[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 206 KB, 403x298, tencom06.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3899676 No.3899676 [Reply] [Original]

Because I don't see too much in the 10 Commandments one could find fault with.

Jew here BTW.

>> No.3899683

might not be in the "ten commandments" but how about stoning adulterers?

>> No.3899685
File: 9 KB, 225x225, ohboyherewego.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3899685

>> No.3899686

I'm not sure what the deal is with not being able to covet stuff.

>> No.3899714

The first four are useless.

>> No.3899718

i also really like being able to cut the hair on the sides of my face

>> No.3899721

>>3899683
The TC doesn't say to stone adulterers.

>> No.3899725

>thou shalt not get doubles

>> No.3899740

>So remind me again what exactly is the beef atheists have with religion?
It's the fact that that shit gets spammed here by fucking trolls like you OP.

And the fact that people here are too fucking stupid to just ignore these threads, probably owing to their inexperience about trolls and trolling.

tl;dr: religion is what bad trolls spam /sci/ with because they don't have the skills to do any more sophisticated trolling on boards that are harder to troll

>> No.3899747

>>3899718
I don't know any Jews except the ultra-Orthodox cranks who do that.

>> No.3899756

>>3899721
You never mentioned the Ten Commandments; you mentioned religion. And in the holy book that values the TC, the stoning of adulterers is endorsed.

>> No.3899759

>>3899721
not in the ten but it is a commandment and in the original context the the wern't meant to be any more significant

>> No.3899761

>>3899756
>Never mentioned TC
In your title post, rather.

>> No.3899770

V to X are reasonable, but you don't need an imaginary friend to know that.

I to IV are pointless.

>> No.3899771

>>3899756
I've spent time in Israel and again, I don't know any Jews who do that. Even the UO nuts don't stone anyone.

>> No.3899773

>>3899747
but y is it up to u to decide what commandments u follow and which you dont and there u have ur answer most atheists hate the hypocracy of religion

>> No.3899779

>>3899771
That's because they're straying from what their religious text decrees, champ.

>> No.3899801

>>3899779
Nah, they do all the food laws and don't shave their beards that most of us quit doing a long time ago.

>> No.3899816

>>3899771
>spent time in Israel
Oh fuck, here comes another birth right Jevv spouting his infinite knowledge of that shitty country.

While not using actual stones, it is common for the ultra orthodox to throw various fruits at people and vehicles on shabbat in religious areas.

The settlers also enjoy stoning arabs.

>> No.3899821

>>3899816
I never defended them in here.

>> No.3899845

>>3899801

Straying less than you and your friends is still straying.

>> No.3899848

>>3899779
The Bible says it's a sin to commit adultery. If you don't commit adultery, you're doing as it commands. How hard is that to understand?

>> No.3899857

>>3899848
Riddle me this: Would you endorse a government where the only punishment is the death penalty?
>If you don't break the laws, you're doing as it commands.

>> No.3899862

>>3899845
I'm not really that religious. I believe in God, but other than that I kind of just live by the idea of not being a dick.

>> No.3899878

>>3899857
Which government does that?

>> No.3899879

>>3899862
well if ur op,
u dont believe in heaven
go the rest the way

>> No.3899881

>>3899879
I am OP.

>> No.3899883

>>3899878
A hypothetical one which serves to counter the "Punishments don't matter if you don't do wrong" argument.

>>3899862
Well, that's more of a 'secular religiosity,' as it were. I don't mind that. It's more the pushy type of religiosity that I frown on.

>> No.3899886

Agnostic here, and I'm with OP.
Y'all need to lighten the fuck up and learn the meaning of tolerance. What does it REALLY hurt to let people keep their own beliefs? I mean, if it's giving these people reason to lead a moral life, then I really don't see any harm in it.

>> No.3899888

>>3899879
haiku

>> No.3899895

>>3899862

That is not religion.
Religion is using a bunch of nonsense and superstitious delusions to achieve a similar goal (don't be a dick... to other people who believe exactly what you do) in a roundabout way..

>> No.3899896

>>3899883
>A hypothetical one which serves to counter the "Punishments don't matter if you don't do wrong" argument.
I think it's up to God to judge you, not man.
>Well, that's more of a 'secular religiosity,' as it were. I don't mind that. It's more the pushy type of religiosity that I frown on.
Yes, but how do you explain that to atheists who insist you're not practicing your religion right unless you're a nutcase who throws rotten fruit at tourists in Tel-Aviv.

>> No.3899899

Go Zyzz!

>> No.3899900

>>3899886
diff agnostic and i disagree with you while it cant be proved that god exists or not, religion itself is definitively responsible for some of the greatest horrors the world has seen

>> No.3899904

>>3899896
Except when man judges you by stoning, as the Old Testament suggests.

>> No.3899909

>>3899676

If you ignore the fact that 40% of the commandments are about god having a big ego and the fact that some of them might as well not exist (thou shalt not kill unless I tell you to), it's not really what's in the 10 commandments that's the problem.

It's what's not in the 10 commandments with which one can really take issue.

Rape, torture, child abuse and slavery come to mind.

>> No.3899910

>>3899904
Some religious people certainly do that, but they seem to invariably be members of a certain religion that has given us Jews a lot of trouble since 1948.

>> No.3899913

>>3899909
The Hebrew text says "You shall not murder.", ie. not take innocent life.

>> No.3899914

>>3899910
Again, that most religious people don't do it is because of people straying from what that religion's holy text states, i.e., the growing secularization of religion.

>> No.3899918

>>3899909
thumbs

>> No.3899920
File: 27 KB, 571x460, 1317700411047.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3899920

>>3899910
>implying zionists didn't start as much shit, if not more

>> No.3899924

well we're on zionism, it's not much further to godwin's law

>> No.3899926

>>3899914
I would say it's religion evolving to suit the modern world. While we Jews have (mostly) done that and Christians have mostly done that, the folks in that other religion unfortunately have not.

>> No.3899927

I'm all for not boiling a goat in its mother's milk.

>> No.3899941

It includes the four basic commandments common to all men in all societies at all times; don't kill, (don't injure), don't steal, don't betray.

Then it adds a whole load of unnecessary shit. Not useful refinements, like noting that children must be under such protections, or that men cannot own other men (or their children, or their wives), no. It just adds useless shit that obfuscates any point that might have been made.

Possibly forgivable as an early draft of morality. Absurd if used as the complete basis for any modern morality.

>> No.3899950

>>3899886

Exactly up to the point that they decide that their religious laws, without any secular justification, are to be imposed in civil law over everyone, or they obstruct the removal of such laws from the books, there is no problem at all. But once they start to do that, even a bit, we can't give an inch.

>> No.3899951

1. Well does that include thyself? Can we have no god period?
2. So, what? We can't make paintings or statues? Graven means image on a surface. ARE MIRRORS SINFUL?!!?
3. Why? What does this have do to with anything?
4. As apposed to every day being holy? Does that mean we can sin on everyday but the sabbath? Can we sin on everyday but the sabbath?
5. What if my parents are abusive? Or just irresponcible all together?
6. "Do as I say, not as I do."
7. So then how am I supposed to become a father or a mother?
8. Okay.
9. Okay.
10. So, what? Am I to just cast away everything and live in poverty?

>> No.3899954

sorry i got to go there
plus the ten commandments are just a bastardization of eygptian and sumarian laws that were already secular and existed hundreds of years prior

>> No.3899957

>>3899926
Why do you always have to do this? Every god damn topic about religion with you guys has to end up shit-talking Islam.

Stop whining like god damn Woody Allen already.

This is coming from a "Jew" by the way.

>> No.3899972

>>3899957
Islam is the real threat to civilization atheists should be concerned about, not your grandmother going to church on Sunday.

>> No.3899975
File: 295 KB, 600x957, 1316750510711.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3899975

>>3899972
>ISLAMOFASCISM
>GLENN BECK
>AMERICA
>9/11

>> No.3899977

>>3899972
Balderdash. There are plenty of atheists in Europe who criticise Islam.

>> No.3899987

>>3899972

Of the four most prominent atheists, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett and Dawkins, at least three are massively more critical of Islam than of the secularised, diluted faiths of the west.

I don't get why Christians think they're being singled out. If you're talking to a Christian, he'll tell you Christian nonsense, and you'll tell him why it's nonsense. You won't say, well, you believe that, but the Muslims believe stupider things.

And if you're talking to a Muslim, well, debate is often impossible in the first place.

>> No.3899990

Leviticus 19. Let us analyze:

3. "Each of you must respect your mother and father, and you must observe my Sabbaths. I am the LORD your God."

Ok, same thing as Honor your Father and Mother

4. "Do not turn to idols or make metal gods for yourselves. I am the LORD your God."

Translation: Richard Dawkins is not God. You can't worship him.

5. "When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the LORD your God."

Early form of charity.

11 “‘Do not steal.

“‘Do not lie.

“‘Do not deceive one another.

12 “‘Do not swear falsely by my name and so profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.

13 “‘Do not defraud or rob your neighbor.

“‘Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker overnight.

14 “‘Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the LORD.

15 “‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.

16 “‘Do not go about spreading slander among your people.

“‘Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor’s life. I am the LORD.

17 “‘Do not hate a fellow Israelite in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in their guilt.

18 “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

Pretty much common-sense rules. Don't be a dick.

>> No.3899997

>>3899676
Thoughtcrime laws are bad, mkay? Worshiping dead false gods is bad, mkay?

>> No.3900001

>>3899987

The problem is you're talking to a Christian from a developed nation and a Muslim from a third world shithole.

Try talking to African Christians.

>> No.3900007

>When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest
thats socialism talk where i come from

>> No.3900008

>49 posts hidden
/sci/ is too stupid to let religionthreads die out

>> No.3900011

>>3900001
Africa is rapidly becoming a great center of evangelical Christianity. The churches are filling up as they empty out in the West where they think "OH, WE MUST HAVE GAY CLERGY!" and all that.

>> No.3900017

>>3899941

I wouldn't say don't betray.
You can commit adultery without betraying anyone if both adulterers are unmarried. There are other ways to betray than adultery and bearing false witness, so it only covers 2 specific forms of betrayal one of which actually oversteps betrayal.

>> No.3900019

>>3900001

Try talking to many American Christians.

There's no talking to them.

Given that modern civilisation has dragged much of Christianity into the modern moral milieu, most of the way at least, and not without effort, we can at least discuss the matter without the conversation ending in threats.

>> No.3900032

>>3900017

The whole 'don't betray, don't lie, don't cheat' thing is difficult to encapsulate in one word. You do have to give the ten commandments a generous interpretation to get this nugget out of it, but they seem to be getting at it somehow. Unfortunately, it's wrapped up, as you rightly point out, in antiquated notions of sexual purity.

If this doesn't really count, though, if we're being strict, then the ten commandments only really cover two actual basic moral rules, that is, don't kill and don't steal.

>> No.3900037

26 “‘Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it.

Well yeah, tapeworms, hookworms, copepods, isopods, nematodes, and protozoa are not cool.

"Do not practice divination or seek omens."

That's getting into /x/ territory, so we'll leave that go.

27 "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard."

That's what the UO Jews do. I think it was supposed to be a way of differentiating Jews from their neighbors.

28 "Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD."

That would mean 75% of Democrat voters have displeased God.

29 "Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the land will turn to prostitution and be filled with wickedness."

So much for Hollywood.

32 "Stand up in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the LORD."

Fair enough, although old people were much less of a headache in Biblical times.

>> No.3900048

>>3899990
>>3900037

So... modern people can stretch the interpretation of these verses to match up with our modern morality?

If only they were written clearly, and with a detailed explanation of why each should be, then people could have been following them in the right way and for the right reasons since they were written.

>> No.3900050

33 When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

Ok, be nice to foreign guests.

35 Do not use dishonest standards when measuring length, weight or quantity.

Don't cheat people at the supermarket. Gotcha.

>> No.3900063

>>3900048
>If only they were written clearly, and with a detailed explanation of why each should be

There has been a lot written about them in various texts like the Torah.

>If only they were written clearly, and with a detailed explanation of why each should be, then people could have been following them in the right way and for the right reasons since they were written.

That's like expecting people to not rob a bank because it's illegal. You can give them the rules, but you can't make them follow the rules.

>> No.3900071

Leviticus 18: Here we get into the fun stuff.

7 “‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

8 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.

9 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

10 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you.

11 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

12 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative.

13 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative.

14 “‘Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

15 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.

16 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.

17 “‘Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

No wincest allowed.

>> No.3900075

>>3900063

So long as they are open to interpretation and revision, it hardly matters. In so far as they are, they are a fine relic of an earlier discussion on morality. In so far as they are not, they are iron age morals that must be filtered through and justified with a modern mind.

>> No.3900078

>>3899990
>>3900037
>>3900071

Which god awful translation is that? If you strip the Bible of its poetry you strip any reason to read it altogether.

>> No.3900081
File: 62 KB, 750x600, 1158113400313.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3900081

>mfw /v/ has more atheists than /sci/
>mfw /v/ has actual mods that actually delete religionspam
>mfw I hate you stupid fucks here

>> No.3900083

19 Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

Because doing a woman on the rag is fucking nasty.

20 Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.

Don't commit adultery again.

21 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

Who doesn't love this passage?

23 Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

That would cover about 50% of Democrat voters

24 Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

Why do you think Muslims are taking over Europe? It's the OT all over again.

>> No.3900088

>>3900078
It's the NIV Bible.

>> No.3900095

>>3900088

Eugh. Why? If you want an accurate translation, there's Young's Literal. If you want a good translation, there's the King James.

>> No.3900099

>>3900081
We don't start these threads, it's faggot trolls who know that /sci/ will fall for it every time.

>> No.3900101

>>3900088
>>3900095

>not reading it in the original language

>pretending you know what it says

>> No.3900109

>>3900078
if the poetrys your concern i hope u know ancient hebrew

>> No.3900113

>>3900101

I don't care what the Hebrews wrote. They were a barbaric people and had nothing worthwhile to say. Which is why I consider the KJV as the only edition worth reading, because it is an important piece of English language literature. If you care about the original, but can't be assed to learn Hebrew and Greek, then your best bet is Young's Literal.

NIV has no reason to exist.

>> No.3900114

Oddly, it only says that gay sex is prohibited. So...lesbians are ok then?

>> No.3900122

>>3899886
I only argue with those who engage me on religion, I'll tell them they're wasting their time but they don't stop until I 'oppress their freedom of religion'

I've had Jehovah's witnesses, evangelicals etc come to my door deciding they know best. When questioned on the bibles view of slaves, mainly instructions on beating them. "No your wrong it doesn't say that _> well what does it say then? _> well it certainly doesnt say that"

I don't tend to listen anymore as its always the same old circular logic they bring to the table, and they never try to refute what I say just no, your wrong. If im wrong explain why.

>> No.3900124

>>3900063

You dumb.

>There has been a lot written about them in various texts like the Torah.
The torah is a part of the bible and it is still ambiguous.

>That's like expecting people to not rob a bank because it's illegal. You can give them the rules, but you can't make them follow the rules.
Except even people who want to follow rules can easily understand the whole don't rob banks thing, but the bible isn't quite so clear on its definitions of things which is why there is endless debate and many denominations that have slightly different interpretations of the wording..

>> No.3900125

>>3900124
Kind of like the US Constitution. Plenty of vague lines in there.

>> No.3900128

>>3900114

lesbians are gay stupid

>> No.3900129
File: 20 KB, 241x230, 1313995869507.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3900129

>>3900114

>implying religion even gives women the right to CHOOSE to be gay

>> No.3900130

>>3900109

Because semi literate goatherds wrote better than the scholars of Oxbridge?

Hardly.

>> No.3900133

>lol read a WHOLE holy book.
>You are talking about the bible, so read all of the old and new testament.
>You'll see ANY SANE persons problem with it.

>> No.3900139

>>3900125

Which is why Ron Paul is retarded.

The Constitution needs to be updated to get with the times. Unless you really want to require a jury on every suit over $20.

>> No.3900142

>>3900130
but poetry should be about meaning and meaning is impisitly giving by language if it is being translated to english then you are losing out on its meaning

>> No.3900145

>>3900113
>>3900130
Antisemite detected.

>> No.3900146

>>3900125

I was about to say that nobody likes to pretend that the constitution is an utterly inerrant document.

But, depressingly, many people do.

Still, the point should stand. In so far as we acknowledge that the Hebrews were doing their best to write down what was right and what was wrong, it's a decent document. In so far as the Hebrews were writing down some kind of revealed truth of morality, it is at the least incomplete and vague, and at the most downright abominable.

>> No.3900153

>>3900139
We could revive jury nullification.

>> No.3900165

>>3899900
I'm not sure about that.
I mean, religion has been a way to enforce acceptable social behaviour, to cement social groups etc.
And humans have proven to be more than able to kill each other without any god being involved (the "communism was a state religion" thing is a circular argument - by this logic I could say that ancient monarchies were merely dictatorships with a religious front.).
I mean, if we remove religion, people would still follow something stupid. What we should do is encouraging critical thinking.

>> No.3900170

>>3899900
But then you look at the horrible things atheists did in the 20th century.

>> No.3900176

Religion attacks athiests...

Athiests: waaah waaah why can't you just accept my beliefs?

Religion continues to attack athiests...

Athiests become militant to defend themselves and fight back.

Athiests win all arguements with strong logic.

Religion in decline...

Religion: Waaah waaaah why can't you just accept my beliefs???

Full circle.

>> No.3900179

>>3900170
>>3900165
people would still kill each other like crazy, but the point is that religion can be a justification for killing politics can fall into the same category of evil

>> No.3900185

>>3900139

>implying the constitution covers civil lawsuits

>> No.3900187

>>3900176
>Athiests win all arguements with strong logic.
Agnosticbro here. Don't flatter yourself. I've never seen much atheist logic that wasn't full of holes.

In conclusion, you and theists all suck.

/thread

>> No.3900189

>>3899676
I don't hate religion, I just think its outdated. We can control stupid people with media so why bother with an obsolete method?

>> No.3900190

>impyling there aren't actually 613 commandments and this thread isn't retarded

>> No.3900191

>>3900189
ftw

>> No.3900192 [DELETED] 
File: 699 KB, 1920x1200, The Ten Commandments.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3900192

>>3899676
Well first off, those aren't the Ten Commandments.

>> No.3900195

>>3900187

Meh, I'm not even atheist. I've never seen points debated between the two and felt the theist came out on top though.

>> No.3900197

>>3900185

It covers "Suits at common law". How are civil lawsuits exempted?

>> No.3900201

>>3900195
Usually if an atheist starts ranting about invisible sky wizards or other ad hominems, he's probably lost the argument.

>> No.3900202

>>3900187
>agnostic

laughingpeoplewhounderstandthedifferencebetweenknowledgeandbelief.jpg

>> No.3900203

How about that part in the bible that says you should stone misbehaved kids, christian btw

>> No.3900207

>>3900201

Well, to be fair, if ranting about invisible sky wizards makes you lose an arguement, religion has been losing for over 2000 years now.

>> No.3900210

>>3900207
Strawman.

>> No.3900215

>>3900210
Which part of that is a strawman?
Is it the ranting?
Being invisible?
Being in the sky?
Being a wizard?

>> No.3900216

I think you'll find Christians in near-universal agreement that the atheist strawman god does not exist.

>> No.3900218
File: 2.42 MB, 320x240, you are so dumb.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3900218

>>3900216
>atheist strawman god
>Atheist
>god

>> No.3900224

>>3900215
All of them really.
>>3900218
My point exactly. Atheists invent some ludicrous cartoon character god that they proceed to attack. They imagine some kind of angry bearded dude who roams the countryside and zaps people with lightning.

>> No.3900226

>>3900224

Yeah.

In actuality, God is a talking, burning bush. Which is a lot more reasonable.

>> No.3900232

>>3900226
OP here again. The anti-Semitic trolls are still out, I see.

>> No.3900236

>>3900224

Its not like the other side has a consistent view of God to attack. Pretty much any point an atheist tries to make about god, someone can just turn around and say that isn't really what god is.

>> No.3900241

>>3900236
Which is why it's impossible to win arguments with religious people. There is no way to disprove most of their claims.

>> No.3900242

>>3900232

I see. If we say invisible sky wizard, you shout strawman. If we say burning, talking bush, you shout anti semite.

Cool argument, bro.

>> No.3900243

>>3900232

because that is something only semitics believe?

>> No.3900245

don't listen to what everyone else says, there's nothing wrong with living by religious guidelines, just be reasonable in what you do and keep in mind other people may not accept it.

>> No.3900246

1. I'm a jealous butthurt God, but I'm also perfect, that makes sense right?
2. I don't you making any images of me because that would put me on the same level of other gods, see #1.
3. I hate free speech.
4. I love pointless arbitrary bullshit. Enjoy your holiday, I guess.
5. Love your parents even if they treat you like shit, they know best.
6. Here's a common sense rule which I will later ask you to break repeatedly.
7. See #6. I was also cool with it before but I changed my mind. My morality is totally objective guys.
8. See #6.
9. #6 again, aren't all these new rules just enlightening? Hammurabi? Who's that?
10. Especially don't covet anything owned by kings and nobles, they are more holy than you'll ever be.

>> No.3900252

>>3900243
No, but you seem to have issues with us Jews since you attack one of the central parts of our identity as a people.

>> No.3900253

>>3900245
but that makes no sense thats like saying do what you feel is right regardless of what god and people tell you is right. that is what atheists do

>> No.3900257

Science: "We can't say that oxygen *can't* transmute into gold." "God doesn't exist."

>> No.3900258

>>3900245
As Dr. Seuss said, "Those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."

>> No.3900262

>>3900246
Strawmen, strawmen everywhere.

>> No.3900264

>>3900252

Maybe you shouldn't identify your people with a bronze age religion, then?

Admit that your ancestors didn't know any better, and move on.

>> No.3900271

>>3900264
This is what we mean when we talk of anti-Semitism. I'm not even a particularly religious guy and I take flak from the wannabe oven stuffers here.

>> No.3900277

>>3900271
Oh boy, here we go with the Holocaust Guilt Card.

>> No.3900278

>>3900271

>Argue in favour of bronze age superstition
>Pull the race card when people argue back

Stay classy.

>> No.3900280

>>3900262

Yeah dude just completely ignore my arguments and baselessly claim I'm being fallacious, you are a master debater, I bow to you.

>> No.3900281

Why isn't rape or slavery included in the ten commandments?

Oh right, because they're outdated iron age beliefs.

>> No.3900285

>>3900281
Murder, lying, and theft aren't in the ten commandments either.

>> No.3900288

>>3900285
I believe the first is covered in #6.

>> No.3900291
File: 21 KB, 220x220, 220px-Crab_Nebula[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3900291

>>3900257
The fuck are you talking about?
Watch me transmute oxygen into gold, ni‌gger!

>> No.3900292

>>3900285
agree with atheists but not with u lying is thou shalt not bear false witness

>> No.3900294
File: 12 KB, 529x263, img.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3900294

>> No.3900295

>>3900288
Nope. #6 is the commandment for the feast of firstharvest and the feast of year's end ingathering.

>> No.3900296

>>3900285

Yes because murder has nothing to do with killing, bearing false witness isn't a euphemism for lying, and theft has nothing to do with stealing.

>> No.3900298

>>3900294
not at all true

>> No.3900300

>>3900296
Those aren't in there either.

>> No.3900303

>>3900296
>Yes because murder has nothing to do with killing,
Trapped you. The Hebrew text says "Do not murder"
>theft has nothing to do with stealing.
whatthefuckamireading.jpg

>> No.3900308

>>3900295
What commandments are you referring to?

>> No.3900311

>>3900298
It is. Whatever morals you follow likely were ones you heard first in a religious text.

>> No.3900313
File: 698 KB, 1920x1200, The Ten Commandments.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3900313

>>3900308
The Ten Commandments.
As in, not ten of the 613 commandments from Exodus, but the ones that are specifically The Ten Commandments. They are in Exodus 34, and called by name in the verse rather than in the apologist-written chapter heading of Exodus 20.

>> No.3900315

>>3900313
Well, that's more-or-less what I meant.

>> No.3900318

>>3900278
See >>3900201

>> No.3900319

>>3900315
You confused me when you asked "which ten commandments" because there's only one The Ten Commandments.

>> No.3900320
File: 455 KB, 500x400, bible.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3900320

>> No.3900321

>>3900318

See
>>3900226

>> No.3900324

Modern christians dont give a shit about the Old Testmanent and the only thing you can attack the teachings of Jesus is for being excessively altruist.

>> No.3900325

>>3900324
And also human sacrifice of an innocent as a legal precedent to absolve the guilty without punishment, under pain of eternal torture for finite crimes.

>> No.3900327

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
>The Code of Hammurabi is a well-preserved Babylonian law code, dating to ca. 1700 BCE (short chronology). It is one of the oldest deciphered writings of significant length in the world.
>1700 BCE

Abrahamic religions are you even trying?

>> No.3900328

>>3900321
See >>3900224

>> No.3900331

>>3900328

See http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%203:1-3:4&version=KJV

>> No.3900332
File: 76 KB, 425x399, 21.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3900332

>>3900325
Whoops, you fell into a very large logical hole there.

>> No.3900333

>>3900327

Yeah.

They tried pretty hard to plagiarise that.

>> No.3900334

>>3900333
But that's a poor argument because if God is everywhere, then all men can instinctively know some of his commandments.

>> No.3900335

>>3900328
>>3900332

See >>3900280

>> No.3900336

>>3900334

Then why should we take the commandments à la Moses to be more reliable than the commandments à la Hammurabi?

>> No.3900338

>>3900335
Lemme break it down:

"And also human sacrifice of an innocent as a legal precedent to absolve the guilty without punishment, under pain of eternal torture for finite crimes."

...uses circular logic. "I'm pissed at God punishing people for finite crimes, but I'm also pissed at him providing a way out of punishment."

Make up your mind. Do you want people punished for wrongdoing or don't you?

>> No.3900339

>>3900334

Then what's the point of God asking some people to write them down again hundreds of years later and telling them it's the ultimate definitive original version do not steal?

>> No.3900340

>>3900336
You probably should go back and reread >>3900334 more carefully, because my point went clean over your head.

>> No.3900341

>>3900202
U mad?

>> No.3900343

>>3900340

I think you don't have a point.

To say everything is inspired by God is to say nothing is inspired by God. The basest yaoi fanfiction is every bit as holy as the Bible.

>> No.3900344

>>3900339
That's like arguing that modern Christians don't burn witches unlike their medieval counterparts. An earlier version of the law. Same basic concept, just a bit less developed than now.

>> No.3900345

>>3900338
You're seriously going to argue that killing an innocent person is the proper mechanism to forgive guilty people. And you're going to argue that guilty people should be forgiven without punishment. And you're going to further argue that if you don't murder an innocent person, guilty people have to have INFINITE punishment?

Well fuck you, pay attention.
I want innocent people to not be murdered.
I want guilty people to be punished.
And I want those punishments to not be a torture worse than humans have ever devised.

>> No.3900346

>>3900328
see
>>3900236

>> No.3900350

>>3900345
>And I want those punishments to not be a torture worse than humans have ever devised.
Well you're in luck because the Bible only states that Satan and his minions will endure eternal torment.

>> No.3900351

>>3900338

Not that guy, but I think he was more pissed about
>human sacrifice of an innocent
Maybe I'm way off, I mean you're a master debater and you completely missed it, who am I to say?

>> No.3900352

>>3900350
Oh, but those first two points stand? Fuck you.

>> No.3900355

>>3900351
It's not like it doesn't say Jesus was reborn and taken into Heaven and all that.

>> No.3900357

You guys are the reason apologists still exist

>> No.3900358

>>3900355

>I stole your car, but that's okay, because I have you a new one.

Then why steal it?

>> No.3900360
File: 51 KB, 481x358, 1317682851726.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3900360

>>3899676
No rhyme no reason, as always no evidence means why believe it exists, the fallacy with religious retards though is that they think something can exist because you can't disprove it either, which is stupid.

>> No.3900362

>>3900344

Why would God need to develop a law? Furthermore, comparing the Code of Hammurabi and the OT, I'd say Hammurabi wins, even with the blatant class divides and using the death penalty for almost every crime. At least it was pretty clear and specific.

>> No.3900363

>>3900355
I tortured a kitten and everyone thought I killed it, but that's okay and it's a good thing that I tortured it because people found it three days later and it was alive and in a better place. And now that a kitten's been tortured, I can forgive them for doing things I don't approve of.

>> No.3900364

HOW COME YOU GUYS STILL DONT UNDERSTAND CHRISTIANITY

JESUS DIED ON THE CROSS AS A SYMBOLIC SACRIFICE, GOD SACRIFICED HIS ONLY SON SO THAT IT OPENS A PATH BETWEEN OURSELVES AND GOD AND WE CAN BE SAVED

PEOPLE CONVERT BECAUSE ITS PRETTY TOUCHING AND SHIT.

>> No.3900366

>>3900364
Or because God is god he could have opened a path and forgiven everyone by saying "Let there be forgiveness that doesn't involve me faking my own bloody death. I'll just fucking forgive people without murder, like humans do every medamned day."

>> No.3900367

H. Allen Orr attacked RD for his total lack of understanding of the religions he condemns

"We find no serious examination of Christian or Jewish theology in Dawkins’s book (does he know Augustine rejected biblical literalism in the early fifth century?), no attempt to follow philosophical debates about the nature of religious propositions (are they like ordinary claims about everyday matters), no effort to appreciate the complex history of interaction between the Church and science (does he know the Church had an important part in the rise of non-Aristotelian science?), and no attempt to understand even the simplest of religious attitudes (does Dawkins really believe, as he says, that Christians should be thrilled to learn they’re terminally ill?)."

>> No.3900368

>>3900363
You're not God.

>> No.3900370

>>3900367
H Allen Orr attacked Richard Dawkins for understanding Christianity rather completely and saying it in a way that made it look obviously stupid. Apologists and non-literalists are the first apostates. Everything after that is human bullshit EVEN IF THERE WAS A GOD and the Bible itself originally wasn't bullshit.

>> No.3900371

>>3900364

God sacrificed himself to convince himself to forgive humanity. Makes perfect sense.

I also agree that a dude painfully dying from being nailed to pieces of wood then rising from the grave is very touching.

>> No.3900373

>>3900367
Continued...

"What, one wonders, are Dawkins’s views on the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus? Has he read Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope? Has he even heard of them? Or does he imagine like a bumptious young barrister that you can defeat the opposition while being complacently ignorant of its toughest case?

>> No.3900374

>>3900364

assuming that really happened...

>> No.3900375

>>3900366

ITS RELIGION, STOP TRYING TO USE LOGIC TO FIGHT IT, ITS ABOUT FAITH NOT 'WHY DIDNT GOD JUST...X'

THE BIBLE IS LIKE A ROMANCE MOVIE FULL OF PLOTHOLES BUT IT MAKES YOU CRY ANYWAY

WHY DOES IT BOTHER YOU

>> No.3900376

>>3900368
I'm better.

>> No.3900377
File: 72 KB, 474x501, 1242440845777.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3900377

>>3899676
Its an my "eternal soul" is safe card by believing they think things they do wrong get forgiven by god the almighty who controls everything (who has killed about 2 and a half million of his worshipers according to the bible), so when they repent they think thats the end of it and then they put it out of their head, its pathetic to me.

My beef is most religious people aren't really religious, all they fucking believe is in a god that created everything, they use repentance like its going out of fashion, and commandments, what are they?

You know what i mean.

>> No.3900381

>>3900360
you did not just post that w/ a carl sagan pic....

>> No.3900386 [DELETED] 

You will only be legitimated to attack religion when it threatens your freedom. The bs going on these just is just another ' stop believing in things I consider stupid'.

>> No.3900384

>>3900373

>subjectivity
>grace
>hope

None of these seems to cover "why we should ignore the results of empirical enquiry in favour of semitic myths".

>> No.3900385

>>3900367
>Augustine rejected biblical literalism in the early fifth century?

Well modern fundamentalists certainly haven't.

Dawkins has absolutely no obligation to tackle the "arguments" of meaningless apologist theologian garbage.

>> No.3900387

>>3900370
>H Allen Orr attacked Richard Dawkins for understanding Christianity rather completely

How much theology has RD studied?

>> No.3900388

You will only be legitimated to attack religion when it threatens your freedom. The bs going on these days is just another ' stop believing in things I consider stupid'.

>> No.3900389

>>3900385
So his beef isn't with the religion itself, it's with the practitioners. If that's the case, he should say so.

>> No.3900390

One thing that sticks out from all the other illogical stuff in religions is the assumption that a mortal being would of course have an immortal soul.

Why would a finite being have an infinite afterlife?

>> No.3900393

Agnosticbro here. The reason nobody ever wins these arguments is because atheists and theists are viewing religion from two completely different and non-reconcilable perspectives. Since neither side can reach a common understanding of what they're discussing, it becomes an exercise in name-calling and logical fallacies.

>> No.3900394

I aint religious

My mates 8 year old kid drew a crucifixion(yes that incredibly violent act of nailing someone to a cross) in sunday school, 3 people on crosses including jesus smiling, fucking smiling.

She clearly doesnt understand what shes drawing, because they were smiling, making an 8 year old draw a crucifixion what the fuck is wrong with those people.

>> No.3900395

>>3900393
You don't even know what your classifying yourself as.

>> No.3900399

>>3900389

Religion is nothing without practitioners, and the ones in question are more closely connected with the Bible than the apologists who try to argue for it by using the best mental gymnastics they can muster.

>> No.3900400

>>3900393
Good point. Since atheists have already decided in advance that a particular religion is nonsense, they do not make any attempt to understand it. Atheists any attempt to disprove their strawman arguments is "excuses" and "apologetics"

>> No.3900402

>>3900399
Well guess what? There are plenty of Christians and Jews who don't approve of the fundie nutcases either.

>> No.3900403

>>3900400
oh look. here comes the circle jerk

militant atheists actually don't give a shit about what you believe.
and atheism by itself is not a lack of belief. it a denial of the existence of god. you have shown nothing that says you understand the differences between different positions. you are just as ignorant as these "atheists" you are looking down on.

go fuck yourself.

>> No.3900407

>>3900403
>militant atheists actually don't give a shit about what you believe.
But that's not true. Militant atheists like me do care terribly much about what other people believe.

>> No.3900409

Militant atheist here. I have no problem with religion. But keep that shit out of my government. Keep it out of my schools. Keep it out of my workplace. We have made a place for you to worship in. It's called a church. We also have made you very comfortable with this church of yours in the form of tax cuts, fundings ect ect. So keep your shit contained. Behind open or closed doors. I really don't give a shit.

>> No.3900411

>>3900407

why?

>> No.3900412

The gulf between theists and atheists works like this:

Theist: Let me show you what the stitching on the emperor's clothes looks like
Atheist: But I've never seen the emperor. Show him to me first before I can pass judgement on his clothing.

>> No.3900413

>>3900412
Which is wrong because atheists readily pass judgement on God despite having never seen him.

>> No.3900414

>>3900411
They vote which affects me. They affect culture which affects me. They raise children, who will vote and affect culture, which affects me, and I care morally about the child abuse done to little children in the name of religion.

>> No.3900418

>>3900402

Like I said, you are the master debater, with your selective reading, and dismissal of arguments based on baseless claims of logical fallacies. I will now leave this thread in shame, for you have debated so well that I have nothing left.

>> No.3900419

>>3900414
>I care morally about the child abuse done to little children in the name of religion.

Then you're a closet Christian because otherwise you'd know morals are nonsense created to control you.

>> No.3900420

>>3900414

but thats unrealistic. you have to understand. most of these theists and atheists are sheeps before they are what they believe themselves to be. the common denominator here is stupidity and ignorance. belief has nothing to do with it.

>> No.3900421

>>3900419
Do you think we ought to try to avoid the worst possible suffering for everyone?

>> No.3900423

>>3900421
ought implies a objective morality

>> No.3900426

>>3900420
Beliefs are operative. If they belief that masturbation is bad, and sex is bad, they may try to ban contraceptives, and they may do great harm to their children by teaching them abstinence only and teach them that masturbation is evil and a mortal sin. For example.

>> No.3900428

>>3900423
I ask again, will you act in a way that tries to avoid the worst possible suffering for everyone, or will you act in a way that tries to achieve the worst possible suffering for everyone?

>> No.3900429

>>3900414

I don't really think religion in the west is a threat. Also I don't really understand how people who believe in an afterlife to make their lifes a little better and voting ability is related

>> No.3900430

>>3900389

Surely the actual religion is the writings of the prophets, not of philosophers trying to interpret what the prophets said?

>> No.3900431

>>3900419
Therein is one of the biggest atheist blunders. They're quick to attack Catholic priests while at the same time proclaiming that objective morality does not exist.

If OM doesn't exist, then it is not immoral to rape children because the molester's morals are simply different from yours, not better.

>> No.3900433

>>3900414

By that logic every single person who has a different opinion from you should be denied the right to vote?

>> No.3900434

>>3900430
That assumes the writers weren't speaking in parables. As mentioned before, the Torah has tons of commentary on the exact meaning of Biblical passages.

>> No.3900437

>>3900431
I do not know what "objective morality" means. I do know that we can all agree to act in a way to avoid the worst possible suffering for everyone. That is to say, we can agree that we ought to act to avoid the worst possible suffering for everyone. Moreover, we can all agree to act in a way that minimizes human suffering, more or less.

>> No.3900438

>>3900433
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
I never claimed that we should deny them the right to vote, nor speak.

>> No.3900440

>>3900437
But then, whatever minimizes suffering can be argued as objective morals.

>> No.3900441

>>3900440
Yes, and?
Again, I don't know what "objective morality" means.

>> No.3900442

>>3900437
ok riddle me this.

> I do know that we can all agree to act in a way to avoid the worst possible suffering for everyone.

why do we have to act this way?

>> No.3900447

>>3900434

The Torah is the first five books of the Bible. Not much commentary there.

>> No.3900449

>>3900442
I don't understand what you're asking.

Are you going to not agree with me as a matter of public policy discussions that the public policy should be to minimize human suffering, more or less?

>> No.3900450

>>3900447
Mistake. I meant the Talmud (which is a collection of discussions and commentaries on Judaic law)

>> No.3900452

>>3900449
since you don't want to play I'm gonna give you the short version

objective morality is usually an argument FOR the existence of god.

>> No.3900453

>>3900452
Exactly. If (as atheists argue), objective morals do not exist, then you cannot condemn a child rapist because it's merely his having different ideas of what's right and wrong than you.

>> No.3900456

>>3900453
I said usually.

>> No.3900457

>>3900452
I'm not playing because I genuinely do not understand what "objective morality" is. Is it a factual claim? How can you falsify its existence? You are talking about its existence, and I'm unaware of a sense of the word "exist" which applies. Physical objects exist in a material, scientific sense. Math "exists" only in some abstract, non-physical sense. I don't know what it means for objective morality to exist.

As I don't understand what it means for objective morality to exist, I fail to see how its existence or non-existence relates to the question of the factual, scientific, material (but possibly extra-universe) existence of some god thing.

>> No.3900459

>>3900457
2/10

i would give you a 5 if that was intentional

>> No.3900460

>>3900453
I would like to talk to these atheists and ask them what "objective morality" means. I seem quite fine calling out child rapists as bad, and that we ought to punish them, protect the children, and not be ourselves child rapists.

>> No.3900461

>>3900457
Objective morals: The idea that morals are absolute and universal to all men.

>> No.3900462

>>3900450

That's only accepted as canonical by the Jews, though. If I were attacking Judaism I would read the Talmud. I see no point in reading the Talmud to attack Christianity.

>> No.3900464

>>3900462
But atheists usually try to argue that the OT laws apply to Christians (which they mostly do not).

>> No.3900466

>>3900461
>Objective morals: The idea that morals are absolute and universal to all men.
What does it mean for "morals to be absolute"?

What does it mean for "morals to be universal to all men"? If you mean factually can we get all humans to agree on a set of oughts, then no, we cannot. There are some evil and deranged people, sometimes called sociopaths / psychopaths. However, for the most part, most people believe that we ought to minimize human suffering, more or less.

>> No.3900468

>>3900466
and why do people have to agree to this?

>> No.3900473

>>3900468
You are hung up in this way of talking which I claim is meaningless and nonsensical. Who cares? As a matter of facts, we all agree that we ought to minimize human suffering. Let's go from there. Unless, of course, you wish to argue that we ought to inflict suffering on humans. Do you?

>> No.3900474

>>3900452
It's one axiom of many, the "minimal human suffering" morality. The upshot is that you are human, and you will be included in that minimized suffering most of the time. And the constant idolization of 'good' is to prevent society from falling into that nasty Nash equilibrium where everybody's getting fucked in the ass.

>> No.3900477

>>3900473
I do. there's nothing binding about what you said. but that's not true is it? behaving in the way you have described is not a simple matter of I want to, it's a matter of I ought to. why is this?

>> No.3900479

>>3900466
>However, for the most part, most people believe that we ought to minimize human suffering, more or less.

And that's objective morals in a nutshell.

>> No.3900480

>>3900477
If you need a reason, it is because it is in your self interest.

>> No.3900481

>>3900453

Why not? I can condemn him by my moral code.

>> No.3900482

>>3900477
>Why is this?
Sometimes why questions are stupid. This is one of those times.

Feynman 'Fun to Imagine' 4: Magnets (and 'Why?' questions...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM

If we wish not to be nihilists, then we will have some axioms for which there are no "why?" answers. Minimizing human suffering, or more generally minimizing conscious creature suffering, is one such axiom. I again ask, do you disagree with this axiom? Or are you just playing devil's advocate for no reason? Why don't you play devil's advocate by arguing against the proposition that "you shouldn't contradict yourself", or "the scientific method works and we should use it"?

>> No.3900483

>>3900464

It's not the laws that are the problem. It's the fact that they believe any of that shit actually happened.

>> No.3900489

>>3900482

ah empiricists, funny people

>> No.3900491

>>3900464
Doesn't matter. Atheists can argue all they want about Christians not following the Bible, but in the end you have to realize that if they did, the former would all be burned at the stake.

It seems that atheists have a suicide wish by telling believers that the OT laws must be followed. One would think they prefer the current situation where they don't have to worry about being persecuted for nonbelief.

>> No.3900492

>>3900482
except thats retarded. it's basically saying "this topic is too difficult for me and I choose to disregard it because it's actually not worth talking about."

there are arguments from both sides that more than satisfied the existence of objective morality.

>> No.3900495

>>3900481
But you can't because if absolute morals don't exist, then your moral code is equal to his and you cannot condemn him.

>> No.3900496

>>3900492
I still don't know what you mean by objective morality.

I would also be curious if your belief system is not axiomatic. I don't want to do a strawman, but it seems you clearly argued that having axioms is stupid. I hope that you meant to argue that claiming this /particular/ proposition axiomatically is stupid. In which case, you argue that there's better axioms to use to derive this proposition. What axioms are those?

>> No.3900500

>>3900495
I still don't know what you mean by "absolute morality". However, as a matter of facts, I'm perfectly capable of condemning a child rapist whether or not I have what you call beliefs about "absolute morality". Now, perhaps you meant that I'm not justified in doing so. So, you are arguing that we shouldn't condemn child rapists?

>> No.3900502

>>3900496
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism

In short, the idea that there are rules common to all societies.

>> No.3900503

>>3900495

> then your moral code is equal to his and you cannot condemn him.

What? Why? Why should my moral code give his any credibility?

>> No.3900505

A theist does not have these problems because he believes you're either following God's absolute laws or you're not.

>> No.3900507

>>3900496
except I haven't even tried to "argue" with you. all thread long. the only thing you have shown is that you have elementary knowledge about religion/beliefs/logic and whatnot. I've been merely stringing you along hopefully getting you to ask some questions people have asked and answered hundreds or even thousands of years ago. except you have no interest in this.

I'm out. have fun.

P.S. I'm the militant atheist who posted up there.

>> No.3900509

>>3900502
wiki quote:
>However, not all forms of moral universalism are absolutist,
I'm not sure if this is the same anon, but I would like you to at least be consistent with your argument. That wiki page /specifically/ contrasts universalism with absolutist, yet the anon (anons?) I've been arguing with have been using the terms more or less interchangeably.

And the answer is yes, that there are morals which are held constant across cultures, sex, societies, and so on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

>> No.3900510

>>3900509
>And the answer is yes, that there are morals which are held constant across cultures, sex, societies, and so on.

Which are absolute/objective morals.

>> No.3900513

>>3900510

That's retarded. They could merely be species specific morals.

Objective morals, if such exist, are universal for all agents capable of reason.

>> No.3900514

>>3900507
I'm still of the belief that talking about imaginary fabrics is a waste of time, /especially/ when everyone agrees on the answer to that particular topic.

To step back from the metaphor, we all agree that we ought to minimize human suffering, more or less. That is sufficient to act on. Your demands for justifications are fruitless, because all belief systems are axiomatic. You could answer that "why?" question with some answer, but that just opens up another "why?" question. I claim that this is a sensible place to ground our discussion, and to which everyone can agree.

Again, please watch:

Feynman 'Fun to Imagine' 4: Magnets (and 'Why?' questions...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM

>> No.3900516

>>3900510
I refuse to use those terms for the obvious confusion which ensues and the needless association with religious thought.

>> No.3900517

>>3900513
>Objective morals, if such exist, are universal for all agents capable of reason.

TTBN, only man is capable of that.

>> No.3900519

/sci why are you all Faggots, This isn't science or maths it's another terrible religious troll. No one believes in religion anymore stop falling for this obvious shit.

>> No.3900523

Objective morals would be "Don't rape, murder, pillage, etc"

They are innate to all men, which is why they began to write and codify them in the form of religion.

>> No.3900524

>>3900517

What? Now you're resorting to empirical fallacies?

There is a fundamental conceptual difference. Species specific morals could simply be the end product of our evolutionary path, engrained in our minds as instincts which gave us a reproductive advantage. God is not necessary at all.

Objective morals would need to be more abstract than that. They would need to be the same for Man, God and his Angels, any and every form of intelligent alien, sentient machines, what have you.

>> No.3900527

>>3900523
If they were so innate then why do people do them constantly?

>> No.3900530

What the shit? How is this thread still alive?


>>3900514
This post seems awfully reminiscent of your post in that Pyrrhonist thread the other day! But I concur. Nice vid, too.

>> No.3900537

>>3900519

A bit too late dont you think

>> No.3900538

>>3900524
>Species specific morals could simply be the end product of our evolutionary path, engrained in our minds as instincts which gave us a reproductive advantage.
Explain.
>Objective morals would need to be more abstract than that. They would need to be the same for Man, God and his Angels, any and every form of intelligent alien, sentient machines, what have you.
That was basically my point.

>> No.3900544

>>3900523
Rape, murder etc. would only be objective morals if they were objective morals... they are in no way necessarily objective.

In fact, why on earth do you even think that objective morality actually exists? If they were to exist, they would need some kind of "source", as it were. Which I suppose some could equate to God, but such a source wouldn't really need to be sentient, intelligent etc. etc.

>> No.3900550

>>3900544
I'm pretty sure they're frowned on by civilized society.

>> No.3900552

>>3900538

The ape that ate his children was at a reproductive disadvantage against the ape that didn't. Which is why today not eating one's children is a moral universal among humans.

Not among other species, where higher rates of fecundity, what have you, made such behaviour tenable.

>> No.3900569

>>3900514
>we all agree that we ought to minimize human suffering, more or less.
circular logic is circular

>because all belief systems are axiomatic.
moar fallacies? say it ain't so

>You could answer that "why?" question with some answer, but that just opens up another "why?" question.
wrong.

>I claim that this is a sensible place to ground our discussion
how convenient

isn't /sci/ suppose to be smart?

>> No.3900570

>>3900552
Not same guy, but same with homosexuality. Those who engaged in it spread disease and removed themselves from the gene pool.

>> No.3900575

>>3900569
>You could answer that "why?" question with some answer, but that just opens up another "why?" question.
>>wrong.

Why?

>> No.3900576

>>3900569
I ask again, please explain your belief system with careful attention to how it's not axiomatic.

>> No.3900584

>>3900570

Depends to what extent. Those who bumsexed only slightly had extra males that weren't a threat to the breeders, but helped the tribe in other tasks.

>> No.3900588

>>3900550
>I'm pretty sure they're frowned on by civilized society.

But that doesn't make them objective! The fact that you consider that whether or not they are wrong depends upon whether or not they are frowned upon by civilised societies exactly proves my point: if they depend upon something then they are not objective.


>>3900569
I feel bad to say so, but I'm afraid you really aren't making much sense...

>> No.3900601

>>3900588
But that does mean they're objective. Certain societies are more civilized than others because they have better morals.

I would go to say that Western society for all its faults is clearly better from a moral standpoint than a place like China.

>> No.3900603

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVd0EhXVtGU

>> No.3900609

>>3900584
Err...right, they found uses for the feminine nature of gays. For example, the fashion industry would not exist without them.

>> No.3900611
File: 38 KB, 500x375, morality:religion.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3900611

>>3900603

>> No.3900616
File: 47 KB, 550x375, 1318517530147.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3900616

>>3899676

i hope you will grow it out.

>> No.3900622

>>3900611
Fallacious argument because if morality=God, then same thing. Morality is following God regardless of what you're told.

Also sage for posting an anti-Semitic reaction image.

>> No.3900625

>>3900622
>anti-religious
>anti-semantic
Oh boy...
Not sure if troll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

>> No.3900633

>>3900625
Doesn't a Star of David with a slash over it generally mean...you know.

>> No.3900636

>>3900625
>semantic
>semitic
Meh, whatever.

>> No.3900641

>>3900633
Context, you idiot, context. You skip right over the cross and the crescent, and stir up self-righteousness at imagined insults.

>> No.3900643

>>3900633
IT WAS ATTACKING THE ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS, NOT JEWISH PEOPLE YOU FUCKSTICK!!!

>> No.3900644

if you only act in accordance with how you are commanded, it doesn't mean you're a kind, loving or good person (especially if you're guilted into it with the incentives of heaven).

Whereas if your morals are dictated by you (not from above) and you strive to increase happiness for you and all those around you then it actually says something about the goodness of your character and ambitions. Do good because it makes people happy (and makes you feel good), not because it is commanded of you.

The 10 commandments simply outsource morality. Shifting responsibility for ethical decisions. Or I should really it only seemingly does this. Because of course it doesn't outsource it all. Because the fact of the matter is the 10 commandments were written by men. That's why they are far from comprehensive.

>> No.3900660
File: 115 KB, 500x375, 293.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3900660

This should satisfy nearly everyone.

>> No.3900665

>>3900622
if morality=god then it doesn't matter what is right or wrong, only what god has determined. Outsourcing morality is just about the most pathetic thing about religions


fact of the matter is god was invented, it is the reification of 'goodness' except he starts to crumble when humanity realised what constitutes 'goodness' is much more complicated than we originally thought or would like to think

>> No.3900666

>>3900660
Lols. I can support that.

Too bad there are asshats out there who don't agree with that, usually religious asshats, such as William Lane Craig.

>> No.3900672

>>3900660
Dawkins doesn't say anything about morality. By all means feel free to putt sam harris' face up there with a line through it. That would also prove my point that morality isn't clearly defined, it depends on your perspective.

>> No.3900674

>>3900665
No, it means morality is and has always existed as a part of God, not that he created it arbitrarily.

>Outsourcing morality is just about the most pathetic thing about religions

Which religions are we referring to specifically?

>> No.3900676

>>3900672
No, but Anon is a faggot who probably thinks atheism is a religion.

>> No.3900684

>>3900674
>morality is and has always existed as a part of God, not that he created it arbitrarily.

So it doesn't matter what we do. all we choose is conform to god or be left out in the cold. I'm sorry but that completely misses the point. morality is more complex than that. I could rhyme off a hundred moral dilemmas where 'good' could be seen from all perspectives. You could too. You just don't like to admit because it's hard. Aw boohooo

>Which religions are we referring to specifically?

the 10 commandments so christianity mostly. you read the thread???

>>3900676
well that was me who posted and I can say no, you're wrong, i do not think atheism is a religion.

>> No.3900686

>>3900491
No, its about pointing out how illogical it is to pick and choose what you want out of the bible when it clearly isn't wrote to be that way, and if they aren't willing to follow it to the tee why follow it at all.

>> No.3900688

>>3900601
How does that make it objective?

>> No.3900689

>>3900686
Except that the majority of people who have dedicated their lives and/or careers to studying biblical literature (not necessarily Christians themselves, although usually) can put forward perfectly legitimate arguments as to why Christians should follow certain parts of Mosaic Law but not others. And they can do all this whilst maintaining a literal or conservative interpretation of scripture...

>> No.3900690

>>3900688
The problem is kids reading the internet over books or just posting nonsense without having even read anything (because even a simple wiki search would tell him that's not objectivity)

>> No.3900695

>>3900689
I claim for the most part that they're being intellectually dishonest, with us and with themselves.

>> No.3900702

>>3900689
That was already explained over 20 times in here. So long as atheists choose to interpret the Bible at face value, there is no reasoning with them and they become the very thing they claim to oppose; dogmatists who ignore logic and reasoning.

>> No.3900707

>>3900702
Is there a way to read a book other than reading it? What the fuck are you talking about.

>> No.3900713

>>3900507

Read As:

>I have nothing meaningful to contribute, so I will just waste everyone's time.

>> No.3900717

>>3900707
And religious scholars interpret it as symbols and mysticism. Atheists do not.

>> No.3900718
File: 59 KB, 363x310, 1316184059961.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3900718

>>3900702
>So long as atheists choose to interpret the Bible at face value
There is no face value, its garbage some meatballs wrote 2000 years ago, and you can see that.

>there is no reasoning with them
Nobody religious gets the right to say that about anyone.

>Bible at face value
>dogmatists who ignore logic and reasoning.

Right.

>> No.3900726

>>3900717
Its different fictitious literature from 2000 years ago put in one book, religious scholar doesn't mean fuck all, their "interpretation" is well an interpretation it doesnt mean shit anyone could interpret anything from it.

>> No.3900727

>>3900718
Way to prove >>3900702 right. You did exactly what he accused you of.

Moron.

>> No.3900730

>>3900717
I'm a former religious person. I was always taught the bible was metaphorical and thats how i took it since it doesn't make any sense taken literally. hell, even metaphorically its contradictory. but the thing about metaphors is there is no clear inference, it's all about interpretation. So you have to have to take it literally if you want to outline an 'objective' morality (not really objective but ill use their word for the sake of argument). Otherwise you just end up saying what everyone already knows–– morality is complicated, there are no definitive answers and some of us choose to use the stories and lessons of this book to help inform decisions. That's fine but you need to be able to draw the line between 'the usefulness of the parables' and 'what we've learned with more sophisticated techniques of enquiry and science since then'

>> No.3900732
File: 16 KB, 248x173, 2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3900732

>>3900718
>Nobody religious gets the right to say that about anyone.

Get the fuck off /sci/. Don't you dare ever spout such illogical and unreasonable bullshit again; it makes you look retarded and, in this case, it was counter-productive to your own purpose. You just proved your "opponents" point about dogma and a lack of reasoning.

>> No.3900735

>>3900726
Then the atheist interpretation is no more valid than anyone else's.

>> No.3900736

>>3900732
Shut the fuck up, just the belief in god is reason enough that they cant be reasoned with.

Belief without evidence, how fucking stupid.

>> No.3900739

>>3900735
There is no atheist equivalent to the 10 commandments. the atheists dont have a moral manifesto. so I have to assume you mean conclusions drawn from science and other more sophisticated forms of moral enquiry of the 21st century. And yes they are often more valid since they draw from a wider range of sources and knowledge.

>> No.3900742

>>3900739
See >>3900294

>> No.3900747

>>3900730
See no one actually understands the bible, it was written 2000 years ago, its been translated out the ass which would of changed alot of the words and the way things are said.

Thats why no fucker understands it, thats why it has to be taken metaphorically even though the metaphors probably are not there its just a bad translation.

Why people think they need to get their morals from a 2000 year old book and not just be a good person i don't fucking know.

>> No.3900751

>>3900747
But your morals probably came from a religious text in the first place.

>> No.3900752

>>3900736
Theists accuse atheists of having "just as much faith" far too often, and I hate it.. but this actually fits you perfectly.

If you thought about it for a while, I'm sure you'd realise that I'm at least partially right. Go on- I dare you.

>> No.3900754
File: 14 KB, 416x333, 3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3900754

>>3900718
>>3900736