Can't fault you on the prior bias, to be honest

I was raised Christian and even though I've researched outside and familiarized myself with different ways of thinking, I can agree with you that my first belief was still strong.

During the period I underwent my journey of spiritual self-enlightenment, I could have settled on anything other than Christianity.
Wouldn't have been Atheism though. Personal reasons.

However, I came back. Not just to Christianity but to my denomination.
I'm Anglican by the way.
Everything else just didn't cut it for me.

Sadly, most people would never be (dare I say) brave enough to embark on something like this for themselves.

cloudgoddess:

Favolly:

Not every time read to counter, Sometimes read to understand. Of course, you and every other person see Christianity as a religion. And for official purposes, I would even tick the Christianity box under religion when I'm filling a form. What I said up there is my own personal experience with Christianity and that I don't live it as a religion because that's not what it was intended to be in the beginning. I talked about how extremists have graduated to defining it by rites and routines of 'religious' practices amongst other things. Please read to comprehend next time, don't be a selective reader

So Mr Gerrard, if I say my own Christianity is not a religion, dont bother arguing with me, aye?

Afterall, it is my Christianity, not your christianity

Pardon me, do you go to church?

Pidggin:


You've just proven my point.

By calling out a baseless opinion being touted as fact, I have proved that atheists as a whole suffer from depression? Brilliant reasoning.

Op in your quest to find truth, you ended up being deceived and under deception. The problem is that you were relating Christianity as a religion. Religion is simply a practise or certain rules and doctrines, while Christianity is a way of life, having a personal relationship with Christ. It's a pity that the so called Christians of today simply practise religion.
You think you are free by living as a free thinker, you are actually living in a bigger bondage than you can imagine.
Religion is nothing, Christianity is everything.

You are now just a Christian. You have just realized what this is all about. Straight to God and leave Him alone to judge you. That is it, but don't hurt others in all your quests henceforth "cos I say so. Happy Sunday!!!!

KingEbukasBlog:


I have no probs if someone else is not a believer but dont mock my belief and brand yours as rational- if that's the case then we have a REAL problem

Long and short.....shikena!

KingEbukasBlog:


They are not powerful words . That's someone trying to justify her acts or dispelling the guilt or regret .

Get out of my head.......
A hundred likes.

cloudgoddess:

Where would said conviction come from? With no prior

All these forces I mention - culture, society, family, familiarity - are extremely strong environmental forces that act on our subconscious minds to produce the choices we make and the attitudes we hold. "Conviction" as you put it is just a strong belief that something is true. But that still doesn't say anything about its objective legitimacy. We humans can have all sorts of convictions that are wrong - most of which are a result of conditioning via those environmental forces. And whichever attitudes and convictions we adopted first tend to generate resistance in the face of newly introduced, competing attitudes, regardless of validity.

Just something to think about.

@bolded what defines a right or wrong conviction?

TheRealAdonye:
Hebrews 11:1 puts it ever so succinctly.

Verse 3 relates to the creation. We believe it by faith.
It's can't be rationalized.

Thank you for response . Now answer properly bro , did the atheists witness creation to be able to ascertain that God did not do it ?

beau49:




@bolded what defines a right or wrong conviction?

For a scientific conviction, you can test whether it is right or wrong by checking whether it can be substantiated by empirical evidence and whether it can make valid predictions.

For a moral conviction, you should test whether it causes direct or indirect harm to the physical, mental, or emotional well-being of an individual. There are grey areas, though.

CoolUsername:


For a scientific conviction, you can test whether it is right or wrong by checking whether it can be substantiated by empirical evidence and whether it can make valid predictions.

For a moral conviction, you should test whether it causes direct or indirect harm to the physical, mental, or emotional well-being of an individual. There are grey areas, though.

And Spiritual?



What I mean is what makes my beliefs as a Christian or muslim wrong? What checks do you useas a basis?


Science?

beau49:




@bolded what defines a right or wrong conviction?

Good question.

When it comes to fact claims, like why human beings get disease, how nature works, how old the earth is, or if seizures are a matter of witchcraft (rather than mental malfunctioning), then the determinant is whether or not it aligns with reality and is consistent across independent trials.

But when it comes to matters of triviality that are at the root subjective, like favorite food or genre of music, there is no "correct" conviction.

beau49:






And Spiritual?



What I mean is what makes my beliefs as a Christian or muslim wrong? What checks do you useas a basis?


Science?

It depends specifically what beliefs you're looking at. Christianity and Islam both make a lot of fact claims - of how nature works, how the world began, that there is an unseen entity interfering in our daily affairs, and more. Since these are fact claims, they require evidence that is consistent and independently varified, none of which has ever been provided since the dawn of those religions.

To make matters worse, not only have many of the claims made by those religious books NOT been verified, but findings in direct opposition to them have been verified, multiple times. And if a book that claims to be the ultimate source of guidance for humanity is riddled with unsupported and disproven claims, then it follows that it is untrustworthy and the belief system as a whole is flawed.

"Spirituality" is a very broad term and can encompass anything from Buddhist meditation (a practice that can be completely secular), and worship of the Abrahamic god, simply dependant on who you ask. It's a more shady area due to its subjectivity but you can sometimes break down spiritual experiences in similar ways. For example, if you're testing the spirituality claim that "Buddhist meditation brings peace", you can evaluate that. In a study, the brains of long-term buddhist meditators were hooked up to brain scanning machines, and the results showed that the amount of gray matter in their brain (areas responsible for conscious reasoning, emotion regulation, and peace of mind) were significantly increased compared to a non-meditator.

If you have a claim like "god spoke to me and told me to kill my neighbor", its a lot harder to test empirically. But because gods speaking to people has proven to be such an inconsistent occurance (for example, another person can say god told them to SAVE the neighbor about to be killed), it can be classified as merely a result of delusion -- and I say that in the nicest way possible. In this context the word just means a mistaken perception - something us humans are ALL prone to.

cloudgoddess:

It depends specifically what beliefs you're looking at. Christianity and Islam both make a lot of fact claims - of how nature works, how the world began, that there is an unseen entity interfering in our daily affairs, and more. Since these are fact claims, they require evidence that is consistent and independently varified, none of which has ever been provided since the dawn of those religions.

To make matters worse, not only have many of the claims made by those religious books NOT been verified, but findings in direct opposition to them have been verified, multiple times. And if a book that claims to be the ultimate source of guidance for humanity is riddled with unsupported and disproven claims, then it follows that it is untrustworthy and the belief system as a whole is flawed.

In other words whatever cannot be verified or proven you don't see as true. Now this verification who does them,you or other people?

beau49:




In other words whatever cannot be verified or proven you don't see as true. Now this verification who does them,you or other people?

I added more to my post, and please see my first response to you as well. I think it answers some of this.

Any observer can do the verification, it just has to be consistent to be valid. And supernatural claims are WILDLY inconsistent. Even within Christianity you will get 100 people with different contradicting testimonies.

And when I say valid, I mean capable of confidently being taken as fact. If something hasn't yet been validated (but also hasn't been DISPROVEN, which many biblical/quran claims have been), that doesn't mean it MUST not be true. It just means that there is a potentially high likelyhood of it being untrue, and taking it as fact is risky. And when it comes to religion, it's simply unwise to base major decisions and lifestyle choices on unvalidated claims that have a high chance of being incorrect.

Not surprisingly, people don't do this in any other realm of their lives except religion. Before taking a medicine, people make sure it's been tested to work and not have deadly side effects. Before driving a car for a long trip, people make sure all the parts are working. But with religion, people are okay with basing their entire lives on mere conjecture.

cloudgoddess:

I added more to my post, and please see my first response to you as well. I think it answers some of this.

Any observer can do the verification, it just has to be consistent to be valid. And supernatural claims are WILDLY inconsistent. Even within Christianity you will get 100 people with different contradicting testimonies.

And when I say valid, I mean capable of confidently being taken as fact. If something hasn't yet been validated (but also hasn't been DISPROVEN, which many biblical/quran claims have been), that doesn't mean it MUST not be true. It just means that there is a potentially high likelyhood of it being untrue, and taking it as fact is risky. And when it comes to religion, it's simply unwise to base major decisions and lifestyle choices on unvalidated claims that have a high chance of being incorrect.

Not surprisingly, people don't do this in any other realm of their lives except religion. Before taking a medicine, people make sure it's been tested to work and not have deadly side effects. Before driving a car for a long trip, people make sure all the parts are working. But with religion, people are okay with basing their entire lives on mere conjecture.

I believe I have read your posts and responses.
I am just trying to clarify some things.
All the best though.....

Pidggin:
Most athiest are depressed. All those things the OP mentioned only gives temporal excitement.

Maybe the ones you know (that is even if you know any), anyone can be depressed. Most christians are depressed

Favolly:

Not every time read to counter, Sometimes read to understand. Of course, you and every other person see Christianity as a religion. And for official purposes, I would even tick the Christianity box under religion when I'm filling a form. What I said up there is my own personal experience with Christianity and that I don't live it as a religion because that's not what it was intended to be in the beginning. I talked about how extremists have graduated to defining it by rites and routines of 'religious' practices amongst other things. Please read to comprehend next time, don't be a selective reader

So Mr Gerrard, if I say my own Christianity is not a religion, dont bother arguing with me, aye?

Afterall, it is my Christianity, not your christianity

Christianity is a religion. All religions are ways of life. You saying christianity is a way of life is right, just like Hinduism is a way of life too.

Pidggin:

You've just proven my point.

Hehehehehe. What a way to reason. You just prove my point

cloudgoddess:

By calling out a baseless opinion being touted as fact, I have proved that atheists as a whole suffer from depression? Brilliant reasoning.

To say some people here are dumb is an understatement. Just imagine here reasoning

cloudgoddess:

By calling out a baseless opinion being touted as fact, I have proved that atheists as a whole suffer from depression? Brilliant reasoning.

To say some people here are dumb is an understatement. Just imagine her reasoning

KingEbukasBlog:


Thank you for response . Now answer properly bro , did the atheists witness creation to be able to ascertain that God did not do it ?

Did the christians withness creation to be able to ascertain that Panku or Orunmila did not do it?

geesampower:

Did the christians withness creation to be able to ascertain that Panku or Orunmila did not do it?

Faith ?

TheRealAdonye:
I'm Christian but I believe we could all be a bit more open-minded.
Please share your thoughts on this article:
Just to be clear, this is not about why religion is bad. This is about how my life is better now that I’m not religious anymore. Because my experience of organised religion is based on Christianity, this post is going to be very much Christianity focused. If you’re a Christian, please don’t take it personal.

A few years ago, I realised that I had reached a point where my being a Christian was not really making a difference to my life. I wasn’t praying, I wasn’t going to church, and I hadn’t picked up a Bible in ages. I picked what parts of Christian doctrine to live by, completely ignoring others. I basically wasn’t doing any of the things that Christians would normally qualify as being a good Christian.

So I put my religion up to some serious scrutiny. What was Christianity really doing for me that I couldn’t do for myself? Did it give me inner peace? I could get that with meditation. Purpose in life? Didn’t need Jesus to figure that out. Guidelines on how to live? I could take advice from the Bible without actually being a Christian. Heaven? I figured if I worked hard at being a good person and God still decided I wasn’t good enough for heaven, then I didn’t want to be in that heaven anyway. Push come to shove, I would just hitch a ride to a different heaven. Anyways jokes aside, I put some serious thought into what I really, truly believed – my personal creed, if you will – and found that I didn’t need to be a Christian to believe it and live by it. So I stopped calling myself one.

My life has improved tremendously in many ways since I left the church, but here are the five major ones:

Your experience and reflection is based on christianity according to you, so my views and opinions you asked for will be based on christianity as well.
Now, let's be clear here. You put your life to scrutiny, not your religion and definitely not christianity. Following Jesus, which is what Christianity is, gives you forgiveness of sins. No meditation can do that. Your purpose in life is to please God, according to the Bible. So you need Jesus to help you figure that out, there is no other way. The options for eternity are Heaven or Hell. You don't get to hitch a ride to a different heaven. You determine your choices, but you do not determine the consequences of your choices. That is the way it is for every man. If your life has improved, it is not because you stopped being a christian but because you started doing things with some sense of purpose, scrutiny and evaluation. Nobody stopped a christian from these.

I don’t feel guilty for doing what makes me happy: As a Christian I found that I would repeatedly do things that Christianity frowns upon, feel bad for doing them, and apologize to God, only to go back and do them again. Basically I was a hypocrite, telling God I was sorry for doing things that I knew I would most definitely do again. I realised the reason for this was that I wasn’t really sorry, because I didn’t truly believe what I was doing was wrong. I only felt bad because the church said I should. When I stopped listening to the church, I stopped feeling bad and started feeling free to live my live the way I want.

That is a deadened conscience. It is not a new thing or something to rejoice about. Have you not seen thieves and politicians that do not feel guilty, or rapists and wife beaters without remorse? Are they hypocrites? Do you suppose that Hitler did not live the way he wanted and even think he was doing the world a lot of good?

I don’t feel like I have to make excuses for God when bad things happen: As a Christian I spent a lot of time wondering why the world is so bleeped up and why God ‘lets’ bad things happen. I would make up all kinds of explanations as to why a supposedly benevolent God lets his creation suffer. Things like ‘God works in mysterious ways’ and ‘this world is not our final destination’ are some of those flowery words I would come up with, that sound like so much hogwash to someone who just lost a child in a car accident, or lost a mother to cancer. These days I acknowledge unfortunate events as things that just happen, I grieve and then I do something about them if I can. I don’t spend valuable time asking God why, or searching the Bible for ‘answers’, or trying to explain on his behalf.

A poor knowledge of God and of the Bible is why anyone will make excuses for God or keep wondering why things are so wrong. We know why things are so wrong, and we know what to do. The Bible and christianity doesn't stop anyone from doing something about situations if they can. No Bible character and serious follower will spend VALUABLE TIME asking "God why". And of course, there are some answers in the Bible. Most of the most committed christians i ever met are people who have gone through a lot of mishaps and unpleasant ordeals, so don't make hasty generalisations saying people who go through pain do not regard God or count His Words as hogwash in time of trial.

Sex doesn’t make me squirm: Christianity has a particularly strong disgust for ‘sexual sins’, like pornography, fornication, masturbation, homosexuality, and so on. I’ve never understood the link between marriage and sex, and why I should ‘wait’, or ‘save myself’, so I had sex, a lot. And enjoyed it. I also didn’t see why pornography was such a big deal. So I watched it. But my Christian upbringing also meant that I would sometimes feel dirty afterward. It seemed to me that I was expected to feel dirty and ashamed for enjoying a beautiful, natural act that isn’t shameful at all and doesn’t harm anyone. Sexual freedom is taboo in Christianity, especially for women.
Female virgins are celebrated in the Bible as though the state of one’s hymen is the measure of their worth as a human being. But now that I no longer subscribe to Christianity’s aversion to sexual matters, sex is no longer a furtive, shameful thing to me, and the fact that I’m not a virgin is a non-issue. I’m very comfortable talking about sex, and I don’t get irrationally worked up and feel the need to preach to people who masturbate, have sex with as many people as they like, or enjoy pornography. After all, who has consensual sex ever harmed?

Immorality is immorality. And that you've never understood something doesn't mean it is irrelevant or not true. i'm not omniscient, neither are you. i do not understand many things, like the workings of a space shuttle, or of even the DNA, or of some plants. It doesn't mean they are irrelevant or not true. You don't dismiss stuff simply because you never understood it, that is a most ridiculous excuse. Immorality is a taboo in christianity, whether women or men. Don't twist it and say, especially for women. God will judge every immoral person and considers all immoral persons as sinners whatever gender.

I’m way more open-minded: Seeing as my framework for morality is no longer based on the Bible, there are a lot of things I previously condemned as being wrong (without really understanding why) that I am now more willing to evaluate objectively. For example, as a non-Christian I am now more open to understanding why some people are transvestites, or why some people are sexually attracted to animals, without passing everything through the ‘Bible says it’s wrong’ sieve. I don’t necessarily agree with everything I used to think was wrong as a Christian, but I now find it easier to evaluate things on their own merit, not against the (often arbitrary) Christian standards of right and wrong. My framework for right and wrong is now based on logic and universal principles any rational person can agree with, regardless of religion.

This is the most laughable part of all the post, you cannot base morality on personal logic. Personal logic is as fickle as the word fickle. Anyone that says christian standards are arbitrary only to compare to personal standards is a joker and ignorant fellow.

I don’t have to struggle to stay awake in church: The struggle was too real. Each Sunday morning I would grudgingly drag myself out of bed, scan my closet for something church-safe to wear (I usually settled for the same dress every Sunday, it became like a uniform), get to church and promptly fall asleep in my seat. The over-sabi usher who found joy in waking me up in the most embarrassing way possible was my mortal enemy. But now that I don’t feel an obligation to go to church, my Sunday mornings and afternoons belong to me. I go to church if I feel like it, not because I must. So if I’m tired, I don’t go. If I’m not in the mood to be told things I already know, I don’t go. If I have other things to do (like sleep an extra 5 hours), I don’t go. Which is very often. In a weird way I kind of miss that usher though.

Over to you! Have you also discovered that you don’t need religion? Do share your experience in the comments. If you’re a religious person, let’s hear about the impact of your religion on your life, whether positive or otherwise.


As seen on TheNakedConvos

[size=1pt]Lalasticlala, oam4j[/size]

You don't need christianity because you want to sleep? It is degrading and a waste to even answer this. One has to actually question the age and maturity of the expresser of this thought.

Image123:

That is a deadened conscience. It is not a new thing or something to rejoice about. Have you not seen thieves and politicians that do not feel guilty, or rapists and wife beaters without remorse? Are they hypocrites? Do you suppose that Hitler did not live the way he wanted and even think he was doing the world a lot of good?

You think the author was referring to stealing and raping? Wow.

He was referring to the natural adult human behaviors that the tyrannical Yahwah classifies as sinful despite having little to no harm in regards to actual morality. Like premarital sex between two consenting adults, or working on Saturdays.

And:
This is the most laughable part of all the post, you cannot base morality on personal logic. Personal logic is as fickle as the word fickle. Anyone that says christian standards are arbitrary only to compare to personal standards is a joker and ignorant fellow.
Logic is a fantastic foundation on which to base morality, actually. I'd argue it's the only effective way. Every lawmaker in every developed, secular country has used logic to create their governing rules. What, you think the U.S. Constitution was based off the bible? Laughable.

The "moral codes" in the bible were clearly written for a stone age, barbaric society with no regard whatsoever for women's rights or even human equality. The bible is FAR from the gold-standard for human morality. It's similar to the flat-earth theory in science - outdated and no longer useful according to what humanity has LOGICALLY concluded to be better over time. And yes, that goes for a society's idea of what is moral.

This is one reason why religion is such a deadweight on humanity. It causes people to trust their money-hungry pastors and self-contradictory "holy" texts written by men with a fraction of the knowledge of a modern-day 4th grader, over careful human reasoning - you know, what has taken us from cave-dwelling wanders to huge societies, cell phones, computers, rocketships and modern medicine. The further back in the past you go, the more barbaric, uncivilized, and relatively immoral society was. That includes the era the bible was written in and the people it was written to control. It was our minds that got us to our present standards, not gods or any supernatural entities and especially not Yahweh - a fabricated mythical figure no more proven than Zeus or Krishna who commanded numerous murders, rapes, and baby-killings.

cloudgoddess:

You think the author was referring to stealing and raping? Wow.

He was referring to the natural adult human behaviors that the tyrannical Yahwah classifies as sinful despite having little to no harm in regards to actual morality. Like premarital sex between two consenting adults, or working on Saturdays.

No, about a deadened conscience, he was referring to his deadened conscience. i clearly said that.

Logic is a fantastic foundation on which to base morality, actually. I'd argue it's the only effective way. Every lawmaker in every developed, secular country has used logic to create their governing rules. What, you think the U.S. Constitution was based off the bible? Laughable.

The "moral codes" in the bible were clearly written for a stone age, barbaric society with no regard whatsoever for women's rights or even human equality. The bible is FAR from the gold-standard for human morality. It's similar to the flat-earth theory in science - outdated and no longer useful according to what humanity has LOGICALLY concluded to be better over time. And yes, that goes for a society's idea of what is moral.

This is one reason why religion is such a deadweight on humanity. It causes people to trust their money-hungry pastors and self-contradictory "holy" texts written by men with a fraction of the knowledge of a modern-day 4th grader, over careful human reasoning - you know, what has taken us from cave-dwelling wanders to huge societies, cell phones, computers, rocketships and modern medicine. The further back in the past you go, the more barbaric, uncivilized, and relatively immoral society was. That includes the era the bible was written in and the people it was written to control. It was our minds that got us to our present standards, not gods or any supernatural entities and especially not Yahweh - a fabricated mythical figure no more proven than Zeus or Krishna who commanded numerous murders, rapes, and baby-killings.

i stated PERSONAL logic and you quoted it, except you cannot read and write properly. Everybody has their personal opinions which they call logic. That cannot be a standard. Rationalising your personal opinions and frustrations does not make them a standard. Neither does lazy regurgitations of boring rehashed atheist talk add any value to your post.

Image123:


No, about a deadened conscience, he was referring to his deadened conscience. i clearly said that.

i stated PERSONAL logic and you quoted it, except you cannot read and write properly. Everybody has their personal opinions which they call logic. That cannot be a standard. Rationalising your personal opinions and frustrations does not make them a standard. Neither does lazy regurgitations of boring rehashed atheist talk add any value to your post.

No, about a deadened conscience, he was referring to his deadened conscience. i clearly said that.
His "deadened conscience" towards things no one needs to feel guilty for in the first place, and only do so due to biblical brainwashing.

i stated PERSONAL logic and you quoted it, except you cannot read and write properly.
And yet here I am, reading and writing. Would you look at that.

I ignored "personal" because it was irrelevant, and a clear attempt to make it appear as if the author's idea of morality was arbitrary because he used his logic to arrive at it. The logic of thoughtful people with open minds and a minimum amount of empathy (alone or in groups. again, "personal" is irrelevant - rational minds arrive at similar conclusions) is enough to decide what is moral and what is immoral. With or without religious interference people ALREADY have personal standards on morality that are influenced by their own level of empathy and the society and culture they are in. The bible is full of outdated barbaric nonsense, if that's your alternative then it fails, hard. I would quicker trust a sane individual with carefully thought out ideas of what is just (who is willing to revise said ideas as needed), than the ideas of a person who worships a power-hungry, war-loving, genocide-permitting being, and values the standards of that imaginary being more than they value human life.

Neither does lazy regurgitations of boring rehashed atheist talk add any value to your post.
Ahh yes, it's so boring when people make sense and you feel threatened by it. Let me guess, "boring regurgitated rehashed atheist talk" is anything an atheist says that exposes the flaws in your dogmatic views and makes you think too hard? You have yet to make a thought-provoking point that isn't drenched in religious bigotry yet you're the one who's bored... interesting.

My thoughts are lazy and regurgitated, and yours are what... unique and well thought out? Why do I feel like this is a textbook case of psychological projection, lol.

cloudgoddess:

His "deadened conscience" towards things no one needs to feel guilty for in the first place, and only do so due to biblical brainwashing.

His deadened conscience nonetheless.

And yet here I am, reading and writing. Would you look at that.

I ignored "personal" because it was irrelevant, and a clear attempt to make it appear as if the author's idea of morality was arbitrary because he used his logic to arrive at it. The logic of thoughtful people with open minds and a minimum amount of empathy (alone or in groups. again, "personal" is irrelevant - rational minds arrive at similar conclusions) is enough to decide what is moral and what is immoral. With or without religious interference people ALREADY have personal standards on morality that are influenced by their own level of empathy and the society and culture they are in. The bible is full of outdated barbaric nonsense, if that's your alternative then it fails, hard. I would quicker trust a sane individual with carefully thought out ideas of what is just (who is willing to revise said ideas as needed), than the ideas of a person who worships a power-hungry, war-loving, genocide-permitting being, and values the standards of that imaginary being more than they value human life.

Use the quote icon, it makes reading easier instead of copying and bolding. Congratulations on your ability to read and write BTW, you earlier failed to prove it. When you ignore what i say, you would likely ignore anything that does not tickle your fancy, so why waste my time? PERSONAL is very relevant because everybody has his own logic, reason and opinions for doing things. We cannot base standards on personal and fleeting opinions or reasons. We've seen many good reasons and good motives to do something bad, so reasoning/logic is not king. We've also seen. We've also observed that having the best arguments doesn't exactly make one right, though it may help in courts and talkshows.
By the way, who are thoughtful people with open minds and a minimum amount of empathy? How do we find these people? Is there a device or instrument we can use to detect them? Are you one of them, and what makes you one of them? If i gave you a list of 20 thoughtful people with open minds and a minimum amount of empathy, and you gave me your list of 20 thoughtful people with open minds and a minimum amount of empathy, what would make me righter than you? What would make me wronger than you? A poll, a throw of dice, what? You know for instance that some people consider abortion to be moral, while some do not? And they both have their reasons and logics and school of thoughts. And they both have PhDs and professors, so what exactly makes one side right and the other wrong, you tell me? Do you consider it okay for people's morality to be influenced by their own level of empathy and the society and culture they are in?
i believe that you can read that these are all questions, and if we are going to have a profitable and relevant discussion, you will do well to answer them instead of resorting to infantile frustrations and gnashing of teeth about religion and christianity.

Ahh yes, it's so boring when people make sense and you feel threatened by it. Let me guess, "boring regurgitated rehashed atheist talk" is anything an atheist says that exposes the flaws in your dogmatic views and makes you think too hard? You have yet to make a thought-provoking point that isn't drenched in religious bigotry yet you're the one who's bored... interesting.

My thoughts are lazy and regurgitated, and yours are what... unique and well thought out? Why do I feel like this is a textbook case of psychological projection, lol.

You're yet to make much sense so far, i hope you do. i'm not threatened by your opinions. If you feel your posts are a threat, wait until i bring out real threats from the Bible, lol Then you'll start playing victim
"boring regurgitated rehashed atheist talk"(you do have access to a dictionary,right?) are what they are, boring talk that we have heard over and over. Copy and pasted thoughts that atheists make online which we have dealt with already and it has become BORING. It's not thought provoking, it's just like here we go again. Here comes the new recruit sort of.
i don't really need to "think" in the sense, i need more to believe(as a believer). My job is very easy. You who need to think up something new and germane are bringing up lazy and regurgitated copy and paste opinions of a barbaric, mythical, tyrannical, fabricated Yahweh pursuing you. So, think for yourself bro, think, you have a lot of it to do.

Image123:

His deadened conscience nonetheless.

Use the quote icon, it makes reading easier instead of copying and bolding. Congratulations on your ability to read and write BTW, you earlier failed to prove it. When you ignore what i say, you would likely ignore anything that does not tickle your fancy, so why waste my time? PERSONAL is very relevant because everybody has his own logic, reason and opinions for doing things. We cannot base standards on personal and fleeting opinions or reasons. We've seen many good reasons and good motives to do something bad, so reasoning/logic is not king. We've also seen. We've also observed that having the best arguments doesn't exactly make one right, though it may help in courts and talkshows.
By the way, who are thoughtful people with open minds and a minimum amount of empathy? How do we find these people? Is there a device or instrument we can use to detect them? Are you one of them, and what makes you one of them? If i gave you a list of 20 thoughtful people with open minds and a minimum amount of empathy, and you gave me your list of 20 thoughtful people with open minds and a minimum amount of empathy, what would make me righter than you? What would make me wronger than you? A poll, a throw of dice, what? You know for instance that some people consider abortion to be moral, while some do not? And they both have their reasons and logics and school of thoughts. And they both have PhDs and professors, so what exactly makes one side right and the other wrong, you tell me? Do you consider it okay for people's morality to be influenced by their own level of empathy and the society and culture they are in?
i believe that you can read that these are all questions, and if we are going to have a profitable and relevant discussion, you will do well to answer them instead of resorting to infantile frustrations and gnashing of teeth about religion and christianity.



You're yet to make much sense so far, i hope you do. i'm not threatened by your opinions. If you feel your posts are a threat, wait until i bring out real threats from the Bible, lol Then you'll start playing victim
"boring regurgitated rehashed atheist talk"(you do have access to a dictionary,right?) are what they are, boring talk that we have heard over and over. Copy and pasted thoughts that atheists make online which we have dealt with already and it has become BORING. It's not thought provoking, it's just like here we go again. Here comes the new recruit sort of.
i don't really need to "think" in the sense, i need more to believe(as a believer). My job is very easy. You who need to think up something new and germane are bringing up lazy and regurgitated copy and paste opinions of a barbaric, mythical, tyrannical, fabricated Yahweh pursuing you. So, think for yourself bro, think, you have a lot of it to do.

His deadened conscience nonetheless.

So it looks like you missed my point. If his conscience no longer pesters him about things that are not actually morally wrong and are only a result of religious conditioning, then there is nothing wrong with that whatsoever - infact it is a positive thing. What we call the "conscience" isn't some standalone entity that has exactly the same properties for everyone. It's a complex schema in our brains set up starting from birth, that takes information from our environment and experiences, and programs what is "right" and "wrong", from our perspective.

As an indoctrinated child learns from parents and preachers that certain things are "wrong" because God says so (like pre-marital sex), the child's conscience (or "good vs. bad" schema) is altered by that, and feelings of guilt now become associated with sex for him. That is not positive, or healthy, or natural, or a sign of increased morality. That is a misprogramming of guilt imbued by religion. If that "dies" that is a GOOD thing.

This does not mean his ENTIRE conscience is "deadened". It means unnececssary PARTS of that conscience were deconditioned as a result of withdrawing from tyrannical sky-daddy ideals.

PERSONAL is very relevant because everybody has his own logic, reason and opinions for doing things. We cannot base standards on personal and fleeting opinions or reasons. We've seen many good reasons and good motives to do something bad, so reasoning/logic is not king.

Who says they're fleeting? Who says they can't be based on consistencies observed throughout our experiences and the collective experiences of humanity? Who says aspects of morality can't be learned or improved upon? Just because the question of right/wrong can sometimes be tricky does not mean that we need to do away with logic altogether and turn to a 2,000 year old book written by savages instead (which recommends stoning women until their flesh tears apart for an absent hymen on their honeymoon). That is a nonsensical jump to make.

Your point is that the author is claiming to know morality from his own experience alone, and that by default makes it untrustworthy. I am arguing that NO it does not if he came to those conclusions from a sound & observant mind, willingness to learn, and empathy. If his opinions were influenced by POSITIVE, RATIONALLY THINKING sources (because all of our takes on morality are externally influenced in some way, including yours and especially including the bible's), then what is there to disagree with? What is there to distrust?

How do we find these people? Is there a device or instrument we can use to detect them? Are you one of them, and what makes you one of them? If i gave you a list of 20 thoughtful people with open minds and a minimum amount of empathy, and you gave me your list of 20 thoughtful people with open minds and a minimum amount of empathy, what would make me righter than you? What would make me wronger than you? A poll, a throw of dice, what? You know for instance that some people consider abortion to be moral, while some do not? And they both have their reasons and logics and school of thoughts. And they both have PhDs and professors, so what exactly makes one side right and the other wrong, you tell me? Do you consider it okay for people's morality to be influenced by their own level of empathy and the society and culture they are in?

Not only is it okay but it's the only way we can do it, and the only way we've been doing it for all of humankind. Everything you mention is exactly why since the dawn of civilization people's moral codes have been EVOLVING. Changing. Not in the biological sense, but regarding the accumulation of human knowledge & understanding over time, generation after generation. Ideas have been exchanged, civil rights movements have been conducted, ideologies have been proposed and tested and revised. This is why dictatorships and monarchies have been torn down in favor of democracies, and those democracies are still being revised today. Why you no longer see public beheadings in the streets of London and "witch" burnings in U.S. churchyards.

The bible and it's disturbing contents are quite literally towards the very bottom of that evolutionary totem pole. One honest read will show any thinking person that it is the product of un-evolved minds. Stoning people to death, baby killing, chopping off arms for petty theft, rape of helpless women, slavery, murder of "cursed" sons and daughters, silencing of women's free speech, were all seen as morally sound according to your bible. This is a CLEAR sign that the concepts of right and wrong held by the barbarians who wrote it were highly influenced by their time period and geographic location, no longer suitable for the modern day, and that as societies advance (unobstructed by outdated ideologies), so do our moral perceptions.

cloudgoddess:


So it looks like you missed my point. If his conscience no longer pesters him about things that are not actually morally wrong and are only a result of religious conditioning, then there is nothing wrong with that whatsoever - infact it is a positive thing. What we call the "conscience" isn't some standalone entity that has exactly the same properties for everyone. It's a complex schema in our brains set up starting from birth, that takes information from our environment and experiences, and programs what is "right" and "wrong", from our perspective.

As an indoctrinated child learns from parents and preachers that certain things are "wrong" because God says so (like pre-marital sex), the child's conscience (or "good vs. bad" schema) is altered by that, and feelings of guilt now become associated with sex for him. That is not positive, or healthy, or natural, or a sign of increased morality. That is a misprogramming of guilt imbued by religion. If that "dies" that is a GOOD thing.

This does not mean his ENTIRE conscience is "deadened". It means unnececssary PARTS of that conscience were deconditioned as a result of withdrawing from tyrannical sky-daddy ideals.

Thanks for employing the quotes. i didn't miss your point as you had none, except you are just bringing up one. The OP's point was that his life is better because "I don’t feel guilty for doing what makes me happy", i referred to that as a case of deadened conscience. You said they were things no one needs to feel guilty for, that's your opinion, which everyone has and is entitled to.
So many thieves and sociopaths do not feel guilty but happy, regardless of religious conditioning. Some people did not feel bad killing twins and witches. It is a pointless case to say "i don't feel guilty, therefore i'm on the right path". Life is more than feelings. The OP missed it on that point, QED.

Who says they're fleeting? Who says they can't be based on consistencies observed throughout our experiences and the collective experiences of humanity? Who says aspects of morality can't be learned or improved upon? Just because the question of right/wrong can sometimes be tricky does not mean that we need to do away with logic altogether and turn to a 2,000 year old book written by savages instead (which recommends stoning women until their flesh tears apart for an absent hymen on their honeymoon). That is a nonsensical jump to make.

Your point is that the author is claiming to know morality from his own experience alone, and that by default makes it untrustworthy. I am arguing that NO it does not if he came to those conclusions from a sound & observant mind, willingness to learn, and empathy. If his opinions were influenced by POSITIVE, RATIONALLY THINKING sources (because all of our takes on morality are externally influenced in some way, including yours and especially including the bible's), then what is there to disagree with? What is there to distrust?

Every one should know that they are fleeting, subject to change. This is evident from the case of the OP. His opinion CHANGED from being religious to being irreligious.He had reasons for being religious, reasons for being unserious in religion, and new reasons for dropping religion. Who knows, tomorrow, he may have new reasons to be religious again. We cannot base our lives and standards on his fickleness. Now, how do you improve on morality? Where is the goal? How do we know we have arrived? What do you think are the marks and indices to show that we have at last reached the zenith of morality? Or you think we should keep on evolving? Today, action A is right, tomorrow it is wrong, 100 yrs time, it has evolved to right, and on and on, based on collective experiences of humanity and culture. That is a most irrational thing to do in my opinion. BTW, the Bible was not written by savages, that is a very ignorant position to take. Neither does it make anyone savages. The finest men and women i ever met and that you ever met were people who read and obeyed the Bible, from your grannies to your parents to your colleagues at work and school.

Not only is it okay but it's the only way we can do it, and the only way we've been doing it for all of humankind. Everything you mention is exactly why since the dawn of civilization people's moral codes have been EVOLVING. Changing. Not in the biological sense, but regarding the accumulation of human knowledge & understanding over time, generation after generation. Ideas have been exchanged, civil rights movements have been conducted, ideologies have been proposed and tested and revised. This is why dictatorships and monarchies have been torn down in favor of democracies, and those democracies are still being revised today. Why you no longer see public beheadings in the streets of London and "witch" burnings in U.S. churchyards.

The bible and it's disturbing contents are quite literally towards the very bottom of that evolutionary totem pole. One honest read will show any thinking person that it is the product of un-evolved minds. Stoning people to death, baby killing, chopping off arms for petty theft, rape of helpless women, slavery, murder of "cursed" sons and daughters, silencing of women's free speech, were all seen as morally sound according to your bible. This is a CLEAR sign that the concepts of right and wrong held by the barbarians who wrote it were highly influenced by their time period and geographic location, no longer suitable for the modern day, and that as societies advance (unobstructed by outdated ideologies), so do our moral perceptions.

That's strange. You consider it okay and the only way we can do it! It is okay for people's morality to be influenced by their own level of empathy and the society and culture they are in, according to you. But you're irked when it is biblical. When morality is influenced by the Bible, you're almost vomiting but you just said it is okay to be influenced. If we are in a biblical society and culture, it is no more okay to you but barbaric and tyrannical. You've got jokes you know? See how unstable your standard is? There is a society and culture that eats strangers, a society and culture that gives out their women as sexual entertainment to visitors, a society and culture that does a lot of what you will consider barbaric to widows, but you consider it OKAY and THE ONLY WAY we can influence or determine morality. Now, if i said Jesus is the ONLY WAY, you would probably have a raised blood pressure, but you think you have a right to tell me the ONLY WAY to morality. i'm not sure if you can see the double standards. i wish you could, but i know unbelievers are content to sit in darkness, but i pray you will see the great Light. You believe morality should keep evolving, in other words morality should keep changing. i'm not arguing the fact that it has been changing, no need to bore me with examples. i'm arguing if it should change. What should make it change. So if in 50years time, it is morally okay for albinos to be killed, so be it, right? Since morality is evolving and influenced by individual empathy and society. If a Society in Asia tends towards communism for instance, it's okay, if they evolve to democracy in 100years, it is okay, in 200years they evolve to monarchy, it is fine and all good. i don't think morality is that fickle and the go the flow kind of thing.
i'm amused at your views about the Bible. Because the millions of readers and followers do not do all the stuff you conjured up there. The sweetest, most forgiving, loving, kind old people, and neighbours and work colleagues i ever met were/are followers and ardent readers of the Bible. They read it every day for many years all through their lives. In fact, they think it a duty, yet i have never seen them malbehaving or misbehaving BECAUSE of the Bible. Don't be delirious, let's talk reality.

Image123:


Thanks for employing the quotes. i didn't miss your point as you had none, except you are just bringing up one. The OP's point was that his life is better because "I don’t feel guilty for doing what makes me happy", i referred to that as a case of deadened conscience. You said they were things no one needs to feel guilty for, that's your opinion, which everyone has and is entitled to.
So many thieves and sociopaths do not feel guilty but happy, regardless of religious conditioning. Some people did not feel bad killing twins and witches. It is a pointless case to say "i don't feel guilty, therefore i'm on the right path". Life is more than feelings. The OP missed it on that point, QED.

Every one should know that they are fleeting, subject to change. This is evident from the case of the OP. His opinion CHANGED from being religious to being irreligious.He had reasons for being religious, reasons for being unserious in religion, and new reasons for dropping religion. Who knows, tomorrow, he may have new reasons to be religious again. We cannot base our lives and standards on his fickleness. Now, how do you improve on morality? Where is the goal? How do we know we have arrived? What do you think are the marks and indices to show that we have at last reached the zenith of morality? Or you think we should keep on evolving? Today, action A is right, tomorrow it is wrong, 100 yrs time, it has evolved to right, and on and on, based on collective experiences of humanity and culture. That is a most irrational thing to do in my opinion. BTW, the Bible was not written by savages, that is a very ignorant position to take. Neither does it make anyone savages. The finest men and women i ever met and that you ever met were people who read and obeyed the Bible, from your grannies to your parents to your colleagues at work and school.




That's strange. You consider it okay and the only way we can do it! It is okay for people's morality to be influenced by their own level of empathy and the society and culture they are in, according to you. But you're irked when it is biblical. When morality is influenced by the Bible, you're almost vomiting but you just said it is okay to be influenced. If we are in a biblical society and culture, it is no more okay to you but barbaric and tyrannical. You've got jokes you know? See how unstable your standard is? There is a society and culture that eats strangers, a society and culture that gives out their women as sexual entertainment to visitors, a society and culture that does a lot of what you will consider barbaric to widows, but you consider it OKAY and THE ONLY WAY we can influence or determine morality. Now, if i said Jesus is the ONLY WAY, you would probably have a raised blood pressure, but you think you have a right to tell me the ONLY WAY to morality. i'm not sure if you can see the double standards. i wish you could, but i know unbelievers are content to sit in darkness, but i pray you will see the great Light. You believe morality should keep evolving, in other words morality should keep changing. i'm not arguing the fact that it has been changing, no need to bore me with examples. i'm arguing if it should change. What should make it change. So if in 50years time, it is morally okay for albinos to be killed, so be it, right? Since morality is evolving and influenced by individual empathy and society. If a Society in Asia tends towards communism for instance, it's okay, if they evolve to democracy in 100years, it is okay, in 200years they evolve to monarchy, it is fine and all good. i don't think morality is that fickle and the go the flow kind of thing.
i'm amused at your views about the Bible. Because the millions of readers and followers do not do all the stuff you conjured up there. The sweetest, most forgiving, loving, kind old people, and neighbours and work colleagues i ever met were/are followers and ardent readers of the Bible. They read it every day for many years all through their lives. In fact, they think it a duty, yet i have never seen them malbehaving or misbehaving BECAUSE of the Bible. Don't be delirious, let's talk reality.

When morality is influenced by the Bible, you're almost vomiting but you just said it is okay to be influenced.

Yes, because the bible promotes stonings and rape and hand-chopping. It is based on the viewpoints of men who lived 2,000 years ago and did not have the reasoning we have today. That is the point. If you want to argue that the bible is the ultimate moral code, you have to agree that rape, slavery and stoning is okay because the bible says it's okay. You won't though (unless you really are brainwashed), and that's because of your moral reasoning, derived NOT from the bible, but from life in a modern, non-barbaric society, and your own empathy (if you have any, which from some of your comments I'm not so sure).

No matter how fickle it appears to you, all morals whether you like it or not originated from SOME FORM of human thinking (and so did the god(s) that allegedly determined the various moral codes present in the 4,000+ different religions that have existed). The morals in the bible came from human reasoning, communist morals came from human reasoning, and modern day democracy-based morals came from human reasoning. The changes made over the years are a result of society's development and progress, and evolving viewpoints as a result of that development and progress. Who knows if there is a "peak" of morality, and why does there need to be one? Why can't we just keep getting better and see where it leads us?

If what you insist - that the bible is the ultimate moral code - then none of these changes would have had to have taken place. Everyone in the 21st century would be perfectly happy living by biblical law - where innocent women could be stoned to death for pre-marital sex or burned as witches and people could be kept as slaves. The only reason Christians no longer believe those things are okay or want to include them in their laws, is because of modern, moral reasoning. Not because of the bible. We as human beings actually came to condemn those things as a result of deviating from biblical standards. I don't see how this is hard to understand.

cloudgoddess:



Yes, because the bible promotes stonings and rape and hand-chopping. It is based on the viewpoints of men who lived 2,000 years ago and did not have the reasoning we have today. That is the point. If you want to argue that the bible is the ultimate moral code, you have to agree that rape, slavery and stoning is okay because the bible says it's okay. You won't though (unless you really are brainwashed), and that's because of your moral reasoning, derived NOT from the bible, but from life in a modern, non-barbaric society, and your own empathy (if you have any, which from some of your comments I'm not so sure).

No, the Bible does not promote stonings and rape and hand-chopping. i earlier questioned your ability to read, and i am tempted to question it again. Anyone who has read the Bible knows that there is an Old Testament/Agreement/Covenant, and that there is a New Testament/Agreement/Covenant. Either you were unable to read or the devil is messing with your tenses. Again, i read the Bible everyday. Most of the finest, nicest, loving most gentle and kind relatives you have, friends you know and colleagues you have met are readers of the Bible, many of them ardent and self confessed followers of the Bible. They are not inclined to stone or rape or chop hands. Evidently, the problem is with you and what you read, wake up to reality. My moral reason and that of many good people you have met is rooted and enshrined in the Bible, and in its precepts and commands of love, forgiveness, courteousness, honesty, righteousness, peace and contentment. If you require Bible verses, do not hesitate to ask for them. i know you will not require though, because you know already that i am saying the truth.

No matter how fickle it appears to you, all morals whether you like it or not originated from SOME FORM of human thinking (and so did the god(s) that allegedly determined the various moral codes present in the 4,000+ different religions that have existed). The morals in the bible came from human reasoning, communist morals came from human reasoning, and modern day democracy-based morals came from human reasoning. The changes made over the years are a result of society's development and progress, and evolving viewpoints as a result of that development and progress. Who knows if there is a "peak" of morality, and why does there need to be one? Why can't we just keep getting better and see where it leads us?

It is not about how it appears to me, it is a well known FACT that it is fickle.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
(BBE)Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles without the law have a natural desire to do the things in the law, they are a law to themselves;
Rom 2:15 Because the work of the law is seen in their hearts, their sense of right and wrong giving witness to it, while their minds are at one time judging them and at another giving them approval;

Evidently, you are not saying anything new or strange. We all have God given conscience and common sense. Although we don't all use them equally, just like our brains or muscles are not equally exerted. That is why for instance, we have national legislations and constitutions, so that there can be some form of standards, enforcement and inspection. What is commonsense and moral to you may not be to the next neighbour, creating chaos as we are not all 'evolved' to the same rate and level. Some people still find it moral to practice polygamy, homosexuality, child marriage etc. Some others have 'evolved', but the written laws and Constitution provide the standard and framework we can all live by. That is the same motive of the Bible. It doesn't negate the fact that we all have a God given system in us all.
So, you have no peak or zenith or destination of morality? That is a most confused state. In other words, you do not know where you are going, you're just going with the flow. Then you have no right to accuse others or dictate to others how they should be moral. Someone that does not know the road or the destination cannot be telling others that they are lost. This is common logic, i expect that you get it as you're the one doing the thinking while we do the believing.

If what you insist - that the bible is the ultimate moral code - then none of these changes would have had to have taken place. Everyone in the 21st century would be perfectly happy living by biblical law - where innocent women could be stoned to death for pre-marital sex or burned as witches and people could be kept as slaves. The only reason Christians no longer believe those things are okay or want to include them in their laws, is because of modern, moral reasoning. Not because of the bible. We as human beings actually came to condemn those things as a result of deviating from biblical standards. I don't see how this is hard to understand.

This is a repetition. Try and read the Bible or get a complete one to understand its contents, or employ help like us.