MarcBee you seem to be really angry with and extremly hate someone you deny even exist. This is something I have never understood about athiest they accuse God of murder and genocide then say that He doesn't exist. This would be equivilant to me accuseing the easterbunny of favoritism because he didn't stop by my house this past easter.
Thanks for adding to the list of irrelevant judgments of my motivations. So now the list includes
--angry
--"extremly hate"
--disingenuous
--bitter.
Anyone else want to add?
Correct, atheists should not hate what they think does not
exist. But that is to be distinguished from the task of exposing the caricature of the desert deity as depicted in primitive texts and as claimed to still exist (in an updated, kinder, gentler form) by modern believers. Are you angry and bitter and hateful if you criticize the Allah-type god, or if you don't believe in Joseph Smith's Jesus and Moroni? Krishna? Mithra? What if you had once served one of those gods with all your heart, but now see, understand and enjoy explaining how silly they are? Should you be legitimately accused of <<extremly hate>>(sic) if you are unafraid, if not proud to talk about the experience, even among those still under delusion?
Atheists do not say there is no morality. Atheists do say that morality is innate to human nature and that it evolves culturally, meaning that societies and individuals survive and succeed best (natural selection) when using behavior codes based on say, empathy and cooperation rather than individual selfishness.
Just exactly how is the Atheists morality higher than any other group morality. according to your own logic of society based morality then any society morality is just as valid, that includes the Nazis, the cannibals and the jihadists. Following your logic the morality of a gang of killers is just as valid as a church. Actually even any individual morality is just as right as another even if a person got his morality from Santa Claus or the tooth fairy.
Correct, your god is beyond all accountability, just like ancient human kings, dictators, tyrants were. A morally respectable god could do much better, and would have no need to ever play the "might makes right" card. It's hard to admire anyone who needs to act like that, especially if they REALLY ARE all-powerful and all-knowing.
Exactly God is beyond all accountability for he created this universe, it is his to do as he desires, and besides who could stop him? and who are you to instruct god on how to be a "Morally respectable God" do you think he needs lessons from you or anyone? Are you not acting like the silly prohibitionist lady who said, that she would give a tongue lashing to Jesus for making wine for the wedding in Canaan?
I however, can imagine and list all kinds of (so far nonexistent) evidence that would completely change my mind about these issues, especially about the existence of your primitive god Yahweh. Can you list any conceivable body of (for now, just imagined) evidence that would change your mind to NOT believe? Bet you can't. And that's what faith does to people.
You are barking to the wrong tree, I came from unbelief, I was not a Christian, actually I did not want to become a Christian, but here I am; so yes I did change my mind from not believing to believing. Well I thank God for what faith did to me.
__________________
**Original Matthew 28:19 Restored**
MarcBee you seem to be really angry with and extremly hate someone you deny even exist. This is something I have never understood about athiest they accuse God of murder and genocide then say that He doesn't exist. This would be equivilant to me accuseing the easterbunny of favoritism because he didn't stop by my house this past easter.
smh
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Ok but I never said "burden." Even back when I answered every apostolic altar call to "increase my burden for the lost" the next day I seemed to default to having "a big concern." And I didn't want to disappoint my Savior....but burden? When I witnessed to people about Jesus, and they didn't want him, I probably felt more like (use your Redd Foxx voice here,) "Ya big dummy!" (But actually I was the big dummy.)
Disingenuous: (adjective)
not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
synonyms: insincere, dishonest, untruthful, false, deceitful, duplicitous, lying, mendacious;
So, first I'm what you suppose is bitter, but now I'm also disingenuous. In formal debate, such ad hominems indicate a losing side senses they have no better points to claim.
But to answer anyhow...
As an Apostolic for 21 years, I was encouraged by my leaders and my beloved scriptures to share my world view with the whole world, because it was supposed to bring people knowledge of a better life. So, I'm merely doing the same thing now (but actually not as vociferously) but now having a different and a more experienced viewpoint. No need for you to get bitter :^) over my freedom of expression here in Timmy Talk. There's always the "ignore" button to avoid those you don't like or can't handle.
I wish I had read in the mid 1980s the kind of evidence, criticism, and reasoning I am asserting today. It maybe would have triggered some cognitive dissonance sooner than the way it did happen for me--too slowly and fearfully.
well, i didn't call you bitter; but pointed out where 'bitter' comes from. your posts do come across as pretty angry...but then i am hardly one to talk there. i do think you might risk losing the audience you may have gained by dumping the Pentecostal thing; but then, this is a forum, and i like to think this is just the place to bring stuff like that. so, are you atheist now?
and amen @ cognitive dissonance for Apo/Pents! But good luck with that, too...
Ok but I never said "burden." Even back when I answered every apostolic altar call to "increase my burden for the lost" the next day I seemed to default to having "a big concern." And I didn't want to disappoint my Savior....but burden? When I witnessed to people about Jesus, and they didn't want him, I probably felt more like (use your Redd Foxx voice here,) "Ya big dummy!" (But actually I was the big dummy.)
amen there, too--Pents are (satanically) taught to proselytize, when Christ would say "count the cost," and "every inch of skin will be stripped from you."
Just exactly how is the Atheists morality higher than any other group morality. according to your own logic of society based morality then any society morality is just as valid, that includes the Nazis, the cannibals and the jihadists. Following your logic the morality of a gang of killers is just as valid as a church.
The Nazi card doesn't work in this case. Moral codes developed in human societies way before any scriptures were conceived. Many humans are naturally concerned with each other's (and our own) well-being, with or without the gods, and that may be the basis for moral behavior. Empathy (or similar behavior) can also be detected in primate troops, dolphin pods, and IMO, dogs. Anyhow, a religious or faith-based moral code is definitely not a prerequisite for knowing that say, murder or genocide is categorically wrong. From the Amalekites
perspective, the deeds of the Yahweh god and his servants were just as morally wrong as what Nazis did to the Jews some centuries later. A (closer to) objective moral code would probably state, "Genocide is wrong regardless who wants to commit it." But a more subjective morality would say, "Genocide is not wrong if and when one of our gods wishes to commit genocide." Yet christians like to claim their morality is objective, and all others are subjective. IMO, all moral codes are probably subjective, and that's not an unfortunate thing. Human evolution (both cultural and biological evolution) will naturally favor the moral systems that work, meaning those systems that promote the well-being (and therefore survival) of mankind. And yes, that implies there's no single "correct" moral code, and several systems can be equally valid (at least meaning equally successful toward promoting the most well-being and alleviating the most suffering.)
Probably the religious type mind can't handle the fuzziness of such uncertainty, therefore "god's law" is invoked and invented to make everything fit into a nice unquestionable package. But just open the package, and there are many problems, especially concerning gods who behave just as badly as men.
Anyhow, no god needed in order to be a good, morally sensitive human.
There was a man who owned a vineyard, and had two sons...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcBee
Thanks for adding to the list of irrelevant judgments of my motivations. So now the list includes
--angry
--"extremly hate"
--disingenuous
--bitter.
Anyone else want to add?
your feet stink! really, i think it's just in the delivery.
"fear is the real enemy; we think it is hate, but it is fear." Gandhi
(snip)
This means the church needs to start over again, reversing this trend, we need to reChristinize America.
Hasn't that ship already sailed? Does your god typically want go back to (Gentiles) who have consistently voted "No thanks." ? Why spend so much spiritual energy on reprobates? The "better" results would be to sell your bundle o' goods to poor and/or uneducated societies that are more likely to buy into (whatever) Bronze Age writings grip the imagination. Places in Africa come to mind. Oops, already happening.
Linear Mode
