Originally posted by Conrau K
Surely you're not thinking of God?

I'm not thinking anything. The question was directed at HG who made the claim.

Originally posted by howardgee
There's no need to try to ridicule you; you humiliate yourself quite well enough.

I see... still no intention of having an honest discussion. Figures.

Originally posted by Halitose
I'm not thinking anything. The question was directed at HG who made the claim.

I thought that you might insinuating that God must be the source of virtues. Never mind. But you were thinking it, weren't you? 😉

Originally posted by howardgee
Be a good boy, and go worship god; like you've been told to.

Sorry mate , but I'm not taking the bait. Too obvious. You need to try something else more subtle if you want to distract people from the point I'm making.

Be a good boy and stick to predictable assumptions about religion , like you've been told to.

Originally posted by Halitose
I'm not thinking anything. The question was directed at HG who made the claim.

Can you read?

What claim did I make?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Sorry mate , but I'm not taking the bait. Too obvious. You need to try something else more subtle if you want to distract people from the point I'm making.

Be a good boy and stick to predictable assumptions about religion , like you've been told to.

The only assumptions I have been told about religion is to follow it.
However, I had enough intelligence and the analytic ability and inclination to analyse it, and (thank God) reject it.

[PS - the 'thank God' bit is a joke]

Originally posted by howardgee
"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 en Ingersoll, "What Would You Substitute For The Bible As A Moral Guide?"

'nuff said.

Pretty much all of that quote is a perfectly valid point of view.
Your suggestion that the religious amongst us ONLY worship God because we've been told to, is not. We had the choice too. I'd pit my analytic skills up against yours any day, and they led me in the other direction. Don't be so arrogant as to think the universe has to align around your point of view.

You've let out the part where Ingersoll answers the question. What WOULD you substitute as a moral guide? Just do your own thing, whatever feels right?

I look at the world and see a mess. I'm not suggesting the religious people do any better at following ANY kind of moral guide. The difference between you and me, though, is that I believe there is such a thing as redemption.

Originally posted by orfeo
Pretty much all of that quote is a perfectly valid point of view.
Your suggestion that the religious amongst us ONLY worship God because we've been told to, is not. We had the choice too. I'd pit my analytic skills up against yours any day, and they led me in the other direction. Don't be so arrogant as to think the universe has to align around your poin ...[text shortened]... fference between you and me, though, is that I believe there is such a thing as redemption.

"I look at the world and see a mess" - Yes - primarily caused by religious belief.
Look at Iraq now; followers of a different flavour of the SAME religion disagree to the point of civil war.

Originally posted by howardgee
"I look at the world and see a mess" - Yes - primarily caused by religious belief.
Look at Iraq now; followers of a different flavour of the SAME religion disagree to the point of civil war.

Gee, you want to read the REST of my post next time?

Originally posted by orfeo
Gee, you want to read the REST of my post next time?

Oh, sorry Oafeo, so it's alright if religious fruitcakes kill everyone with different opinions to them, because they will all be redemed for being believers when they die.

Originally posted by orfeo
What WOULD you substitute as a moral guide? Just do your own thing, whatever feels right?

Well, the problem I had with using the Bible as a moral guide is that it is not really specific enough. For example, my little brother spouted off to our parents the other day, causing quite a scene. Now, Leviticus 20:9 states very clearly that we ought to put him to death for this behavior. But kill him with what? Gun, knife, stones, fire? It doesn't specify! So I am just not sure what manner of execution will bring God the greatest glory.

There are ethical theories around that are far superior to the teachings of the Bible. So the question is ill-posed. A better question might be: why would anyone consider the Bible to be a suitable moral guide in the first place?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Well, the problem I had with using the Bible as a moral guide is that it is not really specific enough. For example, my little brother spouted off to our parents the other day, causing quite a scene. Now, Leviticus 20:9 states very clearly that we ought to put him to death for this behavior. But kill him with what? Gun, knife, stones, fire? It doesn' ...[text shortened]... might be: why would anyone consider the Bible to be a suitable moral guide in the first place?

"There are ethical theories around that are far superior to the teachings of the Bible."

According to the religious junta on these pages, it's either follow the bible or else descend into anarchy.

Originally posted by howardgee
"There are ethical theories around that are far superior to the teachings of the Bible."

According to the religious junta on these pages, it's either follow the bible or else descend into anarchy.

Yes, many are fond of peddling this false dilemma.

Originally posted by howardgee
Oh, sorry Oafeo, so it's alright if religious fruitcakes kill everyone with different opinions to them, because they will all be redemed for being believers when they die.

Whether any particular religious fruitcake is going to be redeemed or not is a different issue I'm not going to try and answer.

All I was saying was that in my world view, redemption is at least possible. Whereas all you've got to look forward to is the cold judgement of history.

PS I still want to know what Ingersoll's answer actually was. Or don't you agree with it?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Well, the problem I had with using the Bible as a moral guide is that it is not really specific enough. For example, my little brother spouted off to our parents the other day, causing quite a scene. Now, Leviticus 20:9 states very clearly that we ought to put him to death for this behavior. But kill him with what? Gun, knife, stones, fire? It doesn' ...[text shortened]... might be: why would anyone consider the Bible to be a suitable moral guide in the first place?

Use any method you want, if the text doesn't specify you probably have freedom to pick the method of your choice.

If you really want to be an Old Testament Jew, though, I believe stoning is traditional.