Atheist answer to the 10 Commandments: 10 rational positions

[sealybobo]

"God is not necessary to be a good person, or to live a full and meaningful life."

Very true.

Theists have no ‘monopoly’ on morality, virtue, or values.

Indeed, those free from faith often live a more moral, values-filled life than most theists.

Frankly, it is moronic to think that man is capable of policing his own behavior. History proves otherwise.

There are only two alternatives: God or government, and given the vagaries of government (it is, after all, run by man), God would appear to be the only choice.

You, like all theists, seem to be confusing social legal contracts with personal moral codes. Government has nothing to do with individuals following their personal moral codes; rather they are institutions created to enforce, and administrate the social legal construct. I'm curious what your "historical evidence" is that Man is incapable of "policing himself".

Yeah, right ... you conveniently parse the onion so that you don't have to deal with the center.

Where do you suppose the "personal moral code" comes from? What do you suppose was the basis of the Declaration of Independence? What is the correlation between the Constitution and the Bible?

Evidence? Let me see ....

Attilla the Hun defied all moral constructs ... Stalin did, too. Hitler violated a moral code ... Pot Pol did, too. The list is endless.

As a matter of fact, this morning on the way to work, YOU violated your supposed "personal moral code". You exceeded the speed limit, or failed to come to a complete stop ... near as I can calculate, you violated your own "suggestions" 7 & 8. The list is endless .... you took a pen home provided by your company ... stole it. Is that your personal moral code? It's okay to steal as long as it doesn't exceed $1.59????

You apply your "personal moral code" when it's convenient ... kinda makes you sound like a sinner, huh?

Ok I went too fast and broke other rules. You guys break rules all the time and your religion forgives all sins as long as you are a believer

 

[hobelim]

"God is not necessary to be a good person, or to live a full and meaningful life."

Very true.

Theists have no ‘monopoly’ on morality, virtue, or values.

Indeed, those free from faith often live a more moral, values-filled life than most theists.

Frankly, it is moronic to think that man is capable of policing his own behavior. History proves otherwise.

There are only two alternatives: God or government, and given the vagaries of government (it is, after all, run by man), God would appear to be the only choice.

You, like all theists, seem to be confusing social legal contracts with personal moral codes. Government has nothing to do with individuals following their personal moral codes; rather they are institutions created to enforce, and administrate the social legal construct. I'm curious what your "historical evidence" is that Man is incapable of "policing himself".

Yeah, right ... you conveniently parse the onion so that you don't have to deal with the center.

Where do you suppose the "personal moral code" comes from? What do you suppose was the basis of the Declaration of Independence? What is the correlation between the Constitution and the Bible?

Evidence? Let me see ....

Attilla the Hun defied all moral constructs ... Stalin did, too. Hitler violated a moral code ... Pot Pol did, too. The list is endless.

As a matter of fact, this morning on the way to work, YOU violated your supposed "personal moral code". You exceeded the speed limit, or failed to come to a complete stop ... near as I can calculate, you violated your own "suggestions" 7 & 8. The list is endless .... you took a pen home provided by your company ... stole it. Is that your personal moral code? It's okay to steal as long as it doesn't exceed $1.59????

You apply your "personal moral code" when it's convenient ... kinda makes you sound like a sinner, huh?

Ok I went too fast and broke other rules. You guys break rules all the time and your religion forgives all sins as long as you are a believer

There is a difference between breaking civil laws and divine law, a difference between being a criminal and a sinner.

A sinner is a person who is breaking divine law. It is possible that a degenerate sinner can be a law abiding citizen just like it is possible for a criminal, like Jesus, to be without sin.

For instance it is perfectly legal to lie in the name of God, perfectly legal to teach others to worship a flying spaghetti monster or an edible mangod, whatever, and screw up peoples minds for life according to secular law but the same exact behavior amounts to murder according to the divine commands.

According to scripture it is the will of God that people learn to discriminate between teaching, beliefs, and practices whether clean or unclean, true or false, good or evil so that they can learn to choose good and reject evil leading to peace and prosperity. According to secular law, obedience to the law of God is criminal.



Equating speeding with sin is confusing the state with God.

 

[sealybobo]

"God is not necessary to be a good person, or to live a full and meaningful life."

Very true.

Theists have no ‘monopoly’ on morality, virtue, or values.

Indeed, those free from faith often live a more moral, values-filled life than most theists.

Frankly, it is moronic to think that man is capable of policing his own behavior. History proves otherwise.

There are only two alternatives: God or government, and given the vagaries of government (it is, after all, run by man), God would appear to be the only choice.

You, like all theists, seem to be confusing social legal contracts with personal moral codes. Government has nothing to do with individuals following their personal moral codes; rather they are institutions created to enforce, and administrate the social legal construct. I'm curious what your "historical evidence" is that Man is incapable of "policing himself".

Yeah, right ... you conveniently parse the onion so that you don't have to deal with the center.

Where do you suppose the "personal moral code" comes from? What do you suppose was the basis of the Declaration of Independence? What is the correlation between the Constitution and the Bible?

Evidence? Let me see ....

Attilla the Hun defied all moral constructs ... Stalin did, too. Hitler violated a moral code ... Pot Pol did, too. The list is endless.

As a matter of fact, this morning on the way to work, YOU violated your supposed "personal moral code". You exceeded the speed limit, or failed to come to a complete stop ... near as I can calculate, you violated your own "suggestions" 7 & 8. The list is endless .... you took a pen home provided by your company ... stole it. Is that your personal moral code? It's okay to steal as long as it doesn't exceed $1.59????

You apply your "personal moral code" when it's convenient ... kinda makes you sound like a sinner, huh?

Ok I went too fast and broke other rules. You guys break rules all the time and your religion forgives all sins as long as you are a believer

There is a difference between breaking civil laws and divine law, a difference between being a criminal and a sinner.

A sinner is a person who is breaking divine law. It is possible that a degenerate sinner can be a law abiding citizen just like it is possible for a criminal, like Jesus, to be without sin.

For instance it is perfectly legal to lie in the name of God, perfectly legal to teach others to worship a flying spaghetti monster or an edible mangod, whatever, and screw up peoples minds for life according to secular law but the same exact behavior amounts to murder according to the divine commands.

According to scripture it is the will of God that people learn to discriminate between teaching, beliefs, and practices whether clean or unclean, true or false, good or evil so that they can learn to choose good and reject evil leading to peace and prosperity. According to secular law, obedience to the law of God is criminal.



Equating speeding with sin is confusing the state with God.

According to secular law obedience to the law of god is criminal?

According to scripture everything is the will of god.

 

[hobelim]

Frankly, it is moronic to think that man is capable of policing his own behavior. History proves otherwise.

There are only two alternatives: God or government, and given the vagaries of government (it is, after all, run by man), God would appear to be the only choice.

You, like all theists, seem to be confusing social legal contracts with personal moral codes. Government has nothing to do with individuals following their personal moral codes; rather they are institutions created to enforce, and administrate the social legal construct. I'm curious what your "historical evidence" is that Man is incapable of "policing himself".

Yeah, right ... you conveniently parse the onion so that you don't have to deal with the center.

Where do you suppose the "personal moral code" comes from? What do you suppose was the basis of the Declaration of Independence? What is the correlation between the Constitution and the Bible?

Evidence? Let me see ....

Attilla the Hun defied all moral constructs ... Stalin did, too. Hitler violated a moral code ... Pot Pol did, too. The list is endless.

As a matter of fact, this morning on the way to work, YOU violated your supposed "personal moral code". You exceeded the speed limit, or failed to come to a complete stop ... near as I can calculate, you violated your own "suggestions" 7 & 8. The list is endless .... you took a pen home provided by your company ... stole it. Is that your personal moral code? It's okay to steal as long as it doesn't exceed $1.59????

You apply your "personal moral code" when it's convenient ... kinda makes you sound like a sinner, huh?

Ok I went too fast and broke other rules. You guys break rules all the time and your religion forgives all sins as long as you are a believer

There is a difference between breaking civil laws and divine law, a difference between being a criminal and a sinner.

A sinner is a person who is breaking divine law. It is possible that a degenerate sinner can be a law abiding citizen just like it is possible for a criminal, like Jesus, to be without sin.

For instance it is perfectly legal to lie in the name of God, perfectly legal to teach others to worship a flying spaghetti monster or an edible mangod, whatever, and screw up peoples minds for life according to secular law but the same exact behavior amounts to murder according to the divine commands.

According to scripture it is the will of God that people learn to discriminate between teaching, beliefs, and practices whether clean or unclean, true or false, good or evil so that they can learn to choose good and reject evil leading to peace and prosperity. According to secular law, obedience to the law of God is criminal.



Equating speeding with sin is confusing the state with God.

According to secular law obedience to the law of god is criminal?

According to scripture everything is the will of god.

Everything is the will of God?

No. People exist in a world that struggles between good and evil and were given the opportunity to choose between the two.

Even though people do, choosing evil is not the will of God.

Remember?


Choose life and live.

 

[hobelim]

According to secular law obedience to the law of god is criminal?

yes. at least now it is...

We live in a place where the rights of people to practice deception and perpetuate evil under the veil of any false religion is protected by law.

The will of God calls for the condemnation of ritualistic religious trickery and the despicable people who support it..


Try to interfere with peoples right to the free exercise of religious deception and you could go to jail. Speak against it and you could be charged with some bullshit crime. Even if child abuse is openly practiced..



If the people conformed to the will of God no one would go to church and every patriotic God fearing American in government would be on the unemployment line..

 

[Boss]

1. Be open minded and willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not believe what you want to be true.
3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
4. Every person has the right to control their own body.
5. God is not necessary to be a good person, or to live a full and meaningful life.
6. Be mindful of the consequences of all of your actions and recognise that you must take responsibility for them.
7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect they want to be treated.
8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations - which is not to be confused with unborn non-viable fetuses.
9. There is no right way to live.
10. Leave the world a better place than you found it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are rational positions by which to live one's life; unlike certain "commandments" of an irrational mythology one might mention.

Your list is a bunch of convoluted and contradicting poppycock. You toss out a bunch of meaningless platitudes and conjectures couched in self-aggrandizing opinions which you've not supported in any meaningful way.

1. Be open minded and willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
You're not the least bit open minded. In fact, you're very narrow minded. You refuse to accept evidence that doesn't support your narratives. You won't even acknowledge spiritual evidence, even when it is the foundation for your own premises.

2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not believe what you want to be true.
Again, you do not adhere to this whatsoever. You reject anything that conflicts with what you want to be true and you ridicule those who challenge your beliefs without a second thought.

3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
It's a reliable way to evaluate the physical world. To understand the natural world, you must also understand spiritual nature and the inadequacies of science to evaluate it.

4. Every person has the right to control their own body.
No they don't. You can't use your body to harm others. You don't have the right to use your body to destroy humanity or exploit resources you're not entitled to. Even though it's my own body, I can't get drunk and go driving down the road at 100 mph.

5. God is not necessary to be a good person, or to live a full and meaningful life.
This is your unfounded and unsupportable opinion. One that you refuse to apply #1-#3 to. Without the accountability of a God, you cannot define what is a "good person" in anything other than a subjective personal abstract. If you have rejected your own human spirit, you have deprived yourself of most of what delivers a meaningful and full life.

6. Be mindful of the consequences of all of your actions and recognise that you must take responsibility for them.
Or WHAT? What if you DON'T take responsibility? What if you ignore consequences? Who holds you accountable for your actions?

7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect they want to be treated.
This one is great but it's totally rooted in our human spirituality and is a highly spiritual concept. There is no evidence of this in the wild animal kingdom. This is purely a human attribute which emerges as a result of our connection to spirit and comprehension of a power greater than self.

8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations - which is not to be confused with unborn non-viable fetuses.
Unborn, non-viable fetuses are human beings in a state of development. Here is where you totally depart from rules 1-7 so that you may invoke your own moral relativism. It illustrates the whole entire problem with your belief system.

9. There is no right way to live.
Then what exactly was your point in all of this?

10. Leave the world a better place than you found it.
Or WHAT? ...Again, this is a nice thought but what holds you accountable? After you're gone, who gives a shit whether you did this or not? And do you think you've left the world a better place by tearing down human spirituality and spirit-based morality?

 

[Czernobog]

1. Be open minded and willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not believe what you want to be true.
3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
4. Every person has the right to control their own body.
5. God is not necessary to be a good person, or to live a full and meaningful life.
6. Be mindful of the consequences of all of your actions and recognise that you must take responsibility for them.
7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect they want to be treated.
8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations - which is not to be confused with unborn non-viable fetuses.
9. There is no right way to live.
10. Leave the world a better place than you found it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are rational positions by which to live one's life; unlike certain "commandments" of an irrational mythology one might mention.

Your list is a bunch of convoluted and contradicting poppycock. You toss out a bunch of meaningless platitudes and conjectures couched in self-aggrandizing opinions which you've not supported in any meaningful way.

1. Be open minded and willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
You're not the least bit open minded. In fact, you're very narrow minded. You refuse to accept evidence that doesn't support your narratives. You won't even acknowledge spiritual evidence, even when it is the foundation for your own premises.

The personal attack on me aside, your response suggests that there is "spiritual evidence" that is objective, and verifiable. I have yet to see any presented.

2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not believe what you want to be true.
Again, you do not adhere to this whatsoever. You reject anything that conflicts with what you want to be true and you ridicule those who challenge your beliefs without a second thought

I will ignore this response, as it is not an attempt to dispute the position, but is merely an attack on my character, questioning my adherence to this position.

3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
It's a reliable way to evaluate the physical world. To understand the natural world, you must also understand spiritual nature and the inadequacies of science to evaluate it.

Again, you present an argument against science by insisting that there is some mythical "spiritual realm" that exists for which there is no objective evidence. As related to my first point, "keeping an open mind" does not mean one entertains any notion, regardless of lack of evidence. That is not open-mindedness; it is gullibility. There is a difference.The natural world is the physical world. To attempt to impose some non-physical existence onto the physical world for which there is no evidence, is simply not rational. Now, many will point to things like "love" for which they claim there is no "physical evidence", but is purely "spiritual" in nature. However, Love, like any emotion is based in biochemistry, and can be evidenced in the physical world.

4. Every person has the right to control their own body.
No they don't. You can't use your body to harm others. You don't have the right to use your body to destroy humanity or exploit resources you're not entitled to. Even though it's my own body, I can't get drunk and go driving down the road at 100 mph.

You are attempting to extend this position to a point that is not rationally supported. If you have the right to control your own body, reason dictates that everyone has that right. The obvious implication is that you do not have the right to deprive that right from anyone else. Hence, this position, in no way, implies that you have the right to murder, or any other action that deprives another the right to control their own bodies. You are 100% incorrect in your last statement. You absolutely do have the moral prerogative to get as drunk as you would like, and to drive your vehicle as fast as you would like. There is absolutely no moral imperative that prevents either of these behaviours. However you choose to live in a society which has agreed upon a set of legal restrictions on the behaviour of its citizens, such as drinking, and driving, and speeding. Like so many of your theist dominionists before you, you attempt to conflate morality with legality. They're not the same thing.

5. God is not necessary to be a good person, or to live a full and meaningful life.
This is your unfounded and unsupportable opinion. One that you refuse to apply #1-#3 to. Without the accountability of a God, you cannot define what is a "good person" in anything other than a subjective personal abstract. If you have rejected your own human spirit, you have deprived yourself of most of what delivers a meaningful and full life.

I have rejected nothing. "One that you refuse to apply #1-#3 to. Without the accountability of a God, you cannot define what is a "good person" in anything other than a subjective personal abstract.," is the unsupported claim.

6. Be mindful of the consequences of all of your actions and recognise that you must take responsibility for them.
Or WHAT? What if you DON'T take responsibility? What if you ignore consequences? Who holds you accountable for your actions?

Or live a life constantly being surprised, and disappointed by the negative consequences of your unexamined life. One would think the "Or what" would be obvious. But, this is, of course, the shortcoming of theists - particularly Christians. They do not think they need to consider the consequences of their actions, because "God is on their side", and when they behave badly they have "the Devil" to blame for their "temptation". so, they are constantly surprised when their actions have unforeseen consequences, making their lives difficult, and unpleasant.

7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect they want to be treated.
This one is great but it's totally rooted in our human spirituality and is a highly spiritual concept. There is no evidence of this in the wild animal kingdom. This is purely a human attribute which emerges as a result of our connection to spirit and comprehension of a power greater than self.

No it's not. It's grounded in rational self-examination. It is built on the simple, reasonable position that everyone - barring some sort of mental defect - all share the same, or at least a similar, sense of self-preservation. That's not spirituality, it is nature. I like having both of my eyes. I find them useful, so I would really prefer that no on poke out one of my eyes. It doesn't take a very sophisticated "spiritual" reasoning to presume that, if I feel this way, most other people do too. So, if I don't want anyone poking my eye out, it would probably be a bad idea to do that to someone else. This, along with number 6, incidentally, answers your quandary over how to determine a "good person" without deity. It is by applying these two principles that one is able to measure the "goodness", or lack thereof, of people. No God necessary.

See, this is where your choosing to attempt to believe in some spiritual realm for which you cannot provide any objective evidence, requires you to make things much more complicated than they need to be, in order to justify your belief in the "spiritual".

8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations - which is not to be confused with unborn non-viable fetuses.
Unborn, non-viable fetuses are human beings in a state of development. Here is where you totally depart from rules 1-7 so that you may invoke your own moral relativism. It illustrates the whole entire problem with your belief system.

Moral relativism is my position. The whole point of positions 1 through 7 is that morality is relative, and personal. Moral relativism is the only rational position. Absolutism demands a system for which there can be no exceptions, and therefore sets people up to be put into situations in which they are doomed to fail their own moral code. Morality must never be simple black, and white, because there is a universe of grey that exists in the interactions of humanity.

9. There is no right way to live.
Then what exactly was your point in all of this?

Something you will never understand, as you have allowed your life to be guided by the black, and white blinders of theistic absolutism.

10. Leave the world a better place than you found it.
Or WHAT? ...Again, this is a nice thought but what holds you accountable? After you're gone, who gives a shit whether you did this or not? And do you think you've left the world a better place by tearing down human spirituality and spirit-based morality?

Again, you confuse a social system of laws, which requires reward, and punishment in order to maintain, with a personal moral code, which one attempts to adhere to for no other reason than, in his mind, it is the right way to live. If one is myopic, and only interested in one's personal comfort, and enjoyment, then I suppose you may well be correct, and this position is unnecessary. In my, possibly flawed. reasoning, however, because I know that I only have this life, and nothing of me, beyond my progeny, will continue after my death, all I have of myself to continue beyond my death is my legacy. As such, I prefer to leave a positive mark on the world (leaving the world better than I found it) so that my legacy will be a positive one, rather than a negative one.

Incidentally, while I don't agree with most of your arguments, I will thank you, Boss, for, unlike many of your compatriots, at least giving me the respect of discussing the content of my post, rather than simply dismissively presuming that there is nothing to discuss.

 

[BreezeWood]

There is no evidence of this in the wild animal kingdom. This is purely a human attribute which emerges as a result of our connection to spirit and comprehension of a power greater than self ... Unborn, non-viable fetuses are human beings in a state of development. Here is where you totally depart from rules 1-7 so that you may invoke your own moral relativism. It illustrates the whole entire problem with your belief system.

.

This is purely a human attribute ...


only the insane will destroy Garden Earth for the sake of their own kind and at the expense of the natural habitat of all other living beings as a matter of their own ill conceived self interests.

the Triumph otherwise sought by religiously ordained providence not withstanding.

 

[GHook93]

1. Be open minded and willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not believe what you want to be true.
3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
4. Every person has the right to control their own body.
5. God is not necessary to be a good person, or to live a full and meaningful life.
6. Be mindful of the consequences of all of your actions and recognise that you must take responsibility for them.
7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect they want to be treated.
8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations - which is not to be confused with unborn non-viable fetuses.
9. There is no right way to live.
10. Leave the world a better place than you found it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are rational positions by which to live one's life; unlike certain "commandments" of an irrational mythology one might mention.

Interesting 2 commandments (20%) are specifically about protecting abortion.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[rightwinger]

1. Be open minded and willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not believe what you want to be true.
3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
4. Every person has the right to control their own body.
5. God is not necessary to be a good person, or to live a full and meaningful life.
6. Be mindful of the consequences of all of your actions and recognise that you must take responsibility for them.
7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect they want to be treated.
8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations - which is not to be confused with unborn non-viable fetuses.
9. There is no right way to live.
10. Leave the world a better place than you found it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are rational positions by which to live one's life; unlike certain "commandments" of an irrational mythology one might mention.

Interesting 2 commandments (20%) are specifically about protecting abortion.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

God never had any reservations about killing babies

 

[Boss]

The personal attack on me aside, your response suggests that there is "spiritual evidence" that is objective, and verifiable. I have yet to see any presented.

It is objective and verifiable IF you accept spiritual evidence.... you don't.

Scientific studies, time and time again, have proven that people with strong spiritual foundations are far less likely to suffer depression, drug addiction, suicides, gambling or drinking problems and generally enjoy better overall health. (less heart attacks, etc.)

So we can objectively conclude, based on the scientific evidence, humans gain tremendous benefit from being spiritually connected. In addition, people have actually overcome terminal illnesses through prayer and strong spiritual faith. One of the most intriguing new methods of medical treatment for the terminally ill is spiritual therapy.

You want to address the Anthropic Principle? How about the paradoxical argument that it's impossible for physical nature, matter and energy to have created itself? You see, when you open your mind to possibilities outside of the familiar physical nature you know, then there is spiritual evidence. You just refuse to accept it because it doesn't fit your narrative or jive with the preconceived beliefs you have.

Or live a life constantly being surprised, and disappointed by the negative consequences of your unexamined life.

Why would you give a solitary shit if it doesn't effect you personally? You're not explaining that. If nothing holds you accountable for your actions, who gives a flying fuck?

Moral relativism is my position.

I know, and therein lies your problem. "Morality" simply becomes whatever you happen to define it as at any given point in time. You can manipulate it and alter it as you please in order to justify whatever makes you happy in the moment. In other words, it becomes meaningless and pointless.

 

[Spare_change]

"God is not necessary to be a good person, or to live a full and meaningful life."

Very true.

Theists have no ‘monopoly’ on morality, virtue, or values.

Indeed, those free from faith often live a more moral, values-filled life than most theists.

Frankly, it is moronic to think that man is capable of policing his own behavior. History proves otherwise.

There are only two alternatives: God or government, and given the vagaries of government (it is, after all, run by man), God would appear to be the only choice.

You, like all theists, seem to be confusing social legal contracts with personal moral codes. Government has nothing to do with individuals following their personal moral codes; rather they are institutions created to enforce, and administrate the social legal construct. I'm curious what your "historical evidence" is that Man is incapable of "policing himself".

Yeah, right ... you conveniently parse the onion so that you don't have to deal with the center.

Where do you suppose the "personal moral code" comes from? What do you suppose was the basis of the Declaration of Independence? What is the correlation between the Constitution and the Bible?

Yeah, you dominionists are always trying to tie the Constitution to the Bible. Actually the Constitution has more in common with the Iroquois, than it does the bible. In fact, in 1988 Congress officially recognised the Iroquois Conference contribution to the framing of the Constitution, When, exactly did Congress officially recognise the Biblical contribution to the framing of the Constitution? Oh. That's right. Never. Because it never happened, except in the fevered imagination of the dominionists.

Evidence? Let me see ....

Attilla the Hun defied all moral constructs ... Stalin did, too. Hitler violated a moral code ... Pot Pol did, too. The list is endless.

Actually the list isn't endless. And following God caused men to behave so much better: Torquemada, Charlemagne, pope Pius V and the slaughter of 20,000 hugonauts. The list is endless. Looks like devoting one's self to go is not more guaranteed to make a man moral, and ethical than not.

As a matter of fact, this morning on the way to work, YOU violated your supposed "personal moral code". You exceeded the speed limit, or failed to come to a complete stop ... near as I can calculate, you violated your own "suggestions" 7 & 8. The list is endless .... you took a pen home provided by your company ... stole it. Is that your personal moral code? It's okay to steal as long as it doesn't exceed $1.59????

You apply your "personal moral code" when it's convenient ... kinda makes you sound like a sinner, huh?

Wow. Guess I really hit a nerve. Else why make it so personal. And you were wrong on all counts. I don't drive a car, and I have never stolen a pen. What moron does that? Any other ridiculous presumptions about me you'd like to make? More personal attacks? Now, of course your going to act all indignant, and insist that you didn't attack me.

Sorry, your Constitutional history is seriously lacking.

Unquestionably, the Iriquois Confederacy played a role in defining the roles of the different segments of the government, but the Bible, via the Declaration of Independence, established both the structure and the ethos of the Constitution.

Nice try - but no cigar.

Now - as for your supposed "personal moral code" - would it make you feel better if I said that "Johnny" stole a pen? Your reaction is ridiculous - obviously, I can't know that you stole a pen, but I can use you as a literary example. Of course, I didn't attack you personally, and you know it.

I notice, though, that you intentionally avoided the crux of the argument and tried to deflect with your whining about your personally. Your "personal moral code", just like every other person's, is flexible and elastic. It applies when you want it to apply, and it is ignored when you want to ignore it.

It's a bitch being a sinner, and trying to pretend you aren't, isn't it?

 

[Spare_change]

"God is not necessary to be a good person, or to live a full and meaningful life."

Very true.

Theists have no ‘monopoly’ on morality, virtue, or values.

Indeed, those free from faith often live a more moral, values-filled life than most theists.

Frankly, it is moronic to think that man is capable of policing his own behavior. History proves otherwise.

There are only two alternatives: God or government, and given the vagaries of government (it is, after all, run by man), God would appear to be the only choice.

You, like all theists, seem to be confusing social legal contracts with personal moral codes. Government has nothing to do with individuals following their personal moral codes; rather they are institutions created to enforce, and administrate the social legal construct. I'm curious what your "historical evidence" is that Man is incapable of "policing himself".

Yeah, right ... you conveniently parse the onion so that you don't have to deal with the center.

Where do you suppose the "personal moral code" comes from? What do you suppose was the basis of the Declaration of Independence? What is the correlation between the Constitution and the Bible?

Evidence? Let me see ....

Attilla the Hun defied all moral constructs ... Stalin did, too. Hitler violated a moral code ... Pot Pol did, too. The list is endless.

As a matter of fact, this morning on the way to work, YOU violated your supposed "personal moral code". You exceeded the speed limit, or failed to come to a complete stop ... near as I can calculate, you violated your own "suggestions" 7 & 8. The list is endless .... you took a pen home provided by your company ... stole it. Is that your personal moral code? It's okay to steal as long as it doesn't exceed $1.59????

You apply your "personal moral code" when it's convenient ... kinda makes you sound like a sinner, huh?

Ok I went too fast and broke other rules. You guys break rules all the time and your religion forgives all sins as long as you are a believer

Once again, your ignorance just boils to the top. You have no functional understanding of the relationship between God and a believer. You are clearly incapable of intelligent comment about that relationship.

 

[Spare_change]

"Again, you confuse a social system of laws, which requires reward, and punishment in order to maintain, with a personal moral code, which one attempts to adhere to for no other reason than, in his mind, it is the right way to live. "

Equivocating nonsense. You recognize that your argument won't stand up to scrutiny when applied to the societal moral code, so you create this strawman.

The "social system of laws" is based in morality and ethics, period. To try to divorce it is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Czernobog]

"God is not necessary to be a good person, or to live a full and meaningful life."

Very true.

Theists have no ‘monopoly’ on morality, virtue, or values.

Indeed, those free from faith often live a more moral, values-filled life than most theists.

Frankly, it is moronic to think that man is capable of policing his own behavior. History proves otherwise.

There are only two alternatives: God or government, and given the vagaries of government (it is, after all, run by man), God would appear to be the only choice.

You, like all theists, seem to be confusing social legal contracts with personal moral codes. Government has nothing to do with individuals following their personal moral codes; rather they are institutions created to enforce, and administrate the social legal construct. I'm curious what your "historical evidence" is that Man is incapable of "policing himself".

Yeah, right ... you conveniently parse the onion so that you don't have to deal with the center.

Where do you suppose the "personal moral code" comes from? What do you suppose was the basis of the Declaration of Independence? What is the correlation between the Constitution and the Bible?

Yeah, you dominionists are always trying to tie the Constitution to the Bible. Actually the Constitution has more in common with the Iroquois, than it does the bible. In fact, in 1988 Congress officially recognised the Iroquois Conference contribution to the framing of the Constitution, When, exactly did Congress officially recognise the Biblical contribution to the framing of the Constitution? Oh. That's right. Never. Because it never happened, except in the fevered imagination of the dominionists.

Evidence? Let me see ....

Attilla the Hun defied all moral constructs ... Stalin did, too. Hitler violated a moral code ... Pot Pol did, too. The list is endless.

Actually the list isn't endless. And following God caused men to behave so much better: Torquemada, Charlemagne, pope Pius V and the slaughter of 20,000 hugonauts. The list is endless. Looks like devoting one's self to go is not more guaranteed to make a man moral, and ethical than not.

As a matter of fact, this morning on the way to work, YOU violated your supposed "personal moral code". You exceeded the speed limit, or failed to come to a complete stop ... near as I can calculate, you violated your own "suggestions" 7 & 8. The list is endless .... you took a pen home provided by your company ... stole it. Is that your personal moral code? It's okay to steal as long as it doesn't exceed $1.59????

You apply your "personal moral code" when it's convenient ... kinda makes you sound like a sinner, huh?

Wow. Guess I really hit a nerve. Else why make it so personal. And you were wrong on all counts. I don't drive a car, and I have never stolen a pen. What moron does that? Any other ridiculous presumptions about me you'd like to make? More personal attacks? Now, of course your going to act all indignant, and insist that you didn't attack me.

Sorry, your Constitutional history is seriously lacking.

Unquestionably, the Iriquois Confederacy played a role in defining the roles of the different segments of the government, but the Bible, via the Declaration of Independence, established both the structure and the ethos of the Constitution.

Nice try - but no cigar.

Now - as for your supposed "personal moral code" - would it make you feel better if I said that "Johnny" stole a pen? Your reaction is ridiculous - obviously, I can't know that you stole a pen, but I can use you as a literary example. Of course, I didn't attack you personally, and you know it.

I notice, though, that you intentionally avoided the crux of the argument and tried to deflect with your whining about your personally. Your "personal moral code", just like every other person's, is flexible and elastic. It applies when you want it to apply, and it is ignored when you want to ignore it.

It's a bitch being a sinner, and trying to pretend you aren't, isn't it?

I don't have to "pretend" anything. "Sin" is a uniquely theist "disease" created in order to justify the need to have your deity "save" you from something, thus necessitating the need for your deity. Fortunately, I don't have any "sin" that is going to condemn me to any non-existent Hell, or other place of banishment, so I have no need of deity.

By, hey. You enjoy your self-imposed slavery to your non-existent god.

 

[Czernobog]

"Again, you confuse a social system of laws, which requires reward, and punishment in order to maintain, with a personal moral code, which one attempts to adhere to for no other reason than, in his mind, it is the right way to live. "

Equivocating nonsense. You recognize that your argument won't stand up to scrutiny when applied to the societal moral code, so you create this strawman.

The "social system of laws" is based in morality and ethics, period. To try to divorce it is intellectually dishonest.

There is no such thing as a "societal moral code". The code of law is not a moral standard. Want proof? According to our societal legal standard, abortion is legal. Do you now, since it is a part of our "social moral code", concede that abortion is moral? By your definition, our "societal moral code" has deemed it such.

 

[sealybobo]

"God is not necessary to be a good person, or to live a full and meaningful life."

Very true.

Theists have no ‘monopoly’ on morality, virtue, or values.

Indeed, those free from faith often live a more moral, values-filled life than most theists.

Frankly, it is moronic to think that man is capable of policing his own behavior. History proves otherwise.

There are only two alternatives: God or government, and given the vagaries of government (it is, after all, run by man), God would appear to be the only choice.

You, like all theists, seem to be confusing social legal contracts with personal moral codes. Government has nothing to do with individuals following their personal moral codes; rather they are institutions created to enforce, and administrate the social legal construct. I'm curious what your "historical evidence" is that Man is incapable of "policing himself".

Yeah, right ... you conveniently parse the onion so that you don't have to deal with the center.

Where do you suppose the "personal moral code" comes from? What do you suppose was the basis of the Declaration of Independence? What is the correlation between the Constitution and the Bible?

Evidence? Let me see ....

Attilla the Hun defied all moral constructs ... Stalin did, too. Hitler violated a moral code ... Pot Pol did, too. The list is endless.

As a matter of fact, this morning on the way to work, YOU violated your supposed "personal moral code". You exceeded the speed limit, or failed to come to a complete stop ... near as I can calculate, you violated your own "suggestions" 7 & 8. The list is endless .... you took a pen home provided by your company ... stole it. Is that your personal moral code? It's okay to steal as long as it doesn't exceed $1.59????

You apply your "personal moral code" when it's convenient ... kinda makes you sound like a sinner, huh?

Ok I went too fast and broke other rules. You guys break rules all the time and your religion forgives all sins as long as you are a believer

Once again, your ignorance just boils to the top. You have no functional understanding of the relationship between God and a believer. You are clearly incapable of intelligent comment about that relationship.

Funny because I myself used to believe I had a personal relationship with the lord. Then I realized he doesn’t exist. It was hard to give up even. I would find myself talking to it even though I knew there’s no god there. That’s what brainwashing and wishful thinking can do

 

[hobelim]

Frankly, it is moronic to think that man is capable of policing his own behavior. History proves otherwise.

There are only two alternatives: God or government, and given the vagaries of government (it is, after all, run by man), God would appear to be the only choice.

You, like all theists, seem to be confusing social legal contracts with personal moral codes. Government has nothing to do with individuals following their personal moral codes; rather they are institutions created to enforce, and administrate the social legal construct. I'm curious what your "historical evidence" is that Man is incapable of "policing himself".

Yeah, right ... you conveniently parse the onion so that you don't have to deal with the center.

Where do you suppose the "personal moral code" comes from? What do you suppose was the basis of the Declaration of Independence? What is the correlation between the Constitution and the Bible?

Evidence? Let me see ....

Attilla the Hun defied all moral constructs ... Stalin did, too. Hitler violated a moral code ... Pot Pol did, too. The list is endless.

As a matter of fact, this morning on the way to work, YOU violated your supposed "personal moral code". You exceeded the speed limit, or failed to come to a complete stop ... near as I can calculate, you violated your own "suggestions" 7 & 8. The list is endless .... you took a pen home provided by your company ... stole it. Is that your personal moral code? It's okay to steal as long as it doesn't exceed $1.59????

You apply your "personal moral code" when it's convenient ... kinda makes you sound like a sinner, huh?

Ok I went too fast and broke other rules. You guys break rules all the time and your religion forgives all sins as long as you are a believer

Once again, your ignorance just boils to the top. You have no functional understanding of the relationship between God and a believer. You are clearly incapable of intelligent comment about that relationship.

Funny because I myself used to believe I had a personal relationship with the lord. Then I realized he doesn’t exist. It was hard to give up even. I would find myself talking to it even though I knew there’s no god there. That’s what brainwashing and wishful thinking can do

What Lord? A three in one edible mangod who diddled a virgin to become fully human without a human father??

Are you surprised you never got an answer? What took you so long to realize that you had been bamboozled?

If you wanted to talk to someone on the phone but kept dialing the wrong number is it any wonder why you never got an answer?


If you took the time to formulate an image of God on a more rational foundation, even if all you had was a more accurate image of Jesus as a first century Jewish man, you would have connected.

 

[sealybobo]

You, like all theists, seem to be confusing social legal contracts with personal moral codes. Government has nothing to do with individuals following their personal moral codes; rather they are institutions created to enforce, and administrate the social legal construct. I'm curious what your "historical evidence" is that Man is incapable of "policing himself".

Yeah, right ... you conveniently parse the onion so that you don't have to deal with the center.

Where do you suppose the "personal moral code" comes from? What do you suppose was the basis of the Declaration of Independence? What is the correlation between the Constitution and the Bible?

Evidence? Let me see ....

Attilla the Hun defied all moral constructs ... Stalin did, too. Hitler violated a moral code ... Pot Pol did, too. The list is endless.

As a matter of fact, this morning on the way to work, YOU violated your supposed "personal moral code". You exceeded the speed limit, or failed to come to a complete stop ... near as I can calculate, you violated your own "suggestions" 7 & 8. The list is endless .... you took a pen home provided by your company ... stole it. Is that your personal moral code? It's okay to steal as long as it doesn't exceed $1.59????

You apply your "personal moral code" when it's convenient ... kinda makes you sound like a sinner, huh?

Ok I went too fast and broke other rules. You guys break rules all the time and your religion forgives all sins as long as you are a believer

Once again, your ignorance just boils to the top. You have no functional understanding of the relationship between God and a believer. You are clearly incapable of intelligent comment about that relationship.

Funny because I myself used to believe I had a personal relationship with the lord. Then I realized he doesn’t exist. It was hard to give up even. I would find myself talking to it even though I knew there’s no god there. That’s what brainwashing and wishful thinking can do

What Lord? A three in one edible mangod who diddled a virgin to become fully human without a human father??

Are you surprised you never got an answer? What took you so long to realize that you had been bamboozled?

If you wanted to talk to someone on the phone but kept dialing the wrong number is it any wonder why you never got an answer?


If you took the time to formulate an image of God on a more rational foundation, even if all you had was a more accurate image of Jesus as a first century Jewish man, you would have connected.

I either don't understand or disagree when you said "If you took the time to formulate an image of God on a more rational foundation, even if all you had was a more accurate image of Jesus as a first century Jewish man, you would have connected."

What do you mean if I took the time to formulate an image of god on a more rational foundation I would have connected? What the fuck does that even mean? Is it a fact I would have connected? Or is it possible I could have tried what you are suggesting and not connected?

I love it when theists think we didn't do it right. We don't believe because somehow we are doing something wrong. Our hearts need to be purified first or cleansed for it to work.

But that's impossible if we are hearing a story that doesn't sound true to us. I can't put aside all the problems I have with a story and just open my heart and say fuck it I don't care if this doesn't make any sense I want there to be a heaven and since I don't know I'll err on the side of caution".

 

[hobelim]

What do you mean if I took the time to formulate an image of god on a more rational foundation I would have connected? What the fuck does that even mean? Is it a fact I would have connected? Or is it possible I could have tried what you are suggesting and not connected?

I love it when theists think we didn't do it right. We don't believe because somehow we are doing something wrong. Our hearts need to be purified first or cleansed for it to work.

You didn't get it wrong, you got it right.There is no such thing as a three in one god that became human being.

What I meant is that if you took the three minutes necessary to conclude that God never was and never will become a human being you might have directed your prayers to a being that actually fits the definition of God, the God that actually exists, insuring a reply.


Like I said, if you wanted to call someone and kept dialing the wrong number they couldn't answer even if they wanted to.

If you wanted to meet me in a busy public place and I told you that I would be standing by the water fountain wearing a white rose on my lapel but along the way you ran into someone who told you that I really wear a red rose on a cape and hang out by a statue, you would never find me, speak to me, or hear me speak to you, if you set aside what you already know to be the truth and put your faith in a lie....