Among the 13,500 scanned pages are 1,500 different language versions of Genesis 1-3
I'm sure they picked bible passages because the translations were mostly done for them already but I'm a little embarassed that future generations are going to think how amazingly superstitious we were. I mean, Genesis 2 alone...
Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
Yeah really, why Bible passages, why not texts from *this* day instead of from thousands of years ago, there's so much choice of things from today, such as slashdot articles, QDB quotes,.....
Because the bible is already translated, and because the bible is more likely to survive 2000 years.
Assume that none of the 1500 languages used still exist 2,000 years from now. It's a fairly safe bet that if there's still humans, there's still going to be religion. And as annoying as it is to admit for some people, Christianity is likely to be one of those religions that survives. That'll give them a translation key for 1,500 languages, which can in turn be used to translate the rest of the information con
Also the bible is, to say the very, very least, a huge part of our past, present and future.
Everything we know today developed in a society that was utterly permeated by the bible in every nook and cranny.
And since people seem to have forgotten what the purpose of ideology is (you should read some ancient roman texts, or the bible for that matter. But if you've got to pick a single text either read the story of Sodom and Gomorra, and ask yourself the question "there is ONE vague reference to homosexuality i
If those people choose what economists call "Nash efficiency" as an ideology (what atheists do), improving themselves without conscious regard to others
That's embarrassingly wrong. Do you know any actual atheists?
Let's take the classic ur-atheist, the physical scientist. You're suggesting all of those people are in it for themselves? Because the ones I know could do a lot better than a post-doc's wage. The ones I've asked do it because they want to be involved in an enterprise for the ages. They want to learn and contribute that learning to human understanding. They want to teach, sharing knowledge with young minds. They are atheists, but they are not so m
What you see wrong is how ideology works. Ideology works by creating the tinyest of differences, and then this difference grows over time.
What is the basic difference between an atheist and a Christian, well simple : -> a Christian works to advance the glory of God ("be merry and fertile", the ten commandments, "love thy neighbour",...) -> an atheist works to advance himself, without open regard for others (this does not mean he has to be a murderer, just that he does not see the need to consider the effect on strangers before deciding on a course of action)
We can argue about the morality of the 2 approaches till the cows come home. That's because we're talking about different definitions of the word. There is NO atheist morality, and there is a dogmatic Christian morality, therefore they're fundamentally different concepts. Yes Christian morality follows (mostly) certain principles, but I've yet to see a principle that it follows completely. It is, in the end, a balanced compromise between a lot of principles, without any explanation of where the bible puts the compromise.
There is a very good reason, at least according to the bible, to put the compromise exactly where it was put by God, but in many cases we're left to guess. And while the guesses may even be interesting, they are ultimately beside the point. There is no way to verify them. And it really is a compromise. There certainly is violence, even copious use of lethal force, and a few incidents that border on genocide in the bible, so it's a compromise between violence and non-violence. Practicing non-violence in some cases, and beating the crap out of people in other cases (for example, Jesus physically beat people for selling stuff in the temple, and he told soldiers to use violence, even to kill, in defense of a just cause, if they were defending a person). Likewise Jesus refused to use violence in a whole lot of cases (most notably he refused to use violence for his own defense, therefore it is commendable for an individual to forego violence in defense of his own person. He refused to use violence to protect his posessions from desperate thieves). Likewise there's a compromise between research and respecting the bible. There certainly is room for scientific research, but some borders Christians morality will not cross (such as research on people, even dead ones, which is considered abhorrent).
Atheist morality is whatever any single atheist comes up with, therefore it isn't even possible to give a workable definition. If there is a single unrepenting atheist murderer, that means that murder is at least partially acceptable to atheism (the dogmatism of Christian morality prevents this, it is unchanging, no matter how many Christian murderers there are, the only thing that really makes a difference in dogmatic morality is the dogma itself. So for example, when Jesus saved a woman from being stoned that became dogmatic christian morality, even violently defending victims of powerful people, and when mohammed had a sword planted through a baby sleeping on top of her mother, and that mother, who had criticised him, it became dogmatically a crime to criticise islam (and it became, once and for all, a duty upon all muslims to respond violently to criticism when possible) in that dogmatic morality, and this is unchangingly still true today).
Many atheists disagree about even trivial basic parts of atheist morality. Not so for Christians and muslims. Yes there are arguments. But a lot (I'd even say most) issues are considered beyond argument, say abortion. Or sex before marriage. Or homosexuality (the problem with homosexuality is obviously not racism, not "ooh ! they're different", but the (eternal) inability of such a couple to have a natural family, "the way God intended"). Likewise there are differences in opinion about the tactics against those acts, but there is no real disagreement that they should be discouraged, in Christianity by social distancing, in islam by some form of killing (but don't worry, al-azhar thinks you should push gay people off a tall building, while the taliban state you should collapse a wall on top of them, if you call this arguing about homosexuality, then yes, muslims argue about homosexuality, the same goes for christians).
What we can more easily argue about is the effect the 2 options will have on society. Fortunately they have been described in science, and analysed. Their effects on small scales (e.g. "prisoner's dilemma"), their effect on large scales.
Now obviously, every human is an individual, everyone thinks differently. Yet there is a difference between an atheist and a Christian for otherwise they'd be the same. But, as you say, that difference starts minute. One decision in a hundred that goes differently. Then they get kids, and the minute difference becomes a trend. They get kids and the 2 factions are at eachother's throats. Obviously in practice it may take more than 2 generations, but the difference is there, and even you should be able to appreciate that the difference grows over time.
Personally, I'm an atheist and very community-minded. Why? Well really, that's who I am. But if you want me to rationalize it, I'm glad to say that I value life and hope and love, and I want to maximize those things not just for myself, but for everybody, and for the ages. Yes, it's all dust eventually, but so what? Every extra moment of beauty, of joy, of wonder that we make is that much better a universe.
That's great. It's a positive statement. But look a bit beneath the surface. What is the motivation behind the sentences ? Even in this positive statement the problems of atheism (and it's strengths) illustrate the difference. First of all you state matter-of-factly that your "valuing of life", which is commendable in Christian morality, is separate from your atheism, which is true. There is a noticeable presence of fatalism, and it's inherent easyness and convenience, in your statement.
You go on to admit that atheism is in fact in disagreement with you on the point of "sharing moments of beauty, of joy, of wonder...", atheism disagrees with you on the morality of "maximizing life", and you admit these beautiful sentiments are in reality against atheist morality ("Yes, it's all dust eventually").
The point I'm trying to make that in your actions a small difference is to be found with christian morality, because your entire environment is thoroughly Christian, and you're used to that, you consider that good. But the cracks are already there.
Doing good is useless according to your morality ("Yes, it's all dust eventually" versus the Christian "God's glory is forever, and we will be in heaven to enjoy said glory if...").
Now consider your kids. You are going to show them an atheist perspective on the world, and you're going to show them a morality that has cracks in it (your "you can do good, but it's all dust in the end" to give but one example). And I guarantee you, the morality of kids, even under optimal conditions, has huge cracks in it (kids regularly murder pets, just to see the look in their eyes, for example. Ask a pediatrician if you doubt it). You are not going to induce them to fix those cracks, or you're not going to fix all of them.
Then they will have kids (I do hope you become a grandfather). Again we will see less moral incentive determining their actions. The cracks will be wider.
No, just because someone considers himself an atheist (but isn't really, like you) the world does not end. That person does not become the antichrist. However morality (including morality that you would consider essential) for society as a whole suffers, a tiny little bit.
Then with more of them it suffers more. And more. And more.
It becomes a burden (it becomes a "Nash balance"). There is another way to describe what a Nash balance really is, a balance of terror.
A balance of terror, as the Soviets demonstrated, does not equal peace. Rather it stimulates underhanded hits below the belt, rather than straight competition. It stimulates sneaking around and raping the daughter of your enemy, rather than facing him directly. It stimulates attacking the weak, to incite the strong enemy to attack more weak targets on his end.
You go on to admit that atheism is in fact in disagreement with you
No. No, I don't.
What I'm "admitting" is that your (erroneous) expectations don't match my actual views. Dreaming your dreams of a Santa Claus in the sky, the impermanence of the physical world scares you.
It does not scare me. That nothing lasts takes none of the fun out of making something good. If anything, it makes it more poignant, more beautiful. If you don't believe me, go experience some of the art of people like Andy Goldsworthy, who make some works intentionally impermanent.
Again we will see less moral incentive determining their actions. The cracks will be wider.
This is a fine argument from theory, with no actual data. You, some random guy, on the Internet, "guarantee" your argument. So?
History shows that you are wrong. Buddhism started out as a godless venture, accepting the eternal flux we live in, and the Zen Buddhists carry that atheism through today. Have they turned evil? Go meet some and let me know what you think, but I'd say they're doing fine.
Science also suggests you are wrong. At least some and probably much of the human moral sense is provably an innate biological function. For readable introductions, see "Good Natured" by Franz de Waal or "Demonic Males" by Richard Wrangham. And in the decade since those books came out, there's been a heap of good experimental and fMRI observational work, reinforcing the biological basis of community-oriented behavior. And let's not forget "The Forest People," showing that non-Christan societies can develop strong community-oriented behavior.
Your theory that the only source of morality is Christian memes is provably false. And the data about crime and atheism proves the opposite of your notion as well. Atheists are circa 10% of America's population, are circa 0.2% of the prison population. Japan, the least Christian country in the G8, has the lowest violent crime rate. America, the most Christian country, has the highest.
You're really just repeating and embroidering the kind of ignorant statements that Christians make about atheists all the time.
I agree with you, but in fairness, the reason the atheist prison population is so low is probably because it is mostly accepted by philosophically minded, middle to upper class, well educated people (based on anecdotal evidence).
I agree with you, but in fairness, the reason the atheist prison population is so low is probably because it is mostly accepted by philosophically minded, middle to upper class, well educated people (based on anecdotal evidence).
That seems reasonable to me. It could indeed be that people inclined to be good are more likely to become atheists.
It could also be that becoming atheists makes them more likely to behave well. Or there could be some third factor that drives them both.
Regardless, the crime numbers undermine his theory that atheism is destructive of moral orders in general, just because it wrecks the one he's pushing. He may behave well because only some sky daddy is watching his every move, but that's not true even for my C
That seems reasonable to me. It could indeed be that people inclined to be good are more likely to become atheists.
Or it could be that people who basically have everything, including the power to isolate themselves from the world of the poor, have no intrest in an ideology that demands they help out others.
Above all, they have NO intrest, in actually dirtying their hands while helping someone. "Do that with my taxes" is the spirit. They refuse to live in places where they might (might) be confronted with ac
You have a bad habit of generalizing everyone into some assholes who live in the suburbs. I would bet that a bum from NYC on a suburban church doorstep would earn quite a bit of resentment in many places, though all would be quite the overstatement. There are atheists everywhere. Get out of your shell.
What sort of bizarro-world do you live in? Atheism is at its most rampant in the big cities and academic communities, where everyone is living side by side. There's a corresponding correlation between gated communities and church attendance (or at least professed intention toward church attendance).
As to the medieval fortresses, I fail to grasp what sort of point you might be trying to make. Church entrances were not guarded because the people inside were so nice that nobody would want to attack them? And
What I'm "admitting" is that your (erroneous) expectations don't match my actual views. Dreaming your dreams of a Santa Claus in the sky, the impermanence of the physical world scares you.
The impermanence of the world ? You're kidding right ? What is more permanent than the world ?
Are you a postmodernist ? "Whatever I think is the truth".
I realize that for people like you things like, oh, say the laws of nature are "temporary inconvenient". You will find them, obviously, beyond merely inflexible, and more t
You're arguing to prove a point, rather than trying to understand anything I'm saying. I don't see any value in carrying this further.
For the record, I disagree with pretty much every interpretation you have made of what I've said. You've also dragged in a host of things that I haven't said and don't agree with, apparently because they sound vaguely similar to you. I decline to accept responsibility for dealing with the bag of nonsense that you've chosen to carry around with you.
Atheists in a given culture demonstratably have huge amounts of common morality. Clearly morality thus exists outside of the religious context you seem to think it has to. Single exceptions do not disprove a pattern outside a religious context.
What is the basic difference between an atheist and a Christian, well simple: -> a Christian works to advance the glory of God ("be merry and fertile", the ten commandments, "love thy neighbour",...) -> an atheist works to advance himself, without open regard for others (this does not mean he has to be a murderer, just that he does not see the need to consider the effect on strangers before deciding on a course of actio
Wow. Bad premise for an argument. I can easily argue that christians work solely to keep themselves from going to hell. The fact that this happens to advance the "glory of god" is incidental. In fact I find that to be a much more logical argument than yours. Furthermore positing that everything an atheist does is self motivated and does not consider effects on others is demonstrably wrong - not to mention offensive.
Atheist morality is whatever any single atheist comes up with, therefore it isn't even possible to give a workable definition
Since christians can't seem to agree on a common definition of morality your logic is on
What is the basic difference between an atheist and a Christian, well simple :
-> a Christian works to advance the glory of God ("be merry and fertile", the ten commandments, "love thy neighbour",...)
-> an atheist works to advance himself, without open regard for others (this does not mean he has to be a murderer, just that he does not see the need to consider the effect on strangers before deciding on a course of action)
This is more or less exactly the opposite of what many decades of interactions
The fancy is indeed no other than a mode of memory emancipated from the order
of space and time. -- Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Well that's embarassing (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure they picked bible passages because the translations were mostly done for them already but I'm a little embarassed that future generations are going to think how amazingly superstitious we were. I mean, Genesis 2 alone...
Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
They're going to think we were cuckoo!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the bible is already translated, and because the bible is more likely to survive 2000 years.
Assume that none of the 1500 languages used still exist 2,000 years from now. It's a fairly safe bet that if there's still humans, there's still going to be religion. And as annoying as it is to admit for some people, Christianity is likely to be one of those religions that survives. That'll give them a translation key for 1,500 languages, which can in turn be used to translate the rest of the information con
Re: (Score:-1, Troll)
Also the bible is, to say the very, very least, a huge part of our past, present and future.
Everything we know today developed in a society that was utterly permeated by the bible in every nook and cranny.
And since people seem to have forgotten what the purpose of ideology is (you should read some ancient roman texts, or the bible for that matter. But if you've got to pick a single text either read the story of Sodom and Gomorra, and ask yourself the question "there is ONE vague reference to homosexuality i
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
If those people choose what economists call "Nash efficiency" as an ideology (what atheists do), improving themselves without conscious regard to others
That's embarrassingly wrong. Do you know any actual atheists?
Let's take the classic ur-atheist, the physical scientist. You're suggesting all of those people are in it for themselves? Because the ones I know could do a lot better than a post-doc's wage. The ones I've asked do it because they want to be involved in an enterprise for the ages. They want to learn and contribute that learning to human understanding. They want to teach, sharing knowledge with young minds. They are atheists, but they are not so m
Re:Well that's embarassing (Score:2)
What you see wrong is how ideology works. Ideology works by creating the tinyest of differences, and then this difference grows over time.
What is the basic difference between an atheist and a Christian, well simple : ...)
-> a Christian works to advance the glory of God ("be merry and fertile", the ten commandments, "love thy neighbour",
-> an atheist works to advance himself, without open regard for others (this does not mean he has to be a murderer, just that he does not see the need to consider the effect on strangers before deciding on a course of action)
We can argue about the morality of the 2 approaches till the cows come home. That's because we're talking about different definitions of the word. There is NO atheist morality, and there is a dogmatic Christian morality, therefore they're fundamentally different concepts. Yes Christian morality follows (mostly) certain principles, but I've yet to see a principle that it follows completely. It is, in the end, a balanced compromise between a lot of principles, without any explanation of where the bible puts the compromise.
There is a very good reason, at least according to the bible, to put the compromise exactly where it was put by God, but in many cases we're left to guess. And while the guesses may even be interesting, they are ultimately beside the point. There is no way to verify them. And it really is a compromise. There certainly is violence, even copious use of lethal force, and a few incidents that border on genocide in the bible, so it's a compromise between violence and non-violence. Practicing non-violence in some cases, and beating the crap out of people in other cases (for example, Jesus physically beat people for selling stuff in the temple, and he told soldiers to use violence, even to kill, in defense of a just cause, if they were defending a person). Likewise Jesus refused to use violence in a whole lot of cases (most notably he refused to use violence for his own defense, therefore it is commendable for an individual to forego violence in defense of his own person. He refused to use violence to protect his posessions from desperate thieves). Likewise there's a compromise between research and respecting the bible. There certainly is room for scientific research, but some borders Christians morality will not cross (such as research on people, even dead ones, which is considered abhorrent).
Atheist morality is whatever any single atheist comes up with, therefore it isn't even possible to give a workable definition. If there is a single unrepenting atheist murderer, that means that murder is at least partially acceptable to atheism (the dogmatism of Christian morality prevents this, it is unchanging, no matter how many Christian murderers there are, the only thing that really makes a difference in dogmatic morality is the dogma itself. So for example, when Jesus saved a woman from being stoned that became dogmatic christian morality, even violently defending victims of powerful people, and when mohammed had a sword planted through a baby sleeping on top of her mother, and that mother, who had criticised him, it became dogmatically a crime to criticise islam (and it became, once and for all, a duty upon all muslims to respond violently to criticism when possible) in that dogmatic morality, and this is unchangingly still true today).
Many atheists disagree about even trivial basic parts of atheist morality. Not so for Christians and muslims. Yes there are arguments. But a lot (I'd even say most) issues are considered beyond argument, say abortion. Or sex before marriage. Or homosexuality (the problem with homosexuality is obviously not racism, not "ooh ! they're different", but the (eternal) inability of such a couple to have a natural family, "the way God intended"). Likewise there are differences in opinion about the tactics against those acts, but there is no real disagreement that they should be discouraged, in Christianity by social distancing, in islam by some form of killing (but don't worry, al-azhar thinks you should push gay people off a tall building, while the taliban state you should collapse a wall on top of them, if you call this arguing about homosexuality, then yes, muslims argue about homosexuality, the same goes for christians).
What we can more easily argue about is the effect the 2 options will have on society. Fortunately they have been described in science, and analysed. Their effects on small scales (e.g. "prisoner's dilemma"), their effect on large scales.
Now obviously, every human is an individual, everyone thinks differently. Yet there is a difference between an atheist and a Christian for otherwise they'd be the same. But, as you say, that difference starts minute. One decision in a hundred that goes differently. Then they get kids, and the minute difference becomes a trend. They get kids and the 2 factions are at eachother's throats. Obviously in practice it may take more than 2 generations, but the difference is there, and even you should be able to appreciate that the difference grows over time.
Personally, I'm an atheist and very community-minded. Why? Well really, that's who I am. But if you want me to rationalize it, I'm glad to say that I value life and hope and love, and I want to maximize those things not just for myself, but for everybody, and for the ages. Yes, it's all dust eventually, but so what? Every extra moment of beauty, of joy, of wonder that we make is that much better a universe.
That's great. It's a positive statement. But look a bit beneath the surface. What is the motivation behind the sentences ? Even in this positive statement the problems of atheism (and it's strengths) illustrate the difference. First of all you state matter-of-factly that your "valuing of life", which is commendable in Christian morality, is separate from your atheism, which is true. There is a noticeable presence of fatalism, and it's inherent easyness and convenience, in your statement.
You go on to admit that atheism is in fact in disagreement with you on the point of "sharing moments of beauty, of joy, of wonder ...", atheism disagrees with you on the morality of "maximizing life", and you admit these beautiful sentiments are in reality against atheist morality ("Yes, it's all dust eventually").
The point I'm trying to make that in your actions a small difference is to be found with christian morality, because your entire environment is thoroughly Christian, and you're used to that, you consider that good. But the cracks are already there.
Doing good is useless according to your morality ("Yes, it's all dust eventually" versus the Christian "God's glory is forever, and we will be in heaven to enjoy said glory if ...").
Now consider your kids. You are going to show them an atheist perspective on the world, and you're going to show them a morality that has cracks in it (your "you can do good, but it's all dust in the end" to give but one example). And I guarantee you, the morality of kids, even under optimal conditions, has huge cracks in it (kids regularly murder pets, just to see the look in their eyes, for example. Ask a pediatrician if you doubt it). You are not going to induce them to fix those cracks, or you're not going to fix all of them.
Then they will have kids (I do hope you become a grandfather). Again we will see less moral incentive determining their actions. The cracks will be wider.
No, just because someone considers himself an atheist (but isn't really, like you) the world does not end. That person does not become the antichrist. However morality (including morality that you would consider essential) for society as a whole suffers, a tiny little bit.
Then with more of them it suffers more. And more. And more.
It becomes a burden (it becomes a "Nash balance"). There is another way to describe what a Nash balance really is, a balance of terror.
A balance of terror, as the Soviets demonstrated, does not equal peace. Rather it stimulates underhanded hits below the belt, rather than straight competition. It stimulates sneaking around and raping the daughter of your enemy, rather than facing him directly. It stimulates attacking the weak, to incite the strong enemy to attack more weak targets on his end.
Re:Well that's embarassing (Score:5, Informative)
You go on to admit that atheism is in fact in disagreement with you
No. No, I don't.
What I'm "admitting" is that your (erroneous) expectations don't match my actual views. Dreaming your dreams of a Santa Claus in the sky, the impermanence of the physical world scares you.
It does not scare me. That nothing lasts takes none of the fun out of making something good. If anything, it makes it more poignant, more beautiful. If you don't believe me, go experience some of the art of people like Andy Goldsworthy, who make some works intentionally impermanent.
Again we will see less moral incentive determining their actions. The cracks will be wider.
This is a fine argument from theory, with no actual data. You, some random guy, on the Internet, "guarantee" your argument. So?
History shows that you are wrong. Buddhism started out as a godless venture, accepting the eternal flux we live in, and the Zen Buddhists carry that atheism through today. Have they turned evil? Go meet some and let me know what you think, but I'd say they're doing fine.
Science also suggests you are wrong. At least some and probably much of the human moral sense is provably an innate biological function. For readable introductions, see "Good Natured" by Franz de Waal or "Demonic Males" by Richard Wrangham. And in the decade since those books came out, there's been a heap of good experimental and fMRI observational work, reinforcing the biological basis of community-oriented behavior. And let's not forget "The Forest People," showing that non-Christan societies can develop strong community-oriented behavior.
Your theory that the only source of morality is Christian memes is provably false. And the data about crime and atheism proves the opposite of your notion as well. Atheists are circa 10% of America's population, are circa 0.2% of the prison population. Japan, the least Christian country in the G8, has the lowest violent crime rate. America, the most Christian country, has the highest.
You're really just repeating and embroidering the kind of ignorant statements that Christians make about atheists all the time.
Re: (Score:1)
I agree with you, but in fairness, the reason the atheist prison population is so low is probably because it is mostly accepted by philosophically minded, middle to upper class, well educated people (based on anecdotal evidence).
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you, but in fairness, the reason the atheist prison population is so low is probably because it is mostly accepted by philosophically minded, middle to upper class, well educated people (based on anecdotal evidence).
That seems reasonable to me. It could indeed be that people inclined to be good are more likely to become atheists.
It could also be that becoming atheists makes them more likely to behave well. Or there could be some third factor that drives them both.
Regardless, the crime numbers undermine his theory that atheism is destructive of moral orders in general, just because it wrecks the one he's pushing. He may behave well because only some sky daddy is watching his every move, but that's not true even for my C
Re: (Score:1)
That seems reasonable to me. It could indeed be that people inclined to be good are more likely to become atheists.
Or it could be that people who basically have everything, including the power to isolate themselves from the world of the poor, have no intrest in an ideology that demands they help out others.
Above all, they have NO intrest, in actually dirtying their hands while helping someone. "Do that with my taxes" is the spirit. They refuse to live in places where they might (might) be confronted with ac
Re: (Score:1)
You have a bad habit of generalizing everyone into some assholes who live in the suburbs. I would bet that a bum from NYC on a suburban church doorstep would earn quite a bit of resentment in many places, though all would be quite the overstatement. There are atheists everywhere. Get out of your shell.
Re: (Score:2)
What sort of bizarro-world do you live in? Atheism is at its most rampant in the big cities and academic communities, where everyone is living side by side. There's a corresponding correlation between gated communities and church attendance (or at least professed intention toward church attendance).
As to the medieval fortresses, I fail to grasp what sort of point you might be trying to make. Church entrances were not guarded because the people inside were so nice that nobody would want to attack them? And
Re: (Score:1)
What I'm "admitting" is that your (erroneous) expectations don't match my actual views. Dreaming your dreams of a Santa Claus in the sky, the impermanence of the physical world scares you.
The impermanence of the world ? You're kidding right ? What is more permanent than the world ?
Are you a postmodernist ? "Whatever I think is the truth".
I realize that for people like you things like, oh, say the laws of nature are "temporary inconvenient". You will find them, obviously, beyond merely inflexible, and more t
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh.
You're arguing to prove a point, rather than trying to understand anything I'm saying. I don't see any value in carrying this further.
For the record, I disagree with pretty much every interpretation you have made of what I've said. You've also dragged in a host of things that I haven't said and don't agree with, apparently because they sound vaguely similar to you. I decline to accept responsibility for dealing with the bag of nonsense that you've chosen to carry around with you.
Further, I continue to
Re: (Score:1)
Atheists in a given culture demonstratably have huge amounts of common morality. Clearly morality thus exists outside of the religious context you seem to think it has to. Single exceptions do not disprove a pattern outside a religious context.
What is making you so blind?
Bad argument from a faulty premise (Score:2)
What is the basic difference between an atheist and a Christian, well simple : ...)
-> a Christian works to advance the glory of God ("be merry and fertile", the ten commandments, "love thy neighbour",
-> an atheist works to advance himself, without open regard for others (this does not mean he has to be a murderer, just that he does not see the need to consider the effect on strangers before deciding on a course of actio
Wow. Bad premise for an argument. I can easily argue that christians work solely to keep themselves from going to hell. The fact that this happens to advance the "glory of god" is incidental. In fact I find that to be a much more logical argument than yours. Furthermore positing that everything an atheist does is self motivated and does not consider effects on others is demonstrably wrong - not to mention offensive.
Atheist morality is whatever any single atheist comes up with, therefore it isn't even possible to give a workable definition
Since christians can't seem to agree on a common definition of morality your logic is on
Re: (Score:2)
This is more or less exactly the opposite of what many decades of interactions