Wrong again. You've been told numerous times and numerous reasons why but as always you just repeat yourself. You aren't here to discuss anything you're just here to stuff your opinion down people's throats in a desperate attempt to reinforce your own silly fantasies of a black and white universe.
Seeing as I made a factual claim, simply stating that the murderers were atheist, I don't see why knowing why they did it in any way refutes that they were atheist.
So Boerd said No, you haven't. QUOTE to me where you posted an authoritative link with numbers.
I don't have any, and you doubt it, like a skeptic.
So, as I said before: Good... Good...
So Boerd said You are right. However, if you were raised Catholic, and are a practicing Catholic in good standing with your church, I can safely say you have a Catholic inspired morality.
Except absolutely not. If a person followed the Catholic religious morality completely, following the teachings of the bible, they would become a deranged, schizophrenic psychopath. A religious morality from a catholic upbringing would tell someone to compulsively kill people who blaspheme god's name, or work on Sunday, or who don't scream for help loudly enough while being raped.
Morality is used to pick apart the bible, to take the things that make sense and throw away the stuff that is utter psychotic nonsense, like murdering people for working on Sunday. We've had morality since our species was formulated, and it's evolved over time as our societies have become more complex, entirely independent of religion. We have empathy and sympathy--these tell us not to harm our fellow human being where it can be avoided and make us feel for them when they are in pain. We evolved the basis of morality, because it's a survival trait in a social species. You can even see hints of morality here and there in less intellectually developed species on Earth, like dolphins will not leave their wounded family members behind, and wolves are willing to die for one another's pups even where it would be irrational and not save any of them.
Last I checked, wolves and dolphins don't have religion. So explain their basic morality, or how ours is somehow superior through religion when that very same religion has to have significant portions of its morality picked apart and tossed aside in order to keep society functional.
OP
Heheheh... Dyngus, it's funny because it's spelt with a Y
I have a strange feeling that your implying something
So Boerd said
You are right. However, if you were raised Catholic, and are a practicing Catholic in good standing with your church, I can safely say you have a Catholic inspired morality.
I have a strange feeling that your implying something
So Boerd said
Seeing as I made a factual claim, simply stating that the murderers were atheist, I don't see why knowing why they did it in any way refutes that they were atheist.
Because Hitler was most certainly not an atheist and nobody can confirm what Stalin or Mao felt about religion beyond getting rid of it to impose their own fanatical cults of personality.
Another "atheist" regime is North Korea, where they deposed gods in exchange for making their leader a god who can kill you if you merely think badly of him. That's hardly atheist, wouldn't you say?
The old testament doesn't apply to Christians, so stop the strawman already. See: Acts chapter 15. Council of Jerusalem.
Since you have given up on evidence, I believe that means I won the argument.
I don't have any, and you doubt it, like a skeptic.
So, as I said before: Good... Good...
Since you have given up on evidence, I believe that means I won the argument.
OP
Then why do you have the OT in the bible if it does not apply to you? Geez if you really think that, go talk to a fundamentalist... Or a Mormon!
And since you never gave us any substantial evidence in the first place, we won a long long time ago.
And since you never gave us any substantial evidence in the first place, we won a long long time ago.
So Boerd said
The old testament doesn't apply to Christians, so stop the strawman already. See: Acts chapter 15. Council of Jerusalem.Since you have given up on evidence, I believe that means I won the argument.
Except Jesus himself said he was not there to abolish the old laws. And Christians still refer to the old testament to justify bigotry and hatred by the millions, like against homosexuals.
If it helps you sleep better at night then sure, you can completely ignore the entirety of human history and evolution in favour of a book that tells you to kill people one minute and then talks about what kind of clothes you should wear the next.
Because Hitler was most certainly not an atheist and nobody can confirm what Stalin or Mao felt about religion
Come off it. Your Pope, Richard Dawkins already admitted they all were. Ample evidence has been provided that actually disproves your falsifiable claims.
Brovo said
. And Christians still refer to the old testament to justify bigotry and hatred by the millions, like against homosexuals.If it helps you sleep better at night then sure, you can completely ignore the entirety of human history and evolution in favour of a book that tells you to kill people one minute and then talks about what kind of clothes you should wear the next.
Read the rest of the verse. He came not to abolish but fulfill. The law is fulfilled, and no longer applies. Read that chapter I cited.
So Boerd said
Come off it. Your Pope, Richard Dawkins already admitted they all were. Ample evidence has been provided that actually disproves your falsifiable claims.
My pope, Richard Dawkins? Of all the atheists you can think of, Richard Dawkins is the one you would make my pope?
Man you know nothing about atheism or the people who subscribed to it, do you? A closer version of a "pope" I guess would probably be Carl Sagan, or Bertrand Russell. The Jesus would probably be Marcus Aurelius...
Vortex said
Then why do you have the OT in the bible if it does not apply to you? Geez if you really think that, go talk to a fundamentalist... Or a Mormon!And since you never gave us any substantial evidence in the first place, we won a long long time ago.
No, if you refuse to provide evidence, then you have no possible superior claim to government, meaning religion and state are just as tolerable as atheism and state which you demonstrate is equally ddogmatic, therefore, I won the original purpose of the thread
So Boerd said
Read the rest of the verse. He came not to abolish but fulfill. The law is fulfilled, and no longer applies. Read that chapter I cited.
"17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.…"
Until Heaven and Earth pass away. Until revelations occurs, the old laws remain in effect. Forever. That's the line in context. From your own bible. What more do I need to do, drag Jesus Christ himself down to tell you to your face?
OP
So Boerd said
Come off it. Your Pope, Richard Dawkins already admitted they all were. Ample evidence has been provided that actually disproves your falsifiable claims.
When was Dawkins crowned pope? I missed that... Oh wait we don't have popes that instruct us on social issues and tell us how to live our very lives.
Anyway I respect Dawkins, but why should I care that he admitted to something? Good on him. Maybe his holy papacy in Rome can admit to the mass genocides caused by religion.
So Boerd said
No, if you refuse to provide evidence, then you have no possible superior claim to government, meaning religion and state are just as tolerable as atheism and state which you demonstrate is equally ddogmatic, therefore, I won the original purpose of the thread
Except the entirety of human history disagrees with you from all across the planet.
until all is accomplished
He accomplished all by saving our souls. The law still exists, not one letter has been changed, anyway. We just don't follow it because His apostles said it isn't necessary.
Brovo said
Except the entirety of human history disagrees with you from all across the planet.
Now we're going in circles.
Dervish Let's get volatile
Member
Seen
1 mo ago
RIP Respectful debate.
Are you guys really doing anything other than throwing thinly veiled insults at each other?
I also enjoyed how the new guy in the thread with some good points was throughly ignored in favour of the bicker battle going on.
Also, Vortex, it seems you have an irrational loathing of Mormons, given that response and how condescending you were in the thread that one member made about his religion. You know that a lot of people on this site are Mormon and act in no way different from anybody else, right? Some of my best friends I made on this site are Mormon. Try getting to know one, you just might learn that they're really no different than any of your other religious friends.
Are you guys really doing anything other than throwing thinly veiled insults at each other?
I also enjoyed how the new guy in the thread with some good points was throughly ignored in favour of the bicker battle going on.
Also, Vortex, it seems you have an irrational loathing of Mormons, given that response and how condescending you were in the thread that one member made about his religion. You know that a lot of people on this site are Mormon and act in no way different from anybody else, right? Some of my best friends I made on this site are Mormon. Try getting to know one, you just might learn that they're really no different than any of your other religious friends.
Dervish said RIP Respectful debate.Are you guys really doing anything other than throwing thinly veiled insults at each other?
No, is anyone still taking this debate seriously? I'm doing this to kill time while I wait for the grocery store to open.
Dervish said I also enjoyed how the new guy in the thread with some good points was throughly ignored in favour of the bicker battle going on.Also, Vortex, it seems you have an irrational loathing of Mormons, given that response and how condescending you were in the thread that one member made about his religion. You know that a lot of people on this site are Mormon and act in no way different from anybody else, right? Some of my best friends I made on this site are Mormon. Try getting to know one, you just might learn that they're really no different than any of your other religious friends.
Wait, wait, the person you're going to single out more than anyone else... Is Vortex? Not the Not Boerd guy or ActRaiser's deranged rambling about how Obama is this evil baby eating monster or even me, taking potshots at them for the last like what, week? Two weeks? You're going to pick out... Vortex?
... Okay. That's real strange, but okay.
OP
Hey hold on there mate! I did not mean any disrespect towards Mormons or their faith. All I meant by it was that a Mormon or a fundamentalist Christian would most likely disagree with So Boerd that the Old Testament does not apply to modern day Christians. And yes I realise there are a surprising amount of Mormons in this site and I have come to enjoy the company of a few of them.
Also in that one thread about that certain members faith, I really did mean no disrespect by whatever I happened to say, all I was intending to ask was about that members faith because I know next to nothing when it comes to Mormonism.
No, it's a fair call. I understand there was a lot of room for misinterpatation.
Also in that one thread about that certain members faith, I really did mean no disrespect by whatever I happened to say, all I was intending to ask was about that members faith because I know next to nothing when it comes to Mormonism.
Brovo said
. Wait, , the person you're going to single out more than anyone else... Is ? Not the Not Boerd guy or ActRaiser's deranged rambling about how Obama is this evil baby eating monster or even me, taking potshots at them for the last like what, week? Two weeks? You're going to pick out... Vortex?... Okay. That's real strange, but okay.
No, it's a fair call. I understand there was a lot of room for misinterpatation.
© 2007-2024