Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-12-2016, 09:56 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(20-12-2016 09:44 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Speaking as a former Christian, now, I can say unequivocally that no one I've ever met considers prayer to be worship. It's simply "talking to God" (or, in other cases, other people in heaven). Prayers can include praise, which we would consider worship, like "Oh God you are sooo amazing", but in general it's just a conversation and the terms are not synonymous.

Speaking as a former catholic I have no idea what other believers thought about relation between prayer and worship. For me it it's just another wishy-washy shit, like fish not being meat so it could be eaten during fast.

Quote:If you tell a Christian that prayer to non-God people = worship, you are using the term in a way that defies the basic command of their faith, which is to worship no other beings other than God (even in tripartite form).

Maybe it is them who defy the basic command of their faith by praying to other beings than god? I won't even start with pictures, shellfish or other such nonsense.

Quote:That tells them that you don't understand what Christianity is. They will then reject anything else you say about their religion.

I never particularly cared about understanding christianity, just like I don't care about understanding others incoherent ideas. Also christians tend to reject whatever is said about their religion apriori. They don't want to have their god blankie taken away by those who outgrown superstitions like this.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2016, 02:13 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(19-12-2016 06:06 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(18-12-2016 11:41 PM)socialistview Wrote:  And god cares for the innocent being that's why gods justice had to be satisfied by sacrifice. There's a price nomatter how spoiled you want to be.

It has nothing to do with being spoiled. Demanding a blood sacrifice is immoral. That isn't caring for the innocent, it is demanding that the innocent suffer to pay for the crimes of the guilty. It is barbaric and disgusting.

As for your other links, more apologetics to twist the plain text into something that doesn't sound quite so bad is missing the point. These are supposedly the rules handed down by an omniscient, omnipotent god so we'd expect them to be comprehensive and life-affirming and instead they read just like what we'd expect from primitive tribal groups. The fact that people can spin them into something less horrific says that humans have advanced, not that there was anything good there in the first place.

(19-12-2016 01:20 AM)socialistview Wrote:  Well evolution again is a theory not a truth or a law.

Nice little equivocation you have there. A theory in science is something that has been tested and explains all known evidence. It isn't just some random guess. Evolution by natural selection has been thoroughly investigated and tested for more than 100 years and it explains what we found and has been used to predict new things to look for that were also found. It is an incredibly solid bedrock and your denial of it is laughable. It's still a "theory" because science always maintains room for changing its mind if new evidence comes along; science doesn't claim "Truth™" on anything, just the best available explanation of the facts.

A "law", by the way, is not something higher than a theory. A scientific law is just a description of how something consistently works. They are just statements of the facts of reality as we understand them. Theories are what are used to explain laws. Your use of the words shows that you have ZERO undertsanding of what science is or how it works.

Quote:We still have yet to find good supporting evidence for transmutation.

No, we understand how to transmute elements using nuclear reactions. We also know that transmutation is the sense of alchemy is utter bunk.

Quote: Theories have lasted hundreds of years then debunked hundred years later just becuase it seems right doesn't mean well find it correct later.

Correct. If and when new evidence contradicts an existing theory then that theory has to be replaced... it would be rare that one was completely overturned though. Theories evolve just like we did. That's a good thing. It shows we are learning and understanding more about the universe. I'll take that over what religion offers any day (and twice on Sunday).


You know unfogged back then they used blood as a way to make treaties between nations. They would slice there forarm or hang with there sword and shake forarms or hands. Taking something prescous and subtituting it for something else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement


https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...eronomy+21

https://gotquestions.org/blood-covenant.html

And the laws were the base for how they went about things. As it said the stuff existed so they had to live along the rules of it or get punished. God always gives an outlet becuase if he didn't a lot of people would get punished. And god said he hates the law.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2016, 02:27 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(20-12-2016 02:13 PM)socialistview Wrote:  You know unfogged back then they used blood as a way to make treaties between nations. They would slice there forarm or hang with there sword and shake forarms or hands. Taking something prescous and subtituting it for something else.

So what? That is not the same as substitutionary atonement in the form of killing an innocent in order to gain forgiveness for transgressions.

Quote:And the laws were the base for how they went about things. As it said the stuff existed so they had to live along the rules of it or get punished. God always gives an outlet becuase if he didn't a lot of people would get punished. And god said he hates the law.

Where exactly did god say that he hated the law? What that somewhere in the middle of his dictating it to Moses?

Your god demanded animal sacrifices and then when he got really pissed off he killed himself as an offering to himself so he could allow himself to forgive the creatures he created with such deep flaws that they continually pissed him off. There is nothing rational or moral about any of it. Stop trying to make excuses for iron age barbarians who didn't know any better.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
20-12-2016, 02:56 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
You know if you gain something you loose something so if we weren't flawed we wouldn't have forgiveness. If jesus didn't die as a substitute we would all have to pay for our own sins which we can't. Life for life that was the law. And animal sacrifice was forshowdowing human atonement.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2016, 02:58 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
It says god hates the law in the old testament can't find it but its shown throught the whole new testament.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2016, 03:00 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(20-12-2016 02:56 PM)socialistview Wrote:  If jesus didn't die as a substitute we would all have to pay for our own sins which ....

... is the only moral option.

Killing an innocent does not "atone" for anything except in the most primitive minds.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2016, 03:03 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(20-12-2016 02:58 PM)socialistview Wrote:  It says god hates the law in the old testament can't find it but its shown throught the whole new testament.

You mean like the part where Jesus says that not one jot or tittle of the law is to change?

Why don't you stop saying "it says X in the bible" when you rarely seem to have any idea where or what the actual language is? You sound like the typical xian who has never read it but is just repeating what he's heard is in there.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
20-12-2016, 03:13 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
It says god made the law perfect but he hates the law. And the it says rightousness that suppasses pharisees teachers of the law you will not make it to heaven. And it says don't care about words it just leads to arguments.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2016, 03:29 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
What's the other moral option becuase forgivenesd is not free when peoples feelings get involved. There has to be justice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2016, 04:29 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
So did I win.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: