Wonky missile aimed at Israel ends up hitting Aqaba, Jordan

[Scouse]

/serious ON (momentarily)

You anti-tists will have your turn, just a matter of time.

Actually it's rather close already.

Whaddaya mean by the above? I mean what are people going to bait us with?

"Aaaah, you lot and your not-having-a-god type existences..."

"Hahahahaha! You unbeliever!"

??

We (assuming a few of us) don't have anything freaky that we're desparately clinging to despite evidence to the contrary.

It's pretty hard to take the piss out of nothing...

 

[old.Tohtori]

Edit: Never been one for flaming before, but I can sorta see the attraction now!

My posts would be "taking the bait" if it was simply this instance and you were only posting this shit because of baiting, but you actually believe in it.

You only turned to this "i was only baiting" defence when faced with questions that could undermine your cool pose. (which is ironic since you claim religious folk do that)

It's pretty hard to take the piss out of nothing...

It's pretty sad you think there needs to be something to make fun of for a grouping of people to exist.

I said that you'll have your turn as a "religion", no better then religion, only difference will be the deity and the deity is not a key element in many of the religions you so hate.

We (assuming a few of us) don't have anything freaky that we're desparately clinging to despite evidence to the contrary.

You do actually, the inability to discuss matters and letting people be. There's lpenty of evidence of that around.

 

[nath]

Morality can't be proven to be non-religion based

Morality can't be proven to be non-dairy based, that's why all lactose intolerant people I've met are *****.




Seriously though, you can't prove a negative - you can replace "non-religion" in your sentence with ANYTHING and it's logically sound. You cannot prove a negative.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Morality can't be proven to be non-dairy based, that's why all lactose intolerant people I've met are *****.

Seriously though, you can't prove a negative - you can replace "non-religion" in your sentence with ANYTHING and it's logically sound. You cannot prove a negative.

Do you really want to get into the wording of things?

Fine; you can't say morality would exist as is without the influence of religion as religion has affected humanity, it's history etc, in such a meaningful quantity.

Same thing, different wording, and a fact.

It's always about the words with you lot. Every single time, be it a phrase or just one word, it somehow is a "problem" and to you seems like finitive proof.

Like scouse and his anti-belief life.

 

[Scouse]

I disagree with your above assertion Toht. Totally.

But as I'm flaming I'm not going to give you proper reasoning - I'm just going to state that you're talking shit and leave it at that.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Like you've said about religious people; afraid to discuss things incase it undermines the ideology.

 

[Turamber]

And fucking lol at non religious people having no moral standards except the law. Being free from religion means you can make you own moral standards, regardless of the law. I have very high morals with regard to certain things, honesty, respect etc. Nothing at all to do with religion.

I didn't say that. Re-read what I typed. Nobody provides you with a moral code to follow, if that helps to explain what I said.

Also, if you have been baptised as a child into a church you are on their books as being a member of that faith. If you don't wish to be on record as a member of that faith you should write to them and have your name removed from the register.

 

[Turamber]

Codswallop. You need to understand meta-ethics.

Does somebody provide you with these meta-ethics to follow, or are they self-determined? I would argue that many self-determined morals are because we are made in God's image, you would disagree.

However the fact remains you are taking exception to what I said without asking me to clarify it. I have now clarified it.

 

[Raven]

There is no ideology for an atheist, the only people who think there is are religious people, only because they are incapable or unwilling to see things without the influence of god bothering.

There is no god or gods. There is no ideology there, just simple fact, there is no faith involved, the same way there is no faith involved when I say the moon is not made of cheese, it just simply isn't made of cheese, simple as that.

You don't need faith to know something to be true or untrue, just an understanding of the facts.

 

[Turamber]

This is why my morality says you should always mock sky-fairy-worshipping-sodomisers-of-t3h-baby-jebus..

You are the most deeply unpleasant, deeply troubled individuals I have ever come across.

Seriously, is there an ignore function on this forum? I take absolute exception at statements like this. Utterly disgusting and completely reprehensible.

 

[Raven]

Also, if you have been baptised as a child into a church you are on their books as being a member of that faith. If you don't wish to be on record as a member of that faith you should write to them and have your name removed from the register.

I don't need to, just like I don't need to take myself off a mailing list. I am not and never have been a Christian, if the church think I am then that's their problem not mine

I could chuck a bucket of water over you and say you now worship biggles the cat, doesn't make it true.

Like I said earlier, its all about personal choice, I was never given that choice therefore I have never become a Christian.

 

[Jupitus]

You are the most deeply unpleasant, deeply troubled individuals I have ever come across.

Seriously, is there an ignore function on this forum? I take absolute exception at statements like this. Utterly disgusting and completely reprehensible.

https://forums.freddyshouse.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist

Try that.

 

[Turamber]

Going back to Turamber's point on getting moral views from religion. This sounds as though you would be willing to do anything regardless on your own personal moral stand point. If the church was to tell you that all homosexuals are lesser humans and should be treated as such, would you agree to this? Or blacks? Or women? Would your own personal feelings not come into it? Do you even have your own feelings that haven't been forced upon you by a priest.

The Bible's view of women was quite exalted, particularly for the time it was written in. It als shows that people of all races and peoples can be acceptable to God.

If a Church preaches hate then people who go to that Church should compare it to the message the Bible has, and to their own Bible trained moral compass, their conscience.

I met a number of Christians a few years back who had been sent to Nazi concentration camps when they were little girls along with their families, as they wouldn't salute Hitler or join his armies and war efforts.

In the first century Romans put Christians to death as they wouldn't worship the State or serve in its armies.

Christianity can be, and should be, a moralising force. When it follows the Bible it will be, when people twist the Bible's message, or ignore it altogether, then they may call themselves Christian but they're really not.

 

[Turamber]

https://forums.freddyshouse.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist

Try that.

Thanks, and done.

 

[nath]

When it follows the Bible it will be, when people twist the Bible's message, or ignore it altogether, then they may call themselves Christian but they're really not.

Whether or not that's the case, do you genuinely believe that there will ever be a time when the majority of Christians actually stop twisting the Bible's message? More to the point, without God coming down to arbitrate the entire process who's to say that one persons message is legit while the other's is twisted? It's all so massively vulnerable to human interpretation and for something that's supposed to be divine, that seems a pretty significant flaw.

 

[kirennia]

As it IS, morality and laws have stemmed, for a good part, from religious teachings.

Note, I'm making this post in reference to the practice of adhering to the teachings of a God (via book form), rather then the presence and influence of a God themselves...

What is most important around this way of thinking is that there is evidence that prior to an actual organisation taking the reigns over this thought, compassion was still privalent in human behaviour. Attributing our moral compass in this day and age to solely religious practices is to ignore default human nature. A baby with no understanding of what religion means will still cling to their mother in love. We will still have the instinct to open our eyes when born, to move our limbs when interacting with others, to cry to get attention.

Look outside of humanity into the apparently souless animal kingdom and you'll be hard pressed to find an intelligent creature without some level of compassion towards its fellow beings. Does a captured gazzelle
not feel pain? A lioness no love for the herd? A dog no remorse for disobedience? While in the wild these animals still do not exhibit these traits at a human level, to put ourselves on a pedastal, not drawing parallels between us and them is folly. You can learn as much about yourself from bringing a child into the world as you can talking with those at your age.

One could argue that a God could well have given them the gift to perform these acts but I'm not desputing this as it's not a part of what is implied by the above comment(s).

We do have default human behaviour, both positive and negative without the influence of prayer to a God or God(s). You are however right that religion has not just influenced but, created laws in the modern world... it is impossible for anyone to say otherwise. Just as the discovery of medicine has influenced our society, religion has played its part. It is also impossible for anyone to say what would have happened if no-one ever thought of a possible God overseeing us and thus, no religion had ever have been born.

Rather then looking into our past and attempting to second guess what would have happened without religion, I'd instead question its place in our current society. The past is the past; it's happened and for better or worse, we're stuck in the current, developed world which has many problems. To assume that people who do not condition themselves to following a written text, cannot think for themselves and do good is plain pathetic. Atheists have no moral compass? Then why is every atheist not out murdering, raping and pillaging on a goal of self-perpetuated fulfillment?

As discussed in another thread, it's fear. While some attributed it to fear of being caught, it is for the most part, a fear of death itself. We don't need the threat of an incomprehensible eternal hell because it's in our fabric to fear the unknown, just as much as the fear of attempting to comprehend an impossible unknown in Hell. In this respect, theists and atheists stand in the same stead. I would argue that not doing an act out of fear is no issue of morality of a person. For every good person, there is a bad person and for every pair of good/bad, there are many others who sit on the fence, either justifying their neutral existance as good because they haven't broken any moral code, or simply not caring. A good person does good deeds, they don't just ignore the bad ones... religion gives justification for those who sit on the fence.


Absolute power corrupts absolutely. This famous quote isn't just the obvious reference to power, nor to absolution...it's a reference to relativity. No matter your walk of life or feeling of superiority over others, you're still just a monkey in shoes like the rest of us.

This is my main concern with religion. Too many religious texts teach absolute righteousness in our creation. This influences decision making of followers and the nature of the person negatively as anything which will challenge their world view will be immediately oppressed. It gives excuses for evil, externalises blame and does so all under the guise of religious practice, justifying normally unjustifyable actions by the uncontestable word of God. Who are you to question their actions afterall when God can be on their side.

I said I wont go into the past so I will honour my word but this is still happening worldwide. I am not saying that religions are all evil... in fact, I'd say that the vast majority of religious followers are good or at the very least, neural people under normal circumstances. It is, as always, the leaders and people in power which cause the widespread issues in the world. Ignore 9/11, ignore the train bombings, even the wars between Isreal/Palestine. What about the 60% of humankind which are currently in dire need of resources which many people in power could grant them.

Malnutrition would be the obvious issue here but even the spread of AIDs is currently running unchecked due to religious texts. Condoms are deemed unethical thus, the Christian aid arriving from America which has a relative embargo over all aid arriving in Africa, will not contain contraception. Priests will arrive in poverty stricken areas to establish a 'mission' building to teach the word of God while their neighbours die of trivial issues by comparison to the first world. More people die in Africa every day then ever died in the 9/11 bombings. Yet where are resources being focussed? On national defence, all over the world.

Where are the moral compasses for these leaders of the world? Religion far from grants excemption from evil deeds...

 

[old.Tohtori]

There is no ideology for an atheist, the only people who think there is are religious people, only because they are incapable or unwilling to see things without the influence of god bothering.

Just like belief, ideology doesn't require religion.

A definition again will clear that; "a body of ideas that reflects the beliefs and interests of a nation, political system, etc and underlies political action".

As an example, nothing to do with religion.

Are you saying there's no body of ideas in atheism? There's no actions, ways of life or means that make one an atheist?

If so, how can you say you're an atheist?

 

[nath]

Just like belief, ideology doesn't require religion.

A definition again will clear that; "a body of ideas that reflects the beliefs and interests of a nation, political system, etc and underlies political action".

As an example, nothing to do with religion.

Are you saying there's no body of ideas in atheism? There's no actions, ways of life or means that make one an atheist?

If so, how can you say you're an atheist?

I can't and won't speak for all who claim themselves atheists, but my atheism is a lack of belief. There are no actions or ways of life that connect me between any other atheist - I simply lack belief.

One could argue that my position as an ANTI-theist qualifies as an "ideology" or something similar as that's an active position of dislike for theological belief but that's separate from atheism.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I can't and won't speak for all who claim themselves atheists, but my atheism is a lack of belief. There are no actions or ways of life that connect me between any other atheist - I simply lack belief.

One could argue that my position as an ANTI-theist qualifies as an "ideology" or something similar as that's an active position of dislike for theological belief but that's separate from atheism.

I would argue that your anti-theism has ideology, that's why i'd say most atheist have an ideology too(most atheist i've met have a deep anti-gland too)

A real atheist wouldn't bother with trying to convert religious folk, or to bash religion at any given turn, or in FACT give no second thought to it.

If your definition of an atheist is true, then there is no atheist. You can't be something without having atleast one connecting feature.

So for example in your case, you are just an anti-theist(or whatever).

I think that's the most definitive question to ask; how can an atheist claim to be an atheist, if there's no way to define an atheist.

If there is a way, it's a connecting feature.

Kirennia;

I think the main question there is the anti-religion IF religion has power over others. It shouldn't. It should be confined to those who accept it, who decide on it(or in some cases are forced as discussed before).

Religion has a place, corrupt humans leading that religion do not.

 

[Raven]

As an example, nothing to do with religion.

Are you saying there's no body of ideas in atheism? There's no actions, ways of life or means that make one an atheist?

Not really, not believing in something is not necessarily the opposite of believing in something. I just don't believe, that's all, I don't see why I should be put into a certain group, to me its just normal to not think about a god or anything like that. I just couldn't care less what some imaginary being might think about me or what I am doing and I certainly don't need to ask it for guidance. Its like wondering if Santa will bring you presents or not.

If so, how can you say you're an atheist?

Because that's the word commonly used to describe a non-believer. I can't say I call myself anything, I just don't believe in a god or gods, it doesn't need a label it is just what it is, like I said earlier, I don't believe the moon to be made of cheese or the earth is flat the same way I don't believe there is a god or gods. To me that's just a normal thought. It doesn't need a name.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Aye, that's why i said you're not an atheist. You're, excuse the pun, nothing

But for many, MANY, atheist there's a profound need to flaunt atheism. To claim you don't believe, to make sure people know your stance(and often bash others, as one does with an ideology/belief). THAT is an ideology.

 

[nath]

Aye, that's why i said you're not an atheist. You're, excuse the pun, nothing

But for many, MANY, atheist there's a profound need to flaunt atheism. To claim you don't believe, to make sure people know your stance. THAT is an ideology.

Well that's an entirely subjective position you're holding there, one that almost certainly has come about through your own extremely limited perspective. That's not an insult, I mean it seems that you're making judgements based people that you've seen who claim to be atheists. That'd be like me saying all the Christians I've met are arseholes therefore Christianity is X.

Additionally, you can say I'm not an atheist until you're blue in the face, that doesn't stop me from being one. Though this would end up a semantic debate and no one likes those.

There may well be personality aspects that are common between many atheists, such as the need to shout "I'm an atheist" from the hills but that doesn't have anything to do with Atheism. Atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in theological belief, two fairly different stances but unfortunately that's the way it is. I guess that's why there are the terms weak and strong atheist, to further define the position.

tl;dr - Atheism doesn't define people, people may define themselves as atheist and use it to justify their actions but atheism itself is just disbelief or lack of belief in a deity - strong and weak atheism respectively. However I'm going to stop there as, unlike Turamber, you still don't really understand how to discuss things. I can see this getting a little irritating down the line so for the sake of my blood pressure I'll just continue the chat with Turamber.

 

[old.Tohtori]

However I'm going to stop there as, unlike Turamber, you still don't really understand how to discuss things.

And there you go, until that it seemed like you actually could discuss things. Now it just made all you wrote mean nothing at all.

 

[Bugz]

Toht what point are you trying to make? Although some of the comments towards religion in general have been nothing short of grossly over-dramatised on this thread, there seems to be a strong void of any decent arguments against atheism & the opposition towards religion.

 

[nath]

And there you go, until that it seemed like you actually could discuss things. Now it just made all you wrote mean nothing at all.

The problem is that while we're both speaking English, we don't appear to be speaking the same language, it always does and most likely always will result in massive amounts of frustration. There's absolutely no point in carrying on talking to you and despite how religious Turamber is, communication isn't a problem with him. I'm not sure why it's so difficult with you, though I have my theories, but there it is.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Toht what point are you trying to make? Although some of the comments towards religion in general have been nothing short of grossly over-dramatised on this thread, there seems to be a strong void of any decent arguments against atheism & the opposition towards religion.

The latest point towards atheism wasn't an argument against it, it was a question of the term itself.

If you claim there's no connecting feature between atheists, no common ground, then surely it means there's no definition of the person.

If there is a definition, there's common ground. In any aspect of human behaviour.

Even "disbelief or lack of belief in theological belief" is a common thing, but somehow suggesting that is a nono.

Otherwise i have nothing against atheists, not even anti-religion, but i DO have things against people who; generalise, pigeonhole every religion as same, make every religiious person seem like one entity and especially those who try to convert via excess ridicule.

That goes for religious and non religious all the same.

Note that i never claimed all atheist to be X, i said many.

The problem is that while we're both speaking English, we don't appear to be speaking the same language, it always does and most likely always will result in massive amounts of frustration. There's absolutely no point in carrying on talking to you and despite how religious Turamber is, communication isn't a problem with him. I'm not sure why it's so difficult with you, though I have my theories, but there it is.

Might be a problem with you making it sound like my problem.

 

[Scouse]

You are the most deeply unpleasant, deeply troubled individuals I have ever come across.

Seriously, is there an ignore function on this forum? I take absolute exception at statements like this. Utterly disgusting and completely reprehensible.

LoL! Thanks for proving my point.


Blinkers and a lack of humour. "Mwaaaah, people are saying thing that I don't like, therefore I'll ignore them and their arguments".

And don't get all high and mighty about what I typed being offensive - it's your default nature where all discussions about the validity of your religion is concerned - and it has to be so.

 

[old.Tohtori]

And you're doing the same thing Scouse.

 

[Scouse]

pigeonhole every religion as same, make every religiious person seem like one entity

Every religion IS the same: they require the action called believing to be performed

Every religious person IS the same: they perform the above action - sustaining the religion


They may differ massively in their personalities/circumstances etc, but these two things link all religions and religious people together.

To the detriment of all humankind IMHO.

 

[Scouse]

And you're doing the same thing Scouse.

I'm being up front and honest about my motivations. No hiding it from me.

You two are in denial


Edit: But I'll start a separate baiting thread for this - I'm derailing a brewing conversation between others. Soz.