05 May 06
"We cannot depend on what are called "inspired books," or the religions of the world. These religions are based on the supernatural, and according to them we are under obligation to worship and obey some supernatural being, or beings. All these religions are inconsistent with intellectual liberty. They are the enemies of thought, of investigation, of mental honesty. They destroy the manliness of man. They promise eternal rewards for belief, for credulity, for what they call faith.
These religions teach the slave virtues. They make inanimate things holy, and falsehoods sacred. They create artificial crimes. To eat meat on Friday, to enjoy yourself on Sunday, to eat on fast-days, to be happy in Lent, to dispute a priest, to ask for evidence, to deny a creed, to express your sincere thought, all these acts are sins, crimes against some god, To give your honest opinion about Jehovah, Mohammed or Christ, is far worse than to maliciously slander your neighbor. To question or doubt miracles. is far worse than to deny known facts. Only the obedient, the credulous, the cringers, the kneelers, the meek, the unquestioning, the true believers, are regarded as moral, as virtuous. It is not enough to be honest, generous and useful; not enough to be governed by evidence, by facts. In addition to this, you must believe. These things are the foes of morality. They subvert all natural conceptions of virtue."
--Robert Green Ingersoll, "What Would You Substitute For The Bible As A Moral Guide?"
'nuff said.
05 May 06
Originally posted by howardgeehear hear!
"We cannot depend on what are called "inspired books," or the religions of the world. These religions are based on the supernatural, and according to them we are under obligation to worship and obey some supernatural being, or beings. All these religions are inconsistent with intellectual liberty. They are the enemies of thought, of investigation, of menta ...[text shortened]... en Ingersoll, "What Would You Substitute For The Bible As A Moral Guide?"
'nuff said.
It's surprising how many of the theists here think they're "better" than us atheists. Shame really, considering how good and pure they should be. What's that saying about judging and being judged again???
05 May 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzSome use faith to make them feel better. Other use it to make them better.
hear hear!
It's surprising how many of the theists here think they're "better" than us atheists. Shame really, considering how good and pure they should be. What's that saying about judging and being judged again???
05 May 06
Originally posted by howardgeeYou are describing what religion has become in the hands of those who would seek to control men's minds for their own ends. This 'religious' approach to God was what Jesus challenged. Why do you think he was always getting into trouble with the 'religious' authorities? He was always breaking the rules and was a fly in the ointment to those who tried to put religion ahead of spirituality. Did this bit pass you by or do you prefer to have a go at religion whilst thinking you have given God a good kicking? Sorry , he got there first. If he was around now he would agree with your sentiments.
"We cannot depend on what are called "inspired books," or the religions of the world. These religions are based on the supernatural, and according to them we are under obligation to worship and obey some supernatural being, or beings. All these religions are inconsistent with intellectual liberty. They are the enemies of thought, of investigation, of menta ...[text shortened]... en Ingersoll, "What Would You Substitute For The Bible As A Moral Guide?"
'nuff said.
05 May 06
Originally posted by howardgee"We cannot depend on what are called "inspired books," or the religions of the world.
"We cannot depend on what are called "inspired books," or the religions of the world. These religions are based on the supernatural, and according to them we are under obligation to worship and obey some supernatural being, or beings. All these religions are inconsistent with intellectual liberty. They are the enemies of thought, of investigation, of menta ...[text shortened]... en Ingersoll, "What Would You Substitute For The Bible As A Moral Guide?"
'nuff said.
What can we depend on eh, HG? Certainly not on you having an honest discussion about God.
They subvert all natural conceptions of virtue.
Do tell HG, what exactly are these natural conceptions of virtue and where did they come from -- give us some ontological and epistemic support for your whimsical notions.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
05 May 06
Originally posted by howardgeeIsn't it strange how that description could be applied to any totalitarian regime.
"We cannot depend on what are called "inspired books," or the religions of the world. These religions are based on the supernatural, and according to them we are under obligation to worship and obey some supernatural being, or beings. All these religions are inconsistent with intellectual liberty. They are the enemies of thought, of investigation, of menta ...[text shortened]... en Ingersoll, "What Would You Substitute For The Bible As A Moral Guide?"
'nuff said.
Telling, eh?
06 May 06
Originally posted by Halitose"Certainly not on you having an honest discussion about God."
[b]"We cannot depend on what are called "inspired books," or the religions of the world.
What can we depend on eh, HG? Certainly not on you having an honest discussion about God.
They subvert all natural conceptions of virtue.
Do tell HG, what exactly are these natural conceptions of virtue and where did they come from -- give us some ontological and epistemic support for your whimsical notions.[/b]
Pray tell, when have I lied?
"...what exactly are these natural conceptions of virtue and where did they come from -- give us some ontological and epistemic support for your whimsical notions"
The point is that religious people act ethically, partly out of a sense of self interest in wanting to reach heaven and avoid hell (or escape reincarnation in Buddhism). Religion removes the possibility of a person acting purely from virtue.
(PS - Such notions would seem 'whimsical' to a sheep who needs direction like you. Also if you had read the original post more accurately, you would have realised that I was quoting a book, and thus the notions were not mine.)
06 May 06
Originally posted by knightmeisterBe a good boy, and go worship god; like you've been told to.
You are describing what religion has become in the hands of those who would seek to control men's minds for their own ends. This 'religious' approach to God was what Jesus challenged. Why do you think he was always getting into trouble with the 'religious' authorities? He was always breaking the rules and was a fly in the ointment to those who tried to ...[text shortened]... ing? Sorry , he got there first. If he was around now he would agree with your sentiments.
06 May 06
Originally posted by howardgeeYou don't need to overtly lie to be dishonest. You "define God" thread was case in point. You weren't looking for earnest, serious discussion, but rather a reason to ridicule.
"Certainly not on you having an honest discussion about God."
Pray tell, when have I lied?
"...what exactly are these natural conceptions of virtue and where did they come from -- give us some ontological and epistemic support for your whimsical notions"
The point is that religious people act ethically, partly out of a sense of self interest in wan ...[text shortened]... y, you would have realised that I was quoting a book, and thus the notions were not mine.)
As for the virtues that you keep talking about, what are they? Where did they come from?
06 May 06
Originally posted by HalitoseThere's no need to try to ridicule you; you humiliate yourself quite well enough.
You don't need to overtly lie to be dishonest. You "define God" thread was case in point. You weren't looking for earnest, serious discussion, but rather a reason to ridicule.
As for the virtues that you keep talking about, what are they? Where did they come from?
