Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt is not a case sir of 'atheism not having any moral imperative to object to the practice' but rather Christianity having a moral bias and indoctrination to object. The atheist is free to view the world in a modern context while some Christians are shackled to an archaic frame of reference.
There is nothing wrong with my faculty of reasoning my former master. Infact i remain logical and capable of rational thought. Have I insinuated that it has bearing on your morality, no, but i really think that it must and demonstrably so. Let us take an example. The atheists here are big defenders of so called 'gay rights', infact i have yet to ...[text shortened]... urpassed my former Master when wretched pupils like Ghost of a Duke and Googlewendy have failed?
Sorry if the use of the word 'shackled' reminded you of your time in the asylum.
1 edit
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeNo moral imperative sir, nothing, nada, centre of the world largest doughnut, wishy washy namby pamby wendyism at its most insipid! Its not a moral bias sir, its standards, values, a code of conduct, all the good things which atheism lacks!
It is not a case sir of 'atheism not having any moral imperative to object to the practice' but rather Christianity having a moral bias and indoctrination to object. The atheist is free to view the world in a modern context while some Christians are shackled to an archaic frame of reference.
Sorry if the use of the word 'shackled' reminded you of your time in the asylum.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie'The next day..., Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." ... In the morning..., they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter ... said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree ... has withered!" -- Mark 11:12-14, 20-21 (NIV)
No moral imperative sir, nothing, nada, centre of the world largest doughnut, wishy washy namby pamby wendyism at its most insipid! Its not a moral bias sir, its standards, values, a code of conduct, all the good things which atheism lacks!
Would an atheist go to a fig tree that was out of season and then get miffed that the fig tree wasn't bearing any fruit,...and then set about punishing it?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat's a good one. Mankind invents religion. Therefore mankind invents morality.
No moral imperative sir, nothing, nada, centre of the world largest doughnut, wishy washy namby pamby wendyism at its most insipid! Its not a moral bias sir, its standards, values, a code of conduct, all the good things which atheism lacks!
So said religion therefore feels justified in dissing atheists.
As if religion invented morality.
It in fact was the other way round, mankind invent the whole kit and caboodle.
You can see that in all the really bad moral decisions made by supposedly religious people, like a supposed christian going by a homeless man and rather than giving the dude a few bucks for a meal will kick him out of the way.
Tell me that doesn't happen.
An atheist going by the same dude may act the same or may give the guy a fiver.
Doesn't have a thing to do with religion. It has EVERYTHING to do with each individual's view of morality.
There are 8 billion people on Earth and 8 billion views on morality. Funny that should happen when you think it is religion that creates morality.
Originally posted by twhiteheadBabies, like rocks, have no beliefs, and therefore have no belief in God, or in anything for that matter. Why would you want to classify babies as atheists and not rocks? According to you, babies ultimately came from a 'rock soup.' Why discriminate against the poor rock?
They don't have beliefs. And if you really really want to, then call them atheists. I really don't care. Why does it matter to you? Just know that when I say something about atheists, I am including babies but not including rocks. If you deliberately misinterpret my statements and include rocks then that is you deliberately trying to cause miscommunication.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI really don't care how you classify either of them. Why do you? What do you hope to get out of this discussion if anything?
Babies, like rocks, have no beliefs, and therefore have no belief in God, or in anything for that matter. Why would you want to classify babies as atheists and not rocks? According to you, babies ultimately came from a 'rock soup.' Why discriminate against the poor rock?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI note that you started this thread ASKING about atheism, but have then spent most of
Babies, like rocks, have no beliefs, and therefore have no belief in God, or in anything for that matter. Why would you want to classify babies as atheists and not rocks? According to you, babies ultimately came from a 'rock soup.' Why discriminate against the poor rock?
your time telling us about it [according to you, a non-atheist]...
Do you actually want to know about atheism and atheists or do you want to make stuff up
about us?
Originally posted by googlefudgeWhat a silly question, making stuff up! its much more fun!
I note that you started this thread ASKING about atheism, but have then spent most of
your time telling us about it [according to you, a non-atheist]...
Do you actually want to know about atheism and atheists or do you want to make stuff up
about us?
2 edits
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeNo because an atheist has no spiritual comprehension. but Jesus has.
'The next day..., Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." ... In the morning..., they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Pet ...[text shortened]... d then get miffed that the fig tree wasn't bearing any fruit,...and then set about punishing it?
Why did Jesus curse that tree since, as Mark explains, “it was not the season of figs”? (Mark 11:13) Well, when a fig tree bears leaves, normally it also produces early figs. It was unusual for a fig tree to have leaves at that time of year. But since it had leaves, Jesus rightly expected to find figs on it. The fact that the tree had borne only leaves meant that it would be unproductive. Its appearance was deceptive. Since fruit trees were taxed, an unfruitful tree was an economic burden and needed to be cut down.
Jesus used that unfruitful fig tree to illustrate a vital lesson regarding faith. The following day, his disciples were surprised to see that the tree had already withered. Jesus explained: “Have faith in God. . . . All the things you pray and ask for have faith that you have practically received, and you will have them.” (Mark 11:22-24) In addition to illustrating the need to pray in faith, the withered fig tree graphically showed what would happen to a nation lacking faith.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf a fig tree can be condemned for lacking faith, presumably so could a rock. (Supporting the idea that rocks, due to their lack of belief, are therefore atheists and de facto so are babies).
No because an atheist has no spiritual comprehension. but Jesus has.
Why did Jesus curse that tree since, as Mark explains, “it was not the season of figs”? (Mark 11:13) Well, when a fig tree bears leaves, normally it also produces early figs. It was unusual for a fig tree to have leaves at that time of year. But since it had leaves, Jesus rightly ...[text shortened]... in faith, the withered fig tree graphically showed what would happen to a nation lacking faith.
“Jesus kills a fig tree for not bearing figs, even though it was out of season. He did this to show the world just how much God hates figs”
Steve Wells (The Skeptics’ Annotated Bible).
Originally posted by Ghost of a Dukethe fig tree didn't lack faith you numpty! bwahahaha, it was used as an illustration, tell that to Wendy Wells when you see him
If a fig tree can be condemned for lacking faith, presumably so could a rock. (Supporting the idea that rocks, due to their lack of belief, are therefore atheists and de facto so are babies).
“Jesus kills a fig tree for not bearing figs, even though it was out of season. He did this to show the world just how much God hates figs”
Steve Wells (The Skeptics’ Annotated Bible).
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHmmmmm.
No because an atheist has no spiritual comprehension. but Jesus has.
Why did Jesus curse that tree since, as Mark explains, “it was not the season of figs”? (Mark 11:13) Well, when a fig tree bears leaves, normally it also produces early figs. It was unusual for a fig tree to have leaves at that time of year. But since it had leaves, Jesus rightly ...[text shortened]... in faith, the withered fig tree graphically showed what would happen to a nation lacking faith.
Perhaps we should also prune this forum of those Christians who serve no "fruit", as they certainly are a "burden" on those Christians who are trying to represent!?!