sheep in the bible, cuz nobody will like you.

[youngterrier]

My vacation lasts a week but according to Joe's logic, because it will end I shouldn't enjoy myself and do all I can to make my vacation last longer and go more smoothly just for the reason that that makes it more enjoyable just saying

[youngterrier]

I've already addressed the "point" you've made multiple times, so there's no sense in me repeating.

YT, Joe is a fucking maroon. He's an arrogant dandy who explodes when backed into a corner, which you did nicely. Whatever you do in school, don't get too full of yourself or you'll get your ass kicked daily by athletes and girls, like Joe did. You'll also find yourself singing in a barbershop quartet and jerking off 8 times a day to pictures of sheep in the bible, cuz nobody will like you.

okay, now THAT made me laugh

[JoltinJoe]

An early example of the Golden Rule that reflects the Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BCE): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you."

What part of the positive/negative thing don't you understand, moron?

[JoltinJoe]

You're right. There is no God. Life is pointless so max out on fun while you can. And since you're right, why follow the Golden Rule at all? What's so rational about following the Golden Rule? Let other suckers fall for that, and you just play along.

PS -- I would agree with you that the so-called "negative" expression of the Golden Rule (which really isn't the Golden Rule at all) is rational. If you do something miserable toward someone, they are going to get you back, so it's rational not to do that. Bu there is nothing rational about being kind and generous toward others, i.e., the "positive" expression of the Golden Rule (the GR of the Old Testament and the New Testament).

PPS -- Your dad is a wise man. Listen to him.

I've already addressed the "point" you've made multiple times, so there's no sense in me repeating.

You've addressed it? I think you just walked around in circles. It's pointless at this time. When you get to college, and read some meaningful philosophy, you'll see not only the holes in what you are saying, you will see that the best minds have already rejected these concepts.

Don't be like D1B and waste your college time playing minor college football and ignoring your studies. When you're 17 and working through ideas, it's great. When you are some fat, middle-aged has been saying dumb things on a message board, it's pathetic.

[D1B]

An early example of the Golden Rule that reflects the Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BCE): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you."

What part of the positive/negative thing don't you understand, moron?

The golden rule is not a christian invention. What part of that do you not understand, dimwit?

[D1B]

I've already addressed the "point" you've made multiple times, so there's no sense in me repeating.

You've addressed it? I think you just walked around in circles. It's pointless at this time. When you get to college, and read some meaningful philosophy, you'll see not only the holes in what you are saying, you will see that the best minds have already rejected these concepts.

Don't be like D1B and waste your college time playing minor college football and ignoring your studies. When you're 17 and working through ideas, it's great. When you are some fat, middle-aged has been saying dumb things on a message board, it's pathetic.

Yet, 18 pages later you still feel compelled to argue your case. People are laughing at you.

[D1B]

ANCIENT EGYPT
The oldest written record of a recognizable Golden Rule comes from Egypt around 4,000 years ago (2000 BCE). One translation reads:

"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." (R. B. Parkinson, The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, Griffith Institute, Oxford, pp. 109-110)

[JoltinJoe]

You've addressed it? I think you just walked around in circles. It's pointless at this time. When you get to college, and read some meaningful philosophy, you'll see not only the holes in what you are saying, you will see that the best minds have already rejected these concepts.

Don't be like D1B and waste your college time playing minor college football and ignoring your studies. When you're 17 and working through ideas, it's great. When you are some fat, middle-aged has been saying dumb things on a message board, it's pathetic.

Yet, 18 pages later you still feel compelled to argue your case. People are laughing at you.

Why do you even bother? Everyone considers you the board patsy.

[Skjellyfetti]

No, wrong. The Epic of Gilgamesh warned only that if one wrongs another, you can expect that they will wrong you back.

No, wrong.

"love him as you love yourself"
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/serpe ... mesh01.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And Zoroastrianism:

[kalm]

I disagree. Christianity is a religion of those who follow Christ. Using the bible, the commonly accepted word of God among Christians, those who believe that Christ was the son of God form their own philosophy and "sect" using that scripture. There are multiple sects, with many different beliefs, and the most hard-line for their particular belief can conclude that others are not in that belief are not apart of their religion. For instance, I know of Baptists who don't believe Presbyterians or Methodists or Lutherans are Christians because, according their interpretation of the bible, they don't follow the word of God. Basically, to discard those whose actions and interpretations of scripture are different from your own as "not Christian" would be essentially saying that only those who share your beliefs are in fact Christian. Simultaneously, they can justify their actions with scripture just as well as you can. So how do you justify what is and what is not a Christian? Is it someone who claims to follow Christ and uses scripture to shape their philosophy and actions or is it simply just a matter or perspective in that there is just one righteous path while the others are wrong? Culturally, non-Christians view anyone who claims they follow Christ as Christian. Are they right or are the particular sects whom have their own standards right? Objectively, I believe that one can only conclude that the former is true.

To put it this way, Religion Pigeon says:



Man interprets scripture as he personally believes is righteous and he can justify it to be that way if he is rational. People have different beliefs of righteousness from their personal experiences and thus they will interpret and rationalize scripture accordingly. If Christianity is the righteous path, which sect is righteous afterall? If you're not interpreting scripture the right way, you're not interpreting God's word right and thus you are in the wrong and your actions will be sinful in nature. The mainstream Christian doesn't believe that, instead he decides to play it towards the middle and decide that anyone who believes in Christ and has actions coinciding with the teachings of Christ, he is a Christian. That is, of course, unless the mainstream Christian views another sects beliefs as morally wrong and thus they condemn their actions and beliefs as such. Then the discussion comes down to a discussion about scripture, and I personally believe both sides have a rational interpretation that isn't more "right" than the other. I personally feel like the misogynistics and homophobes have a one up though. But they're all Christian to me.

To the point on Stalin, I can condemn his actions as morally wrong and objectively morally wrong for our species because his actions did not benefit the species, as well as the fact that it made it in the best interest of the soviet people to homogeneous in their political beliefs for the sake of survival, this suppression of thought defies nature and ultimately cannot aid in the evolution of man, but rather devolution instead...... and I personally don't like the concept of someone being able to kill me and thus I condemn the actions of doing said action to others as wrong and strive to prevent such action from happening as a precautionary way to prevent it from happening to me.

You're right. There is no God. Life is pointless so max out on fun while you can. And since you're right, why follow the Golden Rule at all? What's so rational about following the Golden Rule? Let other suckers fall for that, and you just play along.

PS -- I would agree with you that the so-called "negative" expression of the Golden Rule (which really isn't the Golden Rule at all) is rational. If you do something miserable toward someone, they are going to get you back, so it's rational not to do that. Bu there is nothing rational about being kind and generous toward others, i.e., the "positive" expression of the Golden Rule (the GR of the Old Testament and the New Testament).

PPS -- Your dad is a wise man. Listen to him.

I can't tell if you really mean that or if it's sarcasm. In case it's the latter, why do millions if not billions of people perform acts of kindness and generosity every day?

[JoltinJoe]

ANCIENT EGYPT
The oldest written record of a recognizable Golden Rule comes from Egypt around 4,000 years ago (2000 BCE). One translation reads:

"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." (R. B. Parkinson, The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, Griffith Institute, Oxford, pp. 109-110)

Once again, what part of the negative/positive thing are you missing?

Find me an earlier account of the command that you shall affirmatively love your neighbor as yourself, and without any expectation of personal benefit that Leviticus.

I know it is a fashionable thing among internet "scholars" to try to claim that the Golden Rule pre-dates Leviticus, but there is NO articulation of the true Golden Rule of loving your neighbor, without expectation of personal gain, prior to Leviticus. None. So just shut up and stop making an ass of yourself. (That being said, I love you because you are my neighbor )

[JoltinJoe]

You're right. There is no God. Life is pointless so max out on fun while you can. And since you're right, why follow the Golden Rule at all? What's so rational about following the Golden Rule? Let other suckers fall for that, and you just play along.

PS -- I would agree with you that the so-called "negative" expression of the Golden Rule (which really isn't the Golden Rule at all) is rational. If you do something miserable toward someone, they are going to get you back, so it's rational not to do that. Bu there is nothing rational about being kind and generous toward others, i.e., the "positive" expression of the Golden Rule (the GR of the Old Testament and the New Testament).

PPS -- Your dad is a wise man. Listen to him.

I can't tell if you really mean that or if it's sarcasm. In case it's the latter, why do millions if not billions of people perform acts of kindness and generosity every day?

Oh, I meant it. So why do people perform acts of generosity? Because they are answering some call within them that defies rational explanation.

[kalm]

Once again, what part of the negative/positive thing are you missing?

Find me an earlier account of the command that you shall affirmatively love your neighbor as yourself, and without any expectation of personal benefit that Leviticus.

I know it is a fashionable thing among internet "scholars" to try to claim that the Golden Rule pre-dates Leviticus, but there is NO articulation of the true Golden Rule of loving your neighbor, without expectation of personal gain, prior to Leviticus. None. So just shut up and stop making an ass of yourself. (That being said, I love you because you are my neighbor )

I love my neighbor, perform acts of kindness and generosity to them all the time, am not a believer of any organized religion, and have never read Leviticus.

[JoltinJoe]

Once again, what part of the negative/positive thing are you missing?

Find me an earlier account of the command that you shall affirmatively love your neighbor as yourself, and without any expectation of personal benefit that Leviticus.

I know it is a fashionable thing among internet "scholars" to try to claim that the Golden Rule pre-dates Leviticus, but there is NO articulation of the true Golden Rule of loving your neighbor, without expectation of personal gain, prior to Leviticus. None. So just shut up and stop making an ass of yourself. (That being said, I love you because you are my neighbor )

I love my neighbor, perform acts of kindness and generosity to them all the time, am not a believer of any organized religion, and have never read Leviticus.

Why do you do that?

[D1B]

Yet, 18 pages later you still feel compelled to argue your case. People are laughing at you.

Why do you even bother? Everyone considers you the board patsy.

Joe, you DO realize though that people are laughing at you, right? We've backed you into a corner and now you're lashing out. Just take your punishment like a man. Better yet, give up.

You fucking believe, with all your heart and soul, in nursury rhymes and fairy tales. While everyone else has outgrown that shit, you, Catholic Joe, still feel the need to try to make them make sense, and it's funny.

[kalm]

I can't tell if you really mean that or if it's sarcasm. In case it's the latter, why do millions if not billions of people perform acts of kindness and generosity every day?

Oh, I meant it. So why do people perform acts of generosity? Because they are answering some call within them that defies rational explanation.

It's perfectly rational, I see non-believers doing it all the time, and it has fuck all to do with Leviticus.

[kalm]

I love my neighbor, perform acts of kindness and generosity to them all the time, am not a believer of any organized religion, and have never read Leviticus.

Why do you do that?

Because several of my neighbors are great friends. It's out of love. I also have a new neighbor who has 3 children, pregnant with another, and who's husband is deployed in Kyrgistan. I respect the shit out of people like that.

That's why.

[JoltinJoe]

Why do you do that?

Because several of my neighbors are great friends. It's out of love. I also have a new neighbor who has 3 children, pregnant with another, and who's husband is deployed in Kyrgistan. I respect the **** out of people like that.

That's why.

That's an evasion, not really an answer. Why? Do you do kind things only for friends? I bet you do a lot of kind things for strangers. Why?