Delusional.

Careful, that was close to a reply! It's a bit like a game of chicken (at least when everyone is aware of what's going on): who will be the first to crack and respond?

OrP is probably right (what a surprise!), but there is also the entertainment factor - what nonsense are they going to spout next? Its usually more entertaining for those lurking, and more frustrating if you actually get sucked in.

Great link. I hate reading about classic stoicism, makes me feel naked and vulnerable.

"As long as the future is uncertain to me I always hold to those things which are better adapted to obtaining the things in accordance with nature; for God himself has made me disposed to select these. But if I actually knew that I was fated now to be ill, I would even have an impulse to be ill. For my foot too, if it had intelligence, would have an impulse to get muddy. (Epictetus, 58J)"

I have explained my perspective before and it's a very rational position for a non-believer who nevertheless wants to lead a good life. I do not believe the stories in any one religion over any other. I do not believe we can be categoric about whether a creator exists in the sense that is generally understood as this is only revealed after death. Any creator is not discernibly interventionist. Most atheists do not concern themselves greatly about how to live the perfect life but religions have specialised in this for thousands of years. This means the best literature about how to live a good life is to be found in religious texts and teachings. I find that I have much in common with the humanists who subscribe to the first humanist manifesto. I believe that subsequent manifestos became political because of American influence and their dislike of anything that looks vaguely anti-capitalist.

Actually, one of the fundamental principles of Christianity is that we are inherently flawed, and are incapable of living this perfect life.

It's aspirational. Another principle of Christianity is that we should try.

Since God is the only perfect being its aspirational for them to become God?

The aspiration is impossible for humans to achieve completely so that's a moot point.

No its not. You are saying i should try to be perfect like God. In essence i should try to become God.

Please don't tell me what I'm saying. Here let me repeat it. Religions encourage us to aspire to live perfectly although it is impossible for humans to achieve this completely. Religions encourage us to become CLOSER to God not other Gods !

So i should try to be perfect like God but not try to be God. Imposable.

But ok since religion tries to teach us to be perfect i think ill go with wicca or rasta or something along those lines of perfection.

I don't think religions are trying to teach their adherents how to lead objectively 'perfect' lives; they're teaching them how to live a perfectly religious life. (I should specify that I don't know enough about ancient or eastern religions to make a blanket statement, but feel free to list some of the religions you feel are teaching a perfect life if you're not drawing from the three big monotheistic religions of today.)

For example, let's say you've got a religion called Kiving, which teaches that the best conduct is to rape and pillage other lands, and that pleasing the god(s) is dependent on your valor in battle. And if you don't die with a sword in your hand, you can't go to Halvalla to rape wenches for eternity (and Kiving teaches there is no greater outcome than this). Is that religion teaching you how to live a perfect life?

Doesn't the Bible even say that some of the laws to the Israelites were put in place, not because they lead to any sort of perfect life, but just to set them apart from the nations around them? I guess that applies if you believe being different is perfect, but I don't think that's your point.

I think the first question you have to ask yourself is how you're measuring this objective perfection. How do you determine that a religion's proscription against murder is perfect? If a religion that condemns murder also condemns picking up sticks on a certain day, is that also perfect? If not, what are you judging against to differentiate the perfect laws of religions and the nonsense laws?


OK so you reject Christianity, which says we can be certain of His existence, and believes in a very interventionist God. So what religions are you drawing your objectively perfect values from?

I think Christianity is not about trying to be perfect. It is accepting that we can not be. It is accepting that the world is perfect, as it is, with our imperfections, because, it is as He made it.

But really I believe that I Am just is. Is everything. God is the center of the universe if you will. The singularity, as some are using now to other purposes.

I believe that time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. 1000 pts to anyone who gets that joke.

Everything happens at once, and Christianity is the way I choose to deal with what we are calling reality.

I don't judge any other faith, at all, except that I think it is an important part of the human experience to have faith.

When I was an athiest, I still had faith, it was just faith in myself alone. Maybe I was a humanist?

So maybe a lot of the dogma doesn't apply to me.

If you are in any way interested in ancient history, I highly recommend Fingerprints of the Gods by Graham Hancock. It is long and dry, but the first few pages are so astounding that you will need to keep reading.

No.

That's the question seekers must ask. The proscription of murder sounds good but the picking up sticks thing can be ignored.



You don't reject the whole religion just the stuff about God and worshipping x, y or z eg in Hinduism you can accept the vegetarianism but reject the many gods and the reincarnation stuff.

How do you know that murder is bad but picking up sticks is ok? The religion was working on that for thousands of years, so shouldn't we trust them?

One's harmful to people the other isn't.

So you determine morality based on harm to others, not based on religious teachings. Why'd it take you so long to finally admit how you actually decide what's moral and what's not?

Religion is full of "do unto others" type advice so your conclusion is incorrect.

PS As a believer yourself should you be encouraging others to turn away from religion ?

Religion is also full of other types of advice, but you ignore those, so my conclusion still stands. You have your own idea of morality and aren't actually getting it from religious teachings.

I am not encouraging anyone to turn away from religion, so I have no idea what you're talking about. You're going to have to explain yourself further if you want me to comment on this more.

You don't know where I'm getting it from. How could you ? It's ridic to make these assertions. The do unto wotsit is from Leviticus.

As a believer yourself I don't think you shouldn't be questioning good stuff like thou shalt not kill.

allow me to retort.

nkknxsanksqknqnw2sqcbbjwsbwdsclndxsw;sxnsxqqsbsxin sxakn


Seriously though, there's an edit button

Cwoc, can you remember adopting a moral position on any issues that you had no prior opinion on (i.e. you actually came to believe something to be right / wrong) based primarily on reading a religion's doctrines? If so, can you describe them? I mean something that would fall outside of 'not harming someone', or that could be explained by empathy, to avoid moral issues for which there could be secular explanations.

I think we already have opinions on a lot of moral questions (more so as we mature), don't you think you are simply seeing the things you already think are good or bad being reflected back at you? Possible? Probable?

You only follow some of the rules from Leviticus. When asked why you ignore a certain rule (though a made-up one), you said it was because ignoring it didn't cause harm to anyone. Therefore, you have a sense of morality that is external to the Bible.

Again, where am I questioning the "good stuff?" You're making ridiculous assertions that have no basis in reality.

We all live in countries where the values are heavily informed by religion. Our justice systems and societal values are based on morality from Christianity, Islam, Judaism (in some eastern countries societal values will be based on other religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism etc etc). That's my objection to those who want to eradicate religion. These core values will be destroyed.

So it's impossible for anyone to answer your question.

Why are these core values worth keeping?