What Christianity Really Says

Originally posted by twhitehead
Hilarious. April fools was yesterday.

I watched a documentary on it just the other day, tony robinson time team , theres evidence all across europe the pagans did human sacrifice,(someone said it in my church and at first i thought thats not really true... but yes it is) there are bodys in pete bogs all over europe that show how it happened, they think they were consensual. they also used wicker men - mass sacrifice when worried about something, not saying they were evil, but it would be pretty easy to convert such a people to christianity - it would be a big improvement. The christians forced it yes but only after they had converted half already.

re theistic morals or not, the greeks got quite far and were not christian, nor had 1 god. but if they were around today i think they might be called fascists - they invaded a lot of places. And you have Confucius whos thinking still stands. But with westerners even the atheists have christian morals. I agree that you can improve on them, well you might think you can, christians can cause a lot of trouble with there views on gays and abortion for example . i strongly disagree with them over abortion. but even on that subject they take a moral approach , just a blinkered one.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Only the worst parts. The parts I woul... [text shortened]... ot stem from theistic sources.

My moral code does not stem from theistic sources.

What does it stem from? Can you give a couple of examples?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I generally agree, but it is interesting that theists struggle to point out the nuances.

"struggle" is relative. i don't struggle. i have no problems pointing out that christianity doesn't need the genocides from the ot to be a good moral system. i have no problem pointing out that maybe god's purpose was not to kill someone on a cross but to send someone to teach a better moral system and the killing was an unfortunate outcome caused by us.

Originally posted by divegeester
Why is it evolutionists love to claim scientific superiority except where their personal sense of altruism is at stake. Amusing.

I don't understand. Please explain.

Carry on ignoring my points about you and other atheists being here trying to 'covert' theists if you wish.
I did not ignore it. I pointed out that your point was weak, and that you knew is was weak, so you had to couch it in a vague hypothetical future. I atheists are 'fast becoming'. You were accusing us of something you think we will do in the future.

Avoiding the same point twice in one post!
In what way have I avoided it?

As a scientist I'm sure you will have evidence to support your position?
Lol resorting to "some stone tablets in the desert" as a mechanism to ridicule my point is water off of a ducks back mate!
Your position is that the morals you listed come from religion. I am afraid the burden of proof is on you.

Originally posted by e4chris
I watched a documentary on it just the other day, tony robinson time team , theres evidence all across europe the pagans did human sacrifice,

I did not dispute that. If just find it hilarious that you think Christianity - with its central theme of human sacrifice, is superior.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't understand. Please explain.

[b]Carry on ignoring my points about you and other atheists being here trying to 'covert' theists if you wish.
I did not ignore it. I pointed out that your point was weak, and that you knew is was weak, so you had to couch it in a vague hypothetical future. I atheists are 'fast becoming'. You were accusing us of ...[text shortened]... hat the morals you listed come from religion. I am afraid the burden of proof is on you.[/b]

You ignored that I pointed out that your claim that atheism was not a philosophy was inaccurate and as evidence I pointed to your and others presence here trying to convince theists they are wrong - many atheists here have stated that this is their main reason fro visiting this forum, some even claim proudly that theists have been turned.

You try to obfuscate by going on about me talking about "future state" when I've already addressed your pedantry by saying no, it is now. Do you here me, I say again it is now. Atheism IS a philosophy and a growing religion of sorts in it's own right. I've now explained to you why I said this three times.

No, you are claiming that atheism has contributed to some kind of morality (are you not?) so at the very least the burden of proof is on both of us. I provide the Bible as a book of antiquity which (irrespective of spiritual validity) details the moral code associated with that religion. Now it's your turn.

Originally posted by divegeester
You ignored that I pointed out that your claim that atheism was not a philosophy was inaccurate and as evidence I pointed to your and others presence here trying to convince theists they are wrong - many atheists here have stated that this is their main reason fro visiting this forum, some even claim proudly that theists have been turned.

And I totally fail to see how this proves that atheism is a philosophy.

You try to obfuscate by going on about me talking about "future state" when I've already addressed your pedantry by saying no, it is now.
I was not trying to obfusticate, but rather pointing out your attempts at obfustication.

Do you here me, I say again it is now. Atheism IS a philosophy and a growing religion of sorts in it's own right. I've now explained to you why I said this three times.
And I say no, it is not a religion, nor a philosophy. Though it may be true that some atheists have some sort of 'religion' and most probably have some sort of life philosophy, I doubt that many can be found who base either on their atheism.

No, you are claiming that atheism has contributed to some kind of morality (are you not?)
I am not.

I provide the Bible as a book of antiquity which (irrespective of spiritual validity) details the moral code associated with that religion. Now it's your turn.
Sorry, but the fact that the Bible details the Christian moral code does not support your case.

Originally posted by e4chris
re - My moral code does not stem from theistic sources

with respect i think they might - european pagans were a bit shocking - wicker men for example - that was real. I thought the christians forced them - bullied them into converting but if you read about what the pagans believed it would be very easy to convert them with no force at all, as soon a chris ...[text shortened]... but they do have christian morals, they would have roman morals otherwise. thats how i see it.

You should thank god for RJHinds.
Without him you would be the RHP village idiot.

Originally posted by kd2acz

My moral code does not stem from theistic sources.

What does it stem from? Can you give a couple of examples?

It stems primarily from the human moral faculty, the etiology of which concerns our evolutionary history. Would you and divegeester like a reference to dispel your blatant ignorance on this matter?

What a couple of jokesters you two are, suggesting that our moral code derives from the bible and whatnot. 🙄😵

Originally posted by kd2acz

My moral code does not stem from theistic sources.

What does it stem from? Can you give a couple of examples?

A moral code need only stem from a concept which does not require divine fiat - such as the "Golden Rule".

Originally posted by divegeester
[b]Only the worst parts. The parts I would label 'immoral'.

Don't steal?
Don't murder?
Don't covet?
Don't commit adultery?

Helping a loved one is not 'morality', it is self serving behavior, you would know this being an evolutionist.

It is not a philosophical system of thought...
I disagree,atheism is fast becoming a philosophical ...[text shortened]... not stem from theistic sources.[/b]
Naive to say the least; see my first points above.[/b]

Helping a loved one is not 'morality', it is self serving behavior, you would know this being an evolutionist.

Interesting. So, Jesus' teachings act to reinforce self serving behavior? Some great morality source you got there! Oh wait, according to you, his instructions to love and help your neighbors don't constitute 'morality' talk!

Helping a loved one is consistent with either (1) prosocial motivation or (2) selfish motivation. So, we would need more information to categorize such an action.

Persons who are actually educated in evolutionary theory, natural selection and its connection with the helping behaviors, etc, know that natural selection does not converge on purely selfish behavior, especially when working on ancestors such as ours. There are extremely good (overwhelming) reasons why natural selection did not bring about psychological egoism in humans and why humans often have prosocial or otherwise non-selfish motivations. Would you like a reference to dispel your ignorance on this?

Originally posted by divegeester
[b]Only the worst parts. The parts I would label 'immoral'.

Don't steal?
Don't murder?
Don't covet?
Don't commit adultery?

Helping a loved one is not 'morality', it is self serving behavior, you would know this being an evolutionist.

It is not a philosophical system of thought...
I disagree,atheism is fast becoming a philosophical ...[text shortened]... not stem from theistic sources.[/b]
Naive to say the least; see my first points above.[/b]

you prefer to hold to the default position that atheist is neutral, it is not

It's called respecting basic definitions. Atheism, generically, is just lack of belief in a god or gods. That's what the term generically means. If you want to rail on certain strains of atheism, then you need to understand the different varieties (there's implict versus explicit atheism, weak verus strong, etc). Get your house in order!

You'll still have a hard time convincing us that even strong atheism is, per se, a "philosophy", though. 'Philosophy' in the way you employ it is more like a world view that includes normative dimensions, etc. But even strong atheism basically just says that God does not exist and here's why. How is that a "philosophy"? Your actual problem seems to be with quite different views regarding ethics or normativity, such as nihilism or hedonism or egoism or some such. Ok, but, what do those have to do with atheism?

Figure out what you actually want to argue, then come on back.

Originally posted by LemonJello
It stems prim...Edit ... What a couple of jokesters you two are, suggesting that our moral code derives from the bible and whatnot.

Hmmm, I suggested no such thing... I just asked a question. I'm sorry.

Originally posted by kd2acz
Hmmm, I suggested no such thing... I just asked a question. I'm sorry.

Indeed. It was e4chris and divegeester who proposed
that our morals are derived from Christian teaching.

We are all guilty of tarring members of the opposing
camp with the same brush sometimes!

What is your opinion then? Do you think human morals
can be derived from outside religion? And if so what
role does religion have in society? (if any)

Originally posted by wolfgang59
You should thank god for RJHinds.
Without him you would be the RHP village idiot.

there are many applicants for that prize

i tender mine but you could well beat me yet 🙂