Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[af_newbie]

first of all we can not blame whole community just because of few rotten apples. And i think some of them hate religion because they think different religion are the reason of this extremism and radicalization presence in the world, which is true at all. Some people who are not following religion properly are extremist because no religion of world preach extremism.

What does the Bible or Quran say you should do with the gay people?

Religious people are the victims.  The worldview presented in the scriptures is what is wrong with religions.

Not 'few rotten apples' as you put it.  People are born into their religions and become indoctrinated as children.
What happens after that depends on who they associate with.

Religions poison your mind.  All religions are equally evil.

The issue is not with 'few rotten apples', the issue is with 'rotten scriptures'.

Religious apologetics always try to shift the blame on people, away from the scriptures, but the fact is that the scriptures are the root cause of all the problems created by religions.  Not the people who were indoctrinated into the religions of their parents.

its the laws to live, if we live without rules we are savages. Holy religious books do not stops you from any beneficial thing or action it only stops you from what is wrong and harmful for humanity.

Is killing gays wrong or not, in your opinion?

no i think its right.

Where are your morals?  You don't think murdering people is wrong?  

What the fuck is wrong with you?  Are you mentally sick?

than why you people can not hear to religious beliefs where is your freedom of speech. Why the hell you people are blaming religions for all the mess

Are you brain damaged?

Religious laws tell people to murder people for no apparent reason. That is not freedom of speech.  That is hate speech.

Religious laws incite violence.

And what about the diseases spreading from this homosexuality thing can you justify that as well. What about AIDS, many people die every year due to this disease and you think homosexuality is right and i consider it as a murder of innocent people from this gay community. You are savages living lives without any clear rules and instructions just living it. What about rape, alcohol, child abuse, murder, terrorism and other many bad deeds from which religions stops human beings.

Religion does not stop those things.  If anything, it encourages it and/or supports it.

BTW, you can get HIV on your next visit to the dentist.  HIV is spread through the exchange of bodily fluids, you ignoramus.

You are a barbarian.  Do you think you stand on the higher moral ground with your 6th-century wisdom?

You are ignoring centuries of scientific and technological progress we have made as a human race.

You are locked in a time capsule.  

yes you are right hiv spreads from fluid or serum but you are not pointing out the root cause from where it started. And what you are saying that religions does not stops but encourages it, how can you even say that when you don’t even know about religions. And what you are talking about science and 21 century so religions made laws to live many centuries  ago and science is following it. I feel pity for your thinking.

Do you want the root cause? Here it is:

https://www.theaidsinstitute.org/education/aids-101/where-did-hiv-come-0

I hope you will not teach your ignorance to your children.  Hopefully, you will no children to teach your 6th-century wisdom.

ehteist just want to eliminate religion from world which will never happen

Wrong again.  We want to expose the stupid, barbaric ideas religions profess.  

Religions will eliminate themselves.

Bad ideas will be replaced with better ideas.  That is how progress is made in pretty much anything.

On equal political footing, religions would not stand a chance against secular, scientific thought.

than you should search for the origin of science where started from and scientists who were involved were not secular nor etheist.

The ones that were, were burned at the stake, hung from a tree, crucified or had their heads chopped off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Here is a quote from Galileo for you to ponder on:

"The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go."

Newton believed in the "God of the Gaps", just like some scientists today.

Religion fills an emotional need.  It reassures believers that things will be ok, that some father figure is always there to help them.
This is self-delusion, but it does offer some psychological help to some people.  People like yourself.

If your religion stops you from killing people, you should strongly believe in your God and abide by the laws in the corresponding scriptures.

[1714791592]

1714791592

[1714791592]

1714791592

[1714791592]

1714791592

[haseeb ahmed]

first of all we can not blame whole community just because of few rotten apples. And i think some of them hate religion because they think different religion are the reason of this extremism and radicalization presence in the world, which is true at all. Some people who are not following religion properly are extremist because no religion of world preach extremism.

What does the Bible or Quran say you should do with the gay people?

Religious people are the victims.  The worldview presented in the scriptures is what is wrong with religions.

Not 'few rotten apples' as you put it.  People are born into their religions and become indoctrinated as children.
What happens after that depends on who they associate with.

Religions poison your mind.  All religions are equally evil.

The issue is not with 'few rotten apples', the issue is with 'rotten scriptures'.

Religious apologetics always try to shift the blame on people, away from the scriptures, but the fact is that the scriptures are the root cause of all the problems created by religions.  Not the people who were indoctrinated into the religions of their parents.

its the laws to live, if we live without rules we are savages. Holy religious books do not stops you from any beneficial thing or action it only stops you from what is wrong and harmful for humanity.

Is killing gays wrong or not, in your opinion?

no i think its right.

Where are your morals?  You don't think murdering people is wrong?  

What the fuck is wrong with you?  Are you mentally sick?

than why you people can not hear to religious beliefs where is your freedom of speech. Why the hell you people are blaming religions for all the mess

Are you brain damaged?

Religious laws tell people to murder people for no apparent reason. That is not freedom of speech.  That is hate speech.

Religious laws incite violence.

And what about the diseases spreading from this homosexuality thing can you justify that as well. What about AIDS, many people die every year due to this disease and you think homosexuality is right and i consider it as a murder of innocent people from this gay community. You are savages living lives without any clear rules and instructions just living it. What about rape, alcohol, child abuse, murder, terrorism and other many bad deeds from which religions stops human beings.

Religion does not stop those things.  If anything, it encourages it and/or supports it.

BTW, you can get HIV on your next visit to the dentist.  HIV is spread through the exchange of bodily fluids, you ignoramus.

You are a barbarian.  Do you think you stand on the higher moral ground with your 6th-century wisdom?

You are ignoring centuries of scientific and technological progress we have made as a human race.

You are locked in a time capsule.  

yes you are right hiv spreads from fluid or serum but you are not pointing out the root cause from where it started. And what you are saying that religions does not stops but encourages it, how can you even say that when you don’t even know about religions. And what you are talking about science and 21 century so religions made laws to live many centuries  ago and science is following it. I feel pity for your thinking.

Do you want the root cause? Here it is:

https://www.theaidsinstitute.org/education/aids-101/where-did-hiv-come-0

I hope you will not teach your ignorance to your children.  Hopefully, you will no children to teach your 6th-century wisdom.

ehteist just want to eliminate religion from world which will never happen

Wrong again.  We want to expose the stupid, barbaric ideas religions profess.  

Religions will eliminate themselves.

Bad ideas will be replaced with better ideas.  That is how progress is made in pretty much anything.

On equal political footing, religions would not stand a chance against secular, scientific thought.

than you should search for the origin of science where started from and scientists who were involved were not secular nor etheist.

The ones that were, were burned at the stake, hung from a tree, crucified or had their heads chopped off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Here is a quote from Galileo for you to ponder on:

"The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go."

Newton believed in the "God of the Gaps", just like some scientists today.

Religion fills an emotional need.  It reassures believers that things will be ok, that some father figure is always there to help them.
This is self-delusion, but it does offer some psychological help to some people.  People like yourself.

If your religion stops you from killing people, you should strongly believe in your God and abide by the laws in the corresponding scriptures.

than what about Einstein and Thomas Edison what about many other scientists
You can not blame religions for every thing happening in this world. You think religion is impeding progress and I think it’s the inequality which is spreading hate.

[af_newbie]

first of all we can not blame whole community just because of few rotten apples. And i think some of them hate religion because they think different religion are the reason of this extremism and radicalization presence in the world, which is true at all. Some people who are not following religion properly are extremist because no religion of world preach extremism.

What does the Bible or Quran say you should do with the gay people?

Religious people are the victims.  The worldview presented in the scriptures is what is wrong with religions.

Not 'few rotten apples' as you put it.  People are born into their religions and become indoctrinated as children.
What happens after that depends on who they associate with.

Religions poison your mind.  All religions are equally evil.

The issue is not with 'few rotten apples', the issue is with 'rotten scriptures'.

Religious apologetics always try to shift the blame on people, away from the scriptures, but the fact is that the scriptures are the root cause of all the problems created by religions.  Not the people who were indoctrinated into the religions of their parents.

its the laws to live, if we live without rules we are savages. Holy religious books do not stops you from any beneficial thing or action it only stops you from what is wrong and harmful for humanity.

Is killing gays wrong or not, in your opinion?

no i think its right.

Where are your morals?  You don't think murdering people is wrong?  

What the fuck is wrong with you?  Are you mentally sick?

than why you people can not hear to religious beliefs where is your freedom of speech. Why the hell you people are blaming religions for all the mess

Are you brain damaged?

Religious laws tell people to murder people for no apparent reason. That is not freedom of speech.  That is hate speech.

Religious laws incite violence.

And what about the diseases spreading from this homosexuality thing can you justify that as well. What about AIDS, many people die every year due to this disease and you think homosexuality is right and i consider it as a murder of innocent people from this gay community. You are savages living lives without any clear rules and instructions just living it. What about rape, alcohol, child abuse, murder, terrorism and other many bad deeds from which religions stops human beings.

Religion does not stop those things.  If anything, it encourages it and/or supports it.

BTW, you can get HIV on your next visit to the dentist.  HIV is spread through the exchange of bodily fluids, you ignoramus.

You are a barbarian.  Do you think you stand on the higher moral ground with your 6th-century wisdom?

You are ignoring centuries of scientific and technological progress we have made as a human race.

You are locked in a time capsule.  

yes you are right hiv spreads from fluid or serum but you are not pointing out the root cause from where it started. And what you are saying that religions does not stops but encourages it, how can you even say that when you don’t even know about religions. And what you are talking about science and 21 century so religions made laws to live many centuries  ago and science is following it. I feel pity for your thinking.

Do you want the root cause? Here it is:

https://www.theaidsinstitute.org/education/aids-101/where-did-hiv-come-0

I hope you will not teach your ignorance to your children.  Hopefully, you will no children to teach your 6th-century wisdom.

ehteist just want to eliminate religion from world which will never happen

Wrong again.  We want to expose the stupid, barbaric ideas religions profess.  

Religions will eliminate themselves.

Bad ideas will be replaced with better ideas.  That is how progress is made in pretty much anything.

On equal political footing, religions would not stand a chance against secular, scientific thought.

than you should search for the origin of science where started from and scientists who were involved were not secular nor etheist.

The ones that were, were burned at the stake, hung from a tree, crucified or had their heads chopped off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Here is a quote from Galileo for you to ponder on:

"The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go."

Newton believed in the "God of the Gaps", just like some scientists today.

Religion fills an emotional need.  It reassures believers that things will be ok, that some father figure is always there to help them.
This is self-delusion, but it does offer some psychological help to some people.  People like yourself.

If your religion stops you from killing people, you should strongly believe in your God and abide by the laws in the corresponding scriptures.

than what about Einstein and Thomas Edison what about many other scientists
You can not blame religions for every thing happening in this world. You think religion is impeding progress and I think it’s the inequality which is spreading hate.

Why do you care what famous scientists thought or said?  Are you looking for validation?  Are you believing in Spinoza's God?

For every scientist who believed (or believes) in God (in some shape, or form), I can find you 10 that don't.

If I were you, I would worry more about becoming an Islamist.  You want to kill gays, so you are half way there.

Your scripture can lead you into a slippery slope, 'kill gays' -> Islamist -> Jihadist -> Terrorist

[alejandravarela187]

You are the one who claims to know WGW in terms of your claim that believing in God is the best way to settle Pascal's Wager according to you.

[Astargath]

What was the life expectancy in the US 100 years ago?  50 years ago?  25 years ago?
Was the US more Christian 100, 50 or 25 years ago?

The proper way to analyze this is to isolate the effect of religion independently of technological progress.

At each interval of history one should compare the life expectancy of Christians compared to non Christians.

If you do that you find that Christians live longer. This is true today.

Religious people live four YEARS longer than those who don’t believe in God, study reveals
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/science/religious-people-live-four-years-12704829.amp

It also appears to likely have been true as far back as early Roman times when Christian charity led to increased life expectancy social power and eventual cultural victory over the Pagans.

The Christian Conquest of Pagan Rome
https://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/michael-craven/the-christian-conquest-of-pagan-rome-11640691.html

Who is against stem cell research?  You know, the technology that can save and extend lives.

Most if not all of current stem cell therapy is a scam. It’s an utterly unproven cash pay business that thrives on the vulnerable and desperate.

Much of what little research there is has been shown to be fraudulent a example of the corruption of science in our time.

Stem Cell Research—Shattered After Fabrication Scandal
https://www.tctmd.com/news/stem-cell-research-shattered-after-fabrication-scandal-needs-rebuild-says-ehj-editor

That said Christians are generally opposed to embryonic stem cell research as those lines were derived from aborted fetal tissue. Christians by and large don’t believe it is moral to experiment with the remains of killed human life.

Healthy, stress-free life, with lots of social life, is not the domain of Christians or religious people.  I would argue that being religious adds more stress to your life as you have to worry about what your God will think, every second of your life, you have to constantly think: "Would I make it into heaven or would I end up in hell?"  Atheists do not have this issue.

When you know you have one life to live, you take care of your body, your mind, your relationship with others because you know after you die there is no second chance.  You, on the other hand, think that afterlife is what matters, this life is only temporary, 120 years at most vs the eternity.  So rape here or there, abuse of your wife or your body, kill few men here or there is all ok, as long as you accept Jesus as your savior before you die, LOL

You have this very very wrong. Every major study on the issue shows a health advantage for the observant religious. Here are a few I highlighted in the Health and Religion thread.

In U.S., Very Religious Have Higher Wellbeing Across All Faiths
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152732/religious-higher-wellbeing-across-faiths.aspx

Married Couples Who Attend Church Services Together Are Less Likely to Divorce
http://www.christianpost.com/news/married-couples-who-attend-church-services-together-are-less-likely-to-divorce-study-171853/

Religious upbringing may be protective factor for health, well-being in early adulthood
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2018/09/17/raising-kids-with-religion-or-spirituality-may-protect-their-mental-health-study/#68c6ba2c3287

Now, who has a more healthy outlook on our life on this planet?

Easy Christians do. Next question.

PS. What is the global population growth rate?  Should it be increasing at 4 or 5% as is the case in communities of most orthodox religions?

Global population growth rate is somewhere around 1%. It peaked long ago and is declining towards zero no outside intervention required.



The religious communities won’t grow at 4 to 5% forever. It’s just the process of the unhealthy segments of society being replaced by healthier variants. Overall the growth trajectory of the society at large is unlikely to change.

PPS.  On average, are Christian or Atheists more educated?  Who do you think would make a better manager, better policymaker, better scientist, better engineer, better doctor?  

Atheists are for the moment more formally educated on average.

As for who would make a better manager, better policymaker, better scientist, better engineer, or better doctor. I would have go with the educated Christian or Jew. Best of both worlds.

I recommend putting some more work into understanding these issues af_newbie. I don’t have the time or inclination to continue tutoring like this. You need to rectify your own deficiencies.

Of course religious people live longer or have less stress, after all they believe they are going to be saved or immortal. Any delusional person that believes he is immortal or something similar will be ''happier'' and have less stress but that doesn't mean it's good for him, you would agree that someone who thinks is superman needs help, right? Similarly someone who believes in god, also needs psychological help just like transsexuals as you argued.

[af_newbie]

The bottom line is that science and secularism will speed up technological progress.  
The less religious you are the faster you'll get there.
The more religious you are the more you'll be stuck in the past

Your pick.

Your error here is assuming technological advancement built on a foundation of moral subjectivism is progress. Such advancement taken to its logical conclusion and stripped of objective morality will ultimately make us all the slaves of nature not its master.

CS Lewis highlights this very well in his book the Abolition of Man.
This video on his work is fantastic and I highly recommend it.

The Abolition of Man
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=idgYLTnSzxI

Restraining science in a structure of objective morality will indeed slow it down. Things like the selling of aborted fetuses for research, human genetic engineering, voluntary self mutilation and many other frontiers of experimentation and knowledge will either be banned outright or very heavily restricted. That delay is well worth the cost.

The pursuit at all costs of power in the form of knowledge is ultimately a Faustian bargain.

What objective morality? Decided by whom?  Birds, fish or a specific species of primates?

Morality by definition is subjective.  All this talk about objective morality is nonsense.

Who wrote/decided on the moral code written in the scriptures?  Homo sapiens did, that is who.

What you have in the Bible are subjective views on morality by the Bronze Age people. 
Similarly, the Quran's moral code is subjective reflections of people who lived in the 6th century.

Hello?!?  Anybody home?

[BADecker]

^^^ Morality is genetically programmed in. but the ability to break the morality is genetically programmed in as well.

[CoinCube]

Your error here is assuming technological advancement built on a foundation of moral subjectivism is progress. Such advancement taken to its logical conclusion and stripped of objective morality will ultimately make us all the slaves of nature not its master.

CS Lewis highlights this very well in his book the Abolition of Man.
This video on his work is fantastic and I highly recommend it.

The Abolition of Man
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=idgYLTnSzxI

Restraining science in a structure of objective morality will indeed slow it down. Things like the selling of aborted fetuses for research, human genetic engineering, voluntary self mutilation and many other frontiers of experimentation and knowledge will either be banned outright or very heavily restricted. That delay is well worth the cost.

The pursuit at all costs of power in the form of knowledge is ultimately a Faustian bargain.

What objective morality? Decided by whom?  Birds, fish or a specific species of primates?

Morality by definition is subjective.  All this talk about objective morality is nonsense.

Who wrote/decided on the moral code written in the scriptures?  Homo sapiens did, that is who.

What you have in the Bible are subjective views on morality by the Bronze Age people.  
Similarly, the Quran's moral code is subjective reflections of people who lived in the 6th century.

Hello?!?  Anybody home?

I don't know what to tell you af_newbie. You are trapped by your false assumptions.

The answer of course is that the standards of objective morality and reality itself were laid down by God at the creation of the universe. Perhaps there is some way to arrive at an objective morality without embracing God but if that is possible I certainly don't know how to achieve it. You reject God so you reject objective morality that is understandable if tragic.

Gospel of Matthew
And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment."
— Matthew 22:35-40

There is a reason that the command to love God was explicitly stated as the most important. God provides a foundation upon which everything else can be built including objective morality. Rejecting God you drown in subjectivism which is ultimately a fatal ideology.

The Poison of Subjectivism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgcd6jvsCFs

All I can do is highlight the consequences of bad choices as a warning to revisit them. Health and fertility consequences are one such warning symptom. However, you may be like Astargath and don't care or would prefer living with consequence to changing your position. That is your right. Similarly you seem comfortable embracing the disastrous ideals of subjectivism which so clearly can lead only to death, ruin, and slavery rather then abandon the assumptions that demand and compel you down that path.

In the end we all have the power to define who and what we are. I do hope, however, that you fail in passing on your ignorance to your children. It would help if you could just stay out of education and the classrooms. Humanity will do better going forward without your poorly thought out and toxic beliefs.

[CoinCube]

Chief Rabbi: Atheism Has Failed. Only Religion Can Defeat The New Barbarians
The West is suffering for its loss of faith. Unless we rediscover religion, our civilisation is in peril
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/06/atheism-has-failed-only-religion-can-fight-the-barbarians/

I love the remark made by one Oxford don about another: ‘On the surface, he’s profound, but deep down, he’s superficial.’ That sentence has more than once come to mind when reading the new atheists.

Future intellectual historians will look back with wonder at the strange phenomenon of seemingly intelligent secularists in the 21st century believing that if they could show that the first chapters of Genesis are not literally true, that the universe is more than 6,000 years old and there might be other explanations for rainbows than as a sign of God’s covenant after the flood, the whole of humanity’s religious beliefs would come tumbling down like a house of cards and we would be left with a serene world of rational non-believers getting on famously with one another.

Whatever happened to the intellectual depth of the serious atheists, the forcefulness of Hobbes, the passion of Spinoza, the wit of Voltaire, the world-shattering profundity of Nietzsche? Where is there the remotest sense that they have grappled with the real issues, which have nothing to do with science and the literal meaning of scripture and everything to do with the meaningfulness or otherwise of human life, the existence or non-existence of an objective moral order, the truth or falsity of the idea of human freedom, and the ability or inability of society to survive without the rituals, narratives and shared practices that create and sustain the social bond?

A significant area of intellectual discourse — the human condition sub specie aeternitatis — has been dumbed down to the level of a school debating society. Does it matter? Should we not simply accept that just as there are some people who are tone deaf and others who have no sense of humour, so there are some who simply do not understand what is going on in the Book of Psalms, who lack a sense of transcendence or the miracle of being, who fail to understand what it might be to see human life as a drama of love and forgiveness or be moved to pray in penitence or thanksgiving? Some people get religion; others don’t. Why not leave it at that?

Fair enough, perhaps. But not, I submit, for readers of The Spectator, because religion has social, cultural and political consequences, and you cannot expect the foundations of western civilisation to crumble and leave the rest of the building intact. That is what the greatest of all atheists, Nietzsche, understood with terrifying clarity and what his -latter-day successors fail to grasp at all.

Time and again in his later writings he tells us that losing Christian faith will mean abandoning Christian morality. No more ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’; instead the will to power. No more ‘Thou shalt not’; instead people would live by the law of nature, the strong dominating or eliminating the weak. ‘An act of injury, violence, exploitation or destruction cannot be “unjust” as such, because life functions essentially in an injurious, violent, exploitative and destructive manner.’ Nietzsche was not an anti-Semite, but there are passages in his writing that come close to justifying a Holocaust.

This had nothing to do with him personally and everything to do with the logic of Europe losing its Christian ethic. Already in 1843, a year before Nietzsche was born, Heinrich Heine wrote, ‘A drama will be enacted in Germany compared to which the French Revolution will seem like a harmless idyll. Christianity restrained the martial ardour of the Germans for a time but it did not destroy it; once the restraining talisman is shattered, savagery will rise again…  the mad fury of the berserk, of which Nordic poets sing and speak.’ Nietzsche and Heine were making the same point. Lose the Judeo-Christian sanctity of life and there will be nothing to contain the evil men do when given the chance and the provocation.

Richard Dawkins, whom I respect, partly understands this. He has said often that Darwinism is a science, not an ethic. Turn natural selection into a code of conduct and you get disaster. But if asked where we get our morality from, if not from science or religion, the new atheists start to stammer. They tend to argue that ethics is obvious, which it isn’t, or natural, which it manifestly isn’t either, and end up vaguely hinting that this isn’t their problem. Let someone else worry about it.

The history of Europe since the 18th century has been the story of successive attempts to find alternatives to God as an object of worship, among them the nation state, race and the Communist Manifesto. After this cost humanity two world wars, a Cold War and a hundred million lives, we have turned to more pacific forms of idolatry, among them the market, the liberal democratic state and the consumer society, all of which are ways of saying that there is no morality beyond personal choice so long as you do no harm to others.

Even so, the costs are beginning to mount up. Levels of trust have plummeted throughout the West as one group after another — bankers, CEOs, media personalities, parliamentarians, the press — has been hit by scandal. Marriage has all but collapsed as an institution, with 40 per cent of children born outside it and 50 per cent of marriages ending in divorce. Rates of depressive illness and stress-related syndromes have rocketed especially among the young. A recent survey showed that the average 18- to 35-year-old has 237 Facebook friends. When asked how many they could rely on in a crisis, the average answer was two. A quarter said one. An eighth said none.

None of this should surprise us. This is what a society built on materialism, individualism and moral relativism looks like. It maximises personal freedom but at a cost. As Michael Walzer puts it: ‘This freedom, energising and exciting as it is, is also profoundly disintegrative, making it very difficult for individuals to find any stable communal support, very difficult for any community to count on the responsible participation of its individual members. It opens solitary men and women to the impact of a lowest common denominator, commercial culture.’

In my time as Chief Rabbi, I have seen two highly significant trends. First, parents are more likely than they were to send their children to faith schools. They want their children exposed to a strong substantive ethic of responsibility and restraint. Second, religious people, Jews especially, are more fearful of the future than they were. Our newly polarised culture is far less tolerant than old, mild Christian Britain.
...

[Vod]

^ ^ Please only quote a few lines from other sources.  :/

[af_newbie]

Your error here is assuming technological advancement built on a foundation of moral subjectivism is progress. Such advancement taken to its logical conclusion and stripped of objective morality will ultimately make us all the slaves of nature not its master.

CS Lewis highlights this very well in his book the Abolition of Man.
This video on his work is fantastic and I highly recommend it.

The Abolition of Man
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=idgYLTnSzxI

Restraining science in a structure of objective morality will indeed slow it down. Things like the selling of aborted fetuses for research, human genetic engineering, voluntary self mutilation and many other frontiers of experimentation and knowledge will either be banned outright or very heavily restricted. That delay is well worth the cost.

The pursuit at all costs of power in the form of knowledge is ultimately a Faustian bargain.

What objective morality? Decided by whom?  Birds, fish or a specific species of primates?

Morality by definition is subjective.  All this talk about objective morality is nonsense.

Who wrote/decided on the moral code written in the scriptures?  Homo sapiens did, that is who.

What you have in the Bible are subjective views on morality by the Bronze Age people.  
Similarly, the Quran's moral code is subjective reflections of people who lived in the 6th century.

Hello?!?  Anybody home?

I don't know what to tell you af_newbie. You are trapped by your false assumptions.

The answer of course is that the standards of objective morality and reality itself were laid down by God at the creation of the universe. Perhaps there is some way to arrive at an objective morality without embracing God but if that is possible I certainly don't know how to achieve it. You reject God so you reject objective morality that is understandable if tragic.

Gospel of Matthew
And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment."
— Matthew 22:35-40

There is a reason that the command to love God was explicitly stated as the most important. God provides a foundation upon which everything else can be built including objective morality. Rejecting God you drown in subjectivism which is ultimately a fatal ideology.

The Poison of Subjectivism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgcd6jvsCFs

All I can do is highlight the consequences of bad choices as a warning to revisit them. Health and fertility consequences are one such warning symptom. However, you may be like Astargath and don't care or would prefer living with consequence to changing your position. That is your right. Similarly you seem comfortable embracing the disastrous ideals of subjectivism which so clearly can lead only to death, ruin, and slavery rather then abandon the assumptions that demand and compel you down that path.

In the end we all have the power to define who and what we are. I do hope, however, that you fail in passing on your ignorance to your children. It would help if you could just stay out of education and the classrooms. Humanity will do better going forward without your poorly thought out and toxic beliefs.

The problem you have is that you subjectively chose the 'right' God (for you).   That is why your resulting moral code can never be objective.  It will be the moral code of the people who started your religion.

Have you noticed that most people are very lucky to be born into the 'right' religion, LOL.

Why did you reject the Quran as the source of the 'objective morality'?  Why did you reject all other religions and over 3000+ other Gods?

You see, we are not that different.  I just rejected one more God than you.

[CoinCube]

The problem you have is that you subjectively chose the 'right' God (for you).   That is why your resulting moral code can never be objective.  It will be the moral code of the people who started your religion.

Have you noticed that most people are very lucky to be born into the 'right' religion, LOL.

Why did you reject the Quran as the source of the 'objective morality'?  Why did you reject all other religions and over 3000+ other Gods?

You see, we are not that different.  I just rejected one more God than you.

I would make the case that I have actually rejected one more god then you for at some point in my life I have rejected every deity you have but I have also rejected your idol of moral relativism.

I was not at all religious for the majority of my adult life. I have embraced the secular world and and succeeded in it on its own terms. I am a financially successful prodigal son if you will. It was only comparatively recently that I came to understand the bankruptcy of the entire modern system its financial system yes, hence my interest in bitcoin, but the failure goes much deeper than just finance.

When I did return to God it was a slow process starting with logical first principles to determine that my beliefs where in accordance with my reason and that my views were not self contradictory or incoherent.

Only then did I try and figure out what if any religion I fit into best. I did look at alternatives. Most religions have wisdom in them if you look. That includes Islam and Buddhism among others. The goal is to find truth. As for myself I seriously considered converting to orthodox Judaism for a long time and I even took a few classes with a rabbi. The Ramchal's book Way of God is to date one of the most insightful I have ever read and I would recommend it to anyone interested in God be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or Atheist.

In the end, however, I returned to my long forgotten roots in Christianity. I am still not affiliated with any particular church within that broad domain but I suspect I will probably eventually join my local Seventh-Day Adventist church as they are a good group of people and I am comfortable with their church doctrines. That part of the journey is not yet complete. As for why I ultimately chose Christianity over the other variants possible that is a bit complex for now lets just say I felt it provided the best role model and blueprint for thought and action.

You feel my beliefs are the subjective code of the people who started my religion. We will just have to disagree on that. You have chosen not to believe in objective truth at all so you really can not imagine it any other way and I understand that.

I have long ago given up any expectation that I will shift you from your beliefs and I suspect that you have the same feelings about me. The value of our exchange therefore lies in it's usefulness to others. We represent two different paths that lead to dramatically different choices and life philosophies. Others at that fork may find our divergence useful and thought provoking. I agree that we are not that different. There but for the grace of God, go I.

[af_newbie]

The problem you have is that you subjectively chose the 'right' God (for you).   That is why your resulting moral code can never be objective.  It will be the moral code of the people who started your religion.

Have you noticed that most people are very lucky to be born into the 'right' religion, LOL.

Why did you reject the Quran as the source of the 'objective morality'?  Why did you reject all other religions and over 3000+ other Gods?

You see, we are not that different.  I just rejected one more God than you.

I would make the case that I have actually rejected one more god then you for at some point in my life I have rejected every deity you have but I have also rejected your idol of moral relativism.

I was not at all religious for the majority of my adult life. I have embraced the secular world and and succeeded in it on its own terms. I am a financially successful prodigal son if you will. It was only comparatively recently that I came to understand the bankruptcy of the entire modern system its financial system yes, hence my interest in bitcoin, but the failure goes much deeper than just finance.

When I did return to God it was a slow process starting with logical first principles to determine that my beliefs where in accordance with my reason and that my views were not self contradictory or incoherent.

Only then did I try and figure out what if any religion I fit into best. I did look at alternatives. Most religions have wisdom in them if you look. That includes Islam and Buddhism among others. The goal is to find truth. As for myself I seriously considered converting to orthodox Judaism for a long time and I even took a few classes with a rabbi. The Ramchal's book Way of God is to date one of the most insightful I have ever read and I would recommend it to anyone interested in God be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or Atheist.

In the end, however, I returned to my long forgotten roots in Christianity. I am still not affiliated with any particular church within that broad domain but I suspect I will probably eventually join my local Seventh-Day Adventist church as they are a good group of people and I am comfortable with their church doctrines. That part of the journey is not yet complete. As for why I ultimately chose Christianity over the other variants possible that is a bit complex for now lets just say I felt it provided the best role model and blueprint for thought and action.

You feel my beliefs are the subjective code of the people who started my religion. We will just have to disagree on that. You have chosen not to believe in objective truth at all so you really can not imagine it any other way and I understand that.

I have long ago given up any expectation that I will shift you from your beliefs and I suspect that you have the same feelings about me. The value of our exchange therefore lies in it's usefulness to others. We represent two different paths that lead to dramatically different choices and life philosophies. Others at that fork may find our divergence useful and thought provoking. I agree that we are not that different. There but for the grace of God, go I.

I have not chosen it.  You have not provided any evidence of the objective moral code. 

I have just pointed it out that the moral code that you think is objective is actually very subjective as evidenced by the silly Bronze Age, Bible rules.

You have decided that the Christian moral code is objective.  That very decision was subjective.

[CoinCube]

I have not chosen it.  You have not provided any evidence of the objective moral code.  

I have just pointed it out that the moral code that you think is objective is actually very subjective as evidenced by the silly Bronze Age, Bible rules.

You have decided that the Christian moral code is objective.  That very decision was subjective.

Yes you have. You made the choice consciously or unconsciously when you embraced materialism. This little video should help clarify this for you.

What Lies Behind the Moral Law
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcRFYGr1zcg

[af_newbie]

I have not chosen it.  You have not provided any evidence of the objective moral code.  

I have just pointed it out that the moral code that you think is objective is actually very subjective as evidenced by the silly Bronze Age, Bible rules.

You have decided that the Christian moral code is objective.  That very decision was subjective.

Yes you have. You made the choice consciously or unconsciously when you embraced materialism. This little video should help clarify this for you.

What Lies Behind the Moral Law
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcRFYGr1zcg

Not really a choice.  There is no evidence to support anything but materialism.

I cannot believe in fairy tales just because someone wrote them.

I use this thing called brain to figure out what is real and what is not.

Materialism is real.  Non-materialism is not.

[CoinCube]

What Lies Behind the Moral Law
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcRFYGr1zcg

Not really a choice.  There is no evidence to support anything but materialism.

I cannot believe in fairy tales just because someone wrote them.

I use this thing called brain to figure out what is real and what is not.

Materialism is real.  Non-materialism is not.

Materialism is an assumption. It is a chosen framework to understand the universe.

I hold it to be a very flawed very problematic framework with multiple consequences including a belief in subjective morality, but that is my choice the start of a very different path than the one you took. It's the fork in the road where our paths diverge. The rest of our differences can be traced back to that divergence.

This is really not a question of science or evidence at all but of primary assumption. The video demonstrates that well. CS Lewis had a genuine gift.

You do indeed have your brain and logic to figure things out. You also have your heart and your conscious. You need to use them both when faced with a choice that must be made independent of and before evidence.

[BADecker]

^^^ After a while you just have to accept what this material indicates... that there isn't really anything but material there.

How does anyone answer something that is simply material? A chunk of material can't ask a question. It can't postulate answers. The formulation that comes about through them is not the response put forth after thought. It just looks like it is.

Probably the closest one can come to communicating with this material, is to get ideas from it, and ask ones self questions based on these chunks of materialism, and then answer one's own questions.



EDIT: Now that I think about it, that's a really good point!

Some material in nature seems to produce thinking points, ask questions and give answers. But since it is only material, there isn't any obvious intelligence within it.

What I mean is, you can go to nature, look at all the ways it operates, and see fantastic machinery throughout. You can tell that God exists and is intelligent beyond beyond, simply because we can use nature's machinery to make our own simple machinery. Machines have makers, right?

So, when some material without a soul poses some questions, or makes some points that look like thinking has been done, and that there is intelligence there, yet this same material claims that it doesn't have a soul and spirit, it must be another complexity of nature, made by God, right?

No use answering. Nobody can answer God. However, if it is God simply providing an exercise in thought for us - by making this material appear to act like it has a soul and spirit - we should really ponder the ideas that God sets before us, with not only our minds, but our souls and spirits, as well. I mean, God is giving us information in all kinds of miraculous ways.

I mean, who ever heard of an O.T. talking donkey, or a worldwide flood, or a N.T. turning of water into wine, or raising the dead, or all kinds of other miracles? But they happened, right? So why should we think that God couldn't make some material without a soul and spirit look and act like it has soul and spirit. What a miracle from God!

Right?



FURTHER EDIT: WOW! Think of what is really going on here. God is making some artificial intelligence that is only material, to actually think. And some of the AI is going out and making its own brand of AI because it is able to think so well.

CS Lewis was way more accurate than even he knew.

[af_newbie]

What Lies Behind the Moral Law
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcRFYGr1zcg

Not really a choice.  There is no evidence to support anything but materialism.

I cannot believe in fairy tales just because someone wrote them.

I use this thing called brain to figure out what is real and what is not.

Materialism is real.  Non-materialism is not.

Materialism is an assumption. It is a chosen framework to understand the universe.

I hold it to be a very flawed very problematic framework with multiple consequences including a belief in subjective morality, but that is my choice the start of a very different path than the one you took. It's the fork in the road where our paths diverge. The rest of our differences can be traced back to that divergence.

This is really not a question of science or evidence at all but of primary assumption. The video demonstrates that well. CS Lewis had a genuine gift.

You do indeed have your brain and logic to figure things out. You also have your heart and your conscious. You need to use them both when faced with a choice that must be made independent of and before evidence.

I think you are the one who made many unsupported assumptions.  Materialism does not require you to make any assumptions.  You use the scientific method to derive all your knowledge.

What is the flaw of materialism? That it does not explain everything in the universe?  Well, that is its beauty, not a flaw.  One day we'll have all the answers.

The difference between us is that you cannot accept the "I don't know the answer" and you pile up your own imagined (unsupported by any evidence) theology on top of materialism.  Your belief system is unsupported by science.  Unsupported by the reality around us.

Our reality is material, whether you like it or not.  If it was not, I would not be a materialist.

PS. Your non-materialism is basically all the stuff you don't know.   You piled up all that into your 'religious belief system' to give you a psychological comfort. That is all.  If it helps you, go for it, despite the fact it is all bullshit on wheels.

[CoinCube]

Materialism is an assumption. It is a chosen framework to understand the universe.

I hold it to be a very flawed very problematic framework with multiple consequences....
....

...
Our reality is material, whether you like it or not.  If it was not, I would not be a materialist.
...

Ok af_newbie you have clearly made your choice.

I have done my best to clarify our differences reduce them to their most basic divergence in thought. I appear to have failed in shifting your position in the slightest. It is time now for me to disengage as I have nothing further to add. I wish you well.

The Big Decision about Life...
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-big-decision-about-life.html?m=1

...Is a metaphysical one - not a matter of 'evidence'. And that insight (metaphysics not evidence) is the first step.

The situation is that Life is a mixed-picture: the decision is whether Life is validated by its best moments or times; or destroyed by its worst.

As I said, evidence does not help - the question is not quantitative. This is a matter of primary assumption.

And the question is not answerable in isolation - Life can only be validated if Life has 'meaning'; and the nature of validation depends on the nature of that meaning.

On the other hand, if you have already accepted that life has no meaning - is merely determined, or random - then you have already made your Big Decision. (Whether implicitly or explicitly) your basic assumptions ensure that for you Life is defined by its worst aspects - indeed the single, most extreme worst-of-Life is the truth-of-Life (both for individuals, and en masse).

Nothing can be done for you - because any possible Good will be negated by One Bad Thing - even when that Bad is merely the evanescence of Good.

On the other hand; if you understand, and live-by, the conviction that the best of Life is the truth of life (despite that this cannot be continuous) - then you have indomitable strength, assurance, and hope.

[af_newbie]

Materialism is an assumption. It is a chosen framework to understand the universe.

I hold it to be a very flawed very problematic framework with multiple consequences....
....

...
Our reality is material, whether you like it or not.  If it was not, I would not be a materialist.
...

Ok af_newbie you have clearly made your choice.

I have done my best to clarify our differences reduce them to their most basic divergence in thought. I appear to have failed in shifting your position in the slightest. It is time now for me to disengage as I have nothing further to add. I wish you well.

The Big Decision about Life...
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-big-decision-about-life.html?m=1

...Is a metaphysical one - not a matter of 'evidence'. And that insight (metaphysics not evidence) is the first step.

The situation is that Life is a mixed-picture: the decision is whether Life is validated by its best moments or times; or destroyed by its worst.

As I said, evidence does not help - the question is not quantitative. This is a matter of primary assumption.

And the question is not answerable in isolation - Life can only be validated if Life has 'meaning'; and the nature of validation depends on the nature of that meaning.

On the other hand, if you have already accepted that life has no meaning - is merely determined, or random - then you have already made your Big Decision. (Whether implicitly or explicitly) your basic assumptions ensure that for you Life is defined by its worst aspects - indeed the single, most extreme worst-of-Life is the truth-of-Life (both for individuals, and en masse).

Nothing can be done for you - because any possible Good will be negated by One Bad Thing - even when that Bad is merely the evanescence of Good.

On the other hand; if you understand, and live-by, the conviction that the best of Life is the truth of life (despite that this cannot be continuous) - then you have indomitable strength, assurance, and hope.

You clearly do not understand my position.  I do not have a choice.

My brain does not allow me to accept things that cannot be validated by science.  My epistemology is based on that.

The things that science cannot explain, I am ok with simply not knowing.

You think I have made this choice but I am telling you I do not make choices to know what is true and what is not.

Things are true or false without me choosing them.

You have a choice, actually infinite number of them, you are limited only by your imagination, I, on the other hand, am confined to what science can discover and validate.

In a way, I envy you, you are an ignorant simpleton who is only limited by his imagination. 

I wish I was dumber, life would have been a lot simpler.  Instead, I see a very complex world and I am sad that other people are dumb as rocks.  Where is the natural selection when you need her?