Noahs Ark

[sandy whitelinger]

I am continually amazed that intelligent humans shape their entire existence based on a mythological story.

What's even more amazing is that it works so amazingly well.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What's even more amazing is that it works so amazingly well.

Not really. Most people are rather simple.

 

[Autodidact]

What's even more amazing is that it works so amazingly well.

Works for what?

 

[richardlowellt]

What's even more amazing is that it works so amazingly well.

Equally amazing is how well we non-believers do without the celestial dictator, were do we get our morals from anyway? amazing that without the mythical one we are able to contain ourselves from wanton rape and murder.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Equally amazing is how well we non-believers do without the celestial dictator, were do we get our morals from anyway? amazing that without the mythical one we are able to contain ourselves from wanton rape and murder.

I don't know about you, Richard, but my slimy atheist morals led me to burn down several churches after going grocery shopping. After doing so, I consumed the blood of twenty Iraqi children because I was feeling a little peckish. Oh and don't forget the endless sodomy.

The fact of the matter is, science has been consistently throwing religion into corners. Religion has always employed the "God of the Gaps". Where something cannot be explained, a random explanation (a deity) is inserted...with the effect of not having an explanation for itself. But don't let that detract from the majesty of someone's particular version of a collective delusion.

As these gaps narrow with the exponential increase of our understanding of the naturalistic world, religion is quickly running out of gaps to prey on. And so, it must use what it has left in its arsenal. For millenia, people have used religion to justify their actions. This has inevitably led to religious wars up the wazoo.

But an atheist does not have a set dogma to subscribe to. And so many theists jump to this irrational - and frankly idiotic - conclusion that since atheists don't have a set dogma to subscribe to, we are devoid of morals. As if we are incapable of moral thought. As if we are incapable of using facts, logic, and reason to discern what is moral and what isn't.

And so they believe that because we "have no morals", we must go on raping sprees and frequently push old ladies down stairwells. Well, no. Because those actions do not do any good for anyone. They cause more harm than good. Thus, they are immoral. But they retort that we must be covertly getting our morals from religion - the few of us who don't engage in ceaseless sodomy of little children. But again, this presumes that - EVEN IF - a particular religion has decent morals that their deity is justified and therefore factual. But it isn't. It just proves that a particular set of rules are in most cases moral. [NB: I always get a chuckle out of theists who use these two sentences in succession on me: "Atheists have no morals, so what's stopping you from going on a killing spree? Atheists must get their morals from religion, even if they don't want to admit it"....disregarding all the killing sprees done in the name of religion....but I digress]

So I REALLY don't get this argument on the theist's part. What does it seek to accomplish? Not only is it complete BS, but it doesn't even justify their deity. Why do so many people have such trouble grasping the fact that millions of atheists on this Earth do not need a celestial dictator watching their every move, threatening hellfire for non-compliance, in order to be good people. In fact, most of the "good people" I know are, in fact, atheists.

But I'm not trying to suggest a correlation or causation here. Most of the bigoted, close-minded people I know are, in fact, religious. And there may or may not be a correlation or causation there. If there is, I'm not going to be the one to make the case for it. Especially on ReligiousForums where the theists are generally more moderate and have at least half a brain.

I think good people are good people irrespective of their belief system and bad people are bad people irrespective of their belief system. The difference is, religious people have a God to hide behind their actions and atheists actually need to give reasons and logical pathways for their actions. There is no hiding spot for an atheist and so anyone who cannot sufficiently justify their action will be condemned. More importantly - by fellow atheists.

There is not much room to "pervert" or "hijack" atheistic "beliefs" because it is all facts, logic, and reason. People like Stalin used faulty logic and reasoning to justify his killing spree. This is why you don't see many atheists supporting Stalin's atrocities. And this is why Stalin's atheism is not an issue. Atheism is merely a declaration that one does not believe in any deities. There is not really any baggage accompanying it, beyond the baggage presumed by a particular theist.

That brings me to another point. What does it matter what Stalin or Hitler's religions were? Obviously both cases, religious or atheist, they were horrible people and not in any way indicative of an average person subscribing to the same belief system. So I don't get this either, when people bring this up. What does it matter? Both sides will agree that either case is not representative of their beliefs (or lack thereof).

This, in my opinion, is religion's last stand. It feeds off the basic desire of people to do good and hijacks it, adds religious baggage that presumes one cannot be a good person without subscribing to a particular deity AND doing good deeds. Quite a few theists I know actually believe I'm going to Hell because I don't believe in their particular version of their delusion, though I've done nothing major to warrant eternal hellfire. It's a sort of thuggery. "Believe. Or else". Fortunately there are millions of clear-thinking people on this Earth that don't respond to the intimidation and the attempts to "save our souls".

 

[richardlowellt]

I don't know about you, Richard, but my slimy atheist morals led me to burn down several churches after going grocery shopping. After doing so, I consumed the blood of twenty Iraqi children because I was feeling a little peckish. Oh and don't forget the endless sodomy.

The fact of the matter is, science has been consistently throwing religion into corners. Religion has always employed the "God of the Gaps". Where something cannot be explained, a random explanation (a deity) is inserted...with the effect of not having an explanation for itself. But don't let that detract from the majesty of someone's particular version of a collective delusion.

As these gaps narrow with the exponential increase of our understanding of the naturalistic world, religion is quickly running out of gaps to prey on. And so, it must use what it has left in its arsenal. For millenia, people have used religion to justify their actions. This has inevitably led to religious wars up the wazoo.

But an atheist does not have a set dogma to subscribe to. And so many theists jump to this irrational - and frankly idiotic - conclusion that since atheists don't have a set dogma to subscribe to, we are devoid of morals. As if we are incapable of moral thought. As if we are incapable of using facts, logic, and reason to discern what is moral and what isn't.

And so they believe that because we "have no morals", we must go on raping sprees and frequently push old ladies down stairwells. Well, no. Because those actions do not do any good for anyone. They cause more harm than good. Thus, they are immoral. But they retort that we must be covertly getting our morals from religion - the few of us who don't engage in ceaseless sodomy of little children. But again, this presumes that - EVEN IF - a particular religion has decent morals that their deity is justified and therefore factual. But it isn't. It just proves that a particular set of rules are in most cases moral. [NB: I always get a chuckle out of theists who use these two sentences in succession on me: "Atheists have no morals, so what's stopping you from going on a killing spree? Atheists must get their morals from religion, even if they don't want to admit it"....disregarding all the killing sprees done in the name of religion....but I digress]

So I REALLY don't get this argument on the theist's part. What does it seek to accomplish? Not only is it complete BS, but it doesn't even justify their deity. Why do so many people have such trouble grasping the fact that millions of atheists on this Earth do not need a celestial dictator watching their every move, threatening hellfire for non-compliance, in order to be good people. In fact, most of the "good people" I know are, in fact, atheists.

But I'm not trying to suggest a correlation or causation here. Most of the bigoted, close-minded people I know are, in fact, religious. And there may or may not be a correlation or causation there. If there is, I'm not going to be the one to make the case for it. Especially on ReligiousForums where the theists are generally more moderate and have at least half a brain.

I think good people are good people irrespective of their belief system and bad people are bad people irrespective of their belief system. The difference is, religious people have a God to hide behind their actions and atheists actually need to give reasons and logical pathways for their actions. There is no hiding spot for an atheist and so anyone who cannot sufficiently justify their action will be condemned. More importantly - by fellow atheists.

There is not much room to "pervert" or "hijack" atheistic "beliefs" because it is all facts, logic, and reason. People like Stalin used faulty logic and reasoning to justify his killing spree. This is why you don't see many atheists supporting Stalin's atrocities. And this is why Stalin's atheism is not an issue. Atheism is merely a declaration that one does not believe in any deities. There is not really any baggage accompanying it, beyond the baggage presumed by a particular theist.

That brings me to another point. What does it matter what Stalin or Hitler's religions were? Obviously both cases, religious or atheist, they were horrible people and not in any way indicative of an average person subscribing to the same belief system. So I don't get this either, when people bring this up. What does it matter? Both sides will agree that either case is not representative of their beliefs (or lack thereof).

This, in my opinion, is religion's last stand. It feeds off the basic desire of people to do good and hijacks it, adds religious baggage that presumes one cannot be a good person without subscribing to a particular deity AND doing good deeds. Quite a few theists I know actually believe I'm going to Hell because I don't believe in their particular version of their delusion, though I've done nothing major to warrant eternal hellfire. It's a sort of thuggery. "Believe. Or else". Fortunately there are millions of clear-thinking people on this Earth that don't respond to the intimidation and the attempts to "save our souls".

Well said you evil Atheist, you will burn in hell for these subversive thoughts, remember this celestial dictator can peer into your most private thought and convict you of thought crimes, but you have spoken for all to see, your soul,(whatever thats is) is doomed, see ya there!!!

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Works for what?

Life.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Not really. Most people are rather simple.

And your point is....

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Equally amazing is how well we non-believers do without the celestial dictator, were do we get our morals from anyway? amazing that without the mythical one we are able to contain ourselves from wanton rape and murder.

Even non-believers who follow biblical principles prosper. " ...for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendethrain on the just and on the unjust." Matthew 5:45b

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Equally amazing is how well we non-believers do without the celestial dictator, were do we get our morals from anyway? amazing that without the mythical one we are able to contain ourselves from wanton rape and murder.

Where do we get our morals? Don't we have within us a moral sense because of a functioning conscience?

The reality that we do have a conscience shows that a conscience that absorbs godly views and standards (whether religious or not) will produce within us a moral code that is in harmony with the Golden Rule.

Paul wrote at Romans (2:14,15) that the people of the nations that do not have law still do by nature the things of the law and are a law unto themselves.
A conscience can 'accuse' or 'excuse'. 1st Tim (4:2) shows a conscience can become seared as with a branding iron. A conscience can become calloused or hardened. Who would want the conscience of a serial killer?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Well said you evil Atheist, you will burn in hell for these subversive thoughts, remember this celestial dictator can peer into your most private thought and convict you of thought crimes, but you have spoken for all to see, your soul,(whatever thats is) is doomed, see ya there!!!

Whatever the soul is? Genesis (2:7) informs us that Adam became a living soul.
What was Adam before he became a living soul? Adam was from dust.
Notice Genesis says Adam 'became' a soul. No where does it say Adam came to have a soul, or Adam came to possess a soul. Rather, once Adam received the breath of life Adam himself (the whole complete person) became a soul.

When Adam died Adam returned to the dust or non-existence as before he was created. Sinners die, and Ezekiel 18:4,20 informs the soul that sins dies.
(If we could stop sinning we would not die)
So there is no immortal soul. Souls are not death proof. Since we are not responsible for Adamic sin (Adam's sin) and we are not able to resurrect oneself or resurrect another we need Jesus to do that for us and he will.

1st John 1:7; Acts 24:15.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Oh but god did it remember? He would have imparted His unending knowledge to Noah. Also he imparted to Noah the knowledge to build the pyramids, but he forgot to bless noah with imortality.

Jesus death and resurrection opened up the way to heaven. John (3:13) shows no man ascended up to heaven but Jesus. All who died before Jesus will be resurrected to earth. Example: Acts 2:34.

Recall that even humanly perfect Adam was not created immortal but created to have everlasting life or eternal life if obedient on earth? Adam did not have life within himself because being human Adam was dependent on breathing and eating, etc.

Adam was not death proof. John (5:26) shows God is immortal being from everlasting (Psalm 90:2), but God gives or grants to Jesus to have life within himself (immortality) after his resurrection- Hebrews (9:24).

Even Satan is not death proof. Jesus will destroy Satan according to Hebrews 2:14 B.

So God did not forget to give Noah immortality because Noah's hope is to have everlasting life as part of the humble meek that will inherit the earth as Psalm 37:11,29,38 talks about.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

There are over 2.2 million species on earth...
that's 4.4 million on one boat! So funny that people actually believe this stuff

Genesis mentions animals 'according to their kinds'. For example: there are many in the dog or cat family. So a representative would only be needed.
Water species, of course, would not need to be on the Ark.

 

[Amill]

Genesis mentions animals 'according to their kinds'. For example: there are many in the dog or cat family. So a representative would only be needed.
Water species, of course, would not need to be on the Ark.

Well that's one of the problems. What is a kind? Is it by family? And how could these kinds naturally diversify so much in 4,000 years?

 

[Vile Atheist]

Where do we get our morals? Don't we have within us a moral sense because of a functioning conscience?

The reality that we do have a conscience shows that a conscience that absorbs godly views and standards (whether religious or not) will produce within us a moral code that is in harmony with the Golden Rule.

Paul wrote at Romans (2:14,15) that the people of the nations that do not have law still do by nature the things of the law and are a law unto themselves.
A conscience can 'accuse' or 'excuse'. 1st Tim (4:2) shows a conscience can become seared as with a branding iron. A conscience can become calloused or hardened. Who would want the conscience of a serial killer?

....Just checking, but you DO know Christianity is not the source of the Golden Rule, right?

 

[Vile Atheist]

Well said you evil Atheist, you will burn in hell for these subversive thoughts, remember this celestial dictator can peer into your most private thought and convict you of thought crimes, but you have spoken for all to see, your soul,(whatever thats is) is doomed, see ya there!!!

Your mention of thoughtcrime does allude to a very excellent point. There are some striking parallels between the Abrahamic God and Big Brother. I love Orwell.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

....Just checking, but you DO know Christianity is not the source of the Golden Rule, right?

First, Jesus did teach the Golden rule at Matthew 7:12. Luke 6:31-35.
Jesus even tied that in to the old pre-Christian Mosaic law by saying the Golden Rule is what the law and the prophets mean.

Deuteronomy (10:12,13) tells what God requires but to love.....
Even for the alien- Leviticus 19:34.
Isaiah wrote (1:16,17) to do no evil.....

 

[Vile Atheist]

First, Jesus did teach the Golden rule at Matthew 7:12. Luke 6:31-35.
Jesus even tied that in to the old pre-Christian Mosaic law by saying the Golden Rule is what the law and the prophets mean.

Deuteronomy (10:12,13) tells what God requires but to love.....
Even for the alien- Leviticus 19:34.
Isaiah wrote (1:16,17) to do no evil.....

Yes, Jesus taught the Golden Rule, but that's not my point. I'm just asking if you realize Christianity is not the source of the Golden Rule.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Well that's one of the problems. What is a kind? Is it by family? And how could these kinds naturally diversify so much in 4,000 years?

Boundary. Cats remain in the cat family. Dogs in the dog family or group.

Can't species be of the same 'kind'?

 

[shortfade2]

Not 4000 years. I think that Noah was about 300 years down the Bible timeline.