Atheists what is your proof?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by science man, Oct 20, 2010.

  1. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Yes, let's put the origin of the Golden Rule around, hmm 3.5 billion years ago. That's about the time cooperation kicked in.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. SolusCado Registered Senior Member

    I didn't mean to suggest that it did. I just think it is an interesting note regarding the development of mankind as a species and its civilizations.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. birch Valued Senior Member

    it's also true that one can understand the golden rule and be against it. many people consciously do things to hurt people and that was their intention, without it even being a matter of disagreement. it was just because they can be completely selfish.

    since nature does not require one to be fair or have that intention, not everyone will find that valuable.

    it is hard to understand why someone that values their life and feelings would not have any empathy for another realizing they also feel when there is not even any sense of threat. it's like hurting a bunny and not caring at all. it is one of the most awful things, i think, that exists.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    To OP: Theists: What's yours?
  8. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Apparently for Muslims it's: Mohammed's book is so damn good, you can't not believe it.

    For Christians it's usually, the world is so complex, it must be a God that created it and besides why would Jesus go to all that trouble for nothing?

    For Lori, it's: God told me so.
  9. SolusCado Registered Senior Member

    That raises a good point. I've always thought that the golden rule was less an instruction in how to treat people, and more of an observation of the consequences of your actions.
  10. jpappl Valued Senior Member


    You are not concerned with the physical sufferings of others ?

    Once again you are speaking for god as if you know what he is concerned about and use the bible for that basis when the bible does show a god who cares about our physical well being.

    Once again you are contradicting yourself.

    "1 Corinthians 6:19-20 (New International Version)
    19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies. "

    He did.

    "Numbers 31:7-18
    They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba - the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.

    Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. Moses was angry with the officers of the army - the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds - who returned from the battle.

    "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." 31:7-18&version=NIV

    He also approves of genocide.

    Pointless indeed. Go ahead, apologize away.

    Yet you refuse to see that he commanded slavery and genocide.

    What do you mean by the ACTUAL biblical god. I am referring to the biblical god. I didn't write that shit, it was inspired by god. Your god. So stop trying to hide him away. Bring him out in all his glory.

    I have a limited view ? I am not the one who basis his beliefs on texts written by a bunch of ignorants thousands of years ago who CLAIMED to hear god. Oh, and then we have to consider human error in the mix and oh also all of those interpretations that were apparently wrong because in fact they were a bunch of ignorants and now have to be re-interpreted.

    LOFL. That is not scrutinizing at all. That is what you call a self fullfiilling prophecy because the texts don't change. So you have to make things fit where they don't.

    For example. Slavery allowed. It doesn't fit with our understanding of slavery being wrong.

    So you then have to make it fit.

    I know, I will just claim he only mean't it for that time.

    Does that really make sense or do you just need it to make sense otherwise god forbid you would actually come to the realization that it shouldn't be there. That is unacceptable because you have been indoctinated to believe and are not able to shake free from it personally. Your ego would be dented.

    So you rationalize.

    One more time, please answer. The bible, is it a book for all time or just for the time it was written ?

    Uh, SolusCado, slavery IS in the bible.


    Except that he wasn't talking to 5 year olds, or 15 year olds. He was talking to grown men. Correct ?

    Ans these grown men were supposed to heed his words correct ?

    You don't have a good answer for why he did not command man to not enslave people. There is no good answer to that.

    So you point is useless. Again, you have to figure out if the bible was only relevant to the people of the time or if it applies to all time and stick with it.

    Reminding you that this is supposed to be texts inspired by god.

    Nice try, see above as well.

    What your answer here is he allowed children to kill other people. Afterall, they were too immature to know what they were doing when he commanded genocide. They were but children mentally.

    That's your excuse.

    Specifics about dealing with slaves. These are but a few in the link as an example.

    " Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]."
    Exodus 21:26-27 "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."

    here are a few:

    Deuteronomy 2:

    33 And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.
    34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain

    Deuteronomy 20:

    16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.
    17 Completely destroy them - the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusite - as the LORD your God has commanded you.

    Joshua 11:

    20 For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that He might utterly destroy them, and that they might receive no mercy, but that He might destroy them, as the LORD had commanded Moses.

    24 And it came to pass when Israel had made an end of slaying all the inhabitants of Ai in the field, in the wilderness where they pursued them, and when they all had fallen by the edge of the sword until they were consumed, that all the Israelites returned to Ai and struck it with the edge of the sword.
    25 So it was that all who fell that day, both men and women, were twelve thousand - all the people of Ai.
    26 For Joshua did not draw back his hand, with which he stretched out the spear, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai.

    and here:

    some examples:

    I like how here they offer slavery as a choice.

    3) More Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

    As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

    And here he can rape her but then has to marry her. What's the fun in that. Sheesh.

    4) Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

    If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

    LOL. Yep, you learned these misconceptions 15 years ago. How old are you SolusCado ? Who is being deceived ?

    Apparently they were things you learned about but they didn't provide you with any answers and you haven't bothered to construct something valid on your own.

    But don't you also believe that god has a chosen people. Why would he talk to the rest of us ?

    Oh, that's right because we are all his people. But wait, then what makes the chosen people special then. If we are all special nobody is.

    He never came back to tell us slavery was wrong. We figured that our on our own. We outgrew the god of the bible.

    Fail. Don't F with me Solus. We are talking about the OT and have been since you had firmly stated that the OT was not flawed.

    Pointless and unnecessary.

    Missed the question or point. He created us all, why did he "choose" a people to back. Doesn't it make more sense that a god that created all humans, choose sides. More to the point, does it make sense for a god to choose sides and command them to kill his other creations ?

    You have provided reasons, all of them poor. Besides, he never came back to enlighten us. But now you claim that isn't necessary. Just moving posts around.

    I understand who your god is which is why I am asking you to scrutinize things because actually, you don't know your god.

    First of all I am not a god. But, we do have answers for them as they grow. Your god was inspiring grown men. The analogy fails.

    Only in your mind SolusCado, only in your mind.
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    In real life, atheistic people have gone on from there in many directions and with great diligence. The rreasonable, logical, philosophical, ecological, sociological, physiological, circumstantial, and other aspects or bases of human morality, have all been taken on as areas of serious life's work by all manner of atheistic people.

    You appear to have been interpreting these tenets according to your own intuitive sense of right and wrong, and declaring the new reading to be the "real" religion. I don't think the written tenets of Christianity provide nearly what you would wish to find among them, and as evidence I point to all the other Christians - intelligent and well educated and sincere among them - who read them quite differently and have for hundreds if not thousands of years.

    I don't see the sense in it myself, but exactly that was a fairly common argument during the debate over slavery in the US: those of inferior race were being protected from the modern world's evils, which they could not handle, by the loving owner who provided for their needs.

    Quotes from the Bible were provided, including from Jesus himself about caring for those in need, and loving others as one should. No quotes from Christ condemning slavery were available.
  12. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Matthew 7:12. I would of thought it was self evident what it meant.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  13. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    I've always seen the golden rule more as a general instruction for individuals within a society... and by society I mean a group of people wishing to live in harmony.

    You might need to explain how it is an "observation of the consequences"... as there are certainly no defined consequences per se, imo - other than what the individual on the receiving end deems appropriate. Maybe I have misunderstood you.

    Moreover it is the religions that seem to be defined by the consequences of actions: the "don't sin or you will go to Hell" type of approach that religions instil within their followers.

    The golden rule is far more subtle. Rather than defining the consequences, it is leaving the entire matter in the hands of the individual, rather than an outside agency.
    With religions the consequence is provided by such an outside agency... God, Allah etc.
    With the golden rule it is the individual... i.e. judge an action on how you would react to being on the receiving end.
  14. SolusCado Registered Senior Member

    To elaborate, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" doesn't necessarily instruct one to love others, or treat them with respect, etc. Most people assume that the "you" would desire such things, but depending on your philosophical bent, "you" might not. A strict darwinist for example may desire a world in which everyone is only out for themselves, in the hope that it will eventually weed out the "weak". Given enough self-confidence, they may have an attitude along the lines of "bring it on" when faced with being treated the same as they treat others. On the other hand, someone who believes everyone needs a helping hand may go around helping everyone, because they too feel a need for assistance from others.

    Taking this to an extreme, any militant group who believes they are destined for X would have no issue with carrying out genocide (or some other atrocities) because they believe they are ordained for victory. The other groups who might "treat them the same", but again - with the conviction of the darwinist - would not change the behavior of the group, given their full confidence in victory.

    Bringing it all full circle, I see the golden rule as an observation of some fundamental truth to the nature of the universe - call it karma if you like - that your treatment of others will define how you are treated by others.
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Cado has a valid take on the saying - it can be read as a less punitive and more comprehensive version of "what goes around comes around" and the like.

    The general principle is found throughout the Bible, as well as other texts revered as sources of wisdom by people: in the Bible, "cast your bread upon the waters etc - - - " and other places, all through the Tao Te Ching the seeking of the lower level where all things tend of their own, in Buddhist thought the "that art thou" principle, and so forth.
    An actual Darwinist would know much better than that. The shortsighted and foolish "Darwinist" of fundie mythology should be getting a different name soon - this is tiresomely ignorant and bigoted.
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2010
  16. birch Valued Senior Member

    the golden rule is a generality about respect for other's life because you respect yours. it's not really meant to be specific as in liking others or if you like chocolate ice cream, then you only offer chocolate even though they like strawberry etc.

    even with a strict darwinist in hoping to weed out the 'weak', they would be apt to not consider themselves the weak. this is also not so simple as it appears. is the man who rapes a baby strong or a coward (weak)? is self-control weak or strong? is aggression always strong or can it be due to weakness of another kind?

    there are also people who constantly take and never give.

    one can always claim that how they treat others is what they would take as well but that is usually not the case. you see it all the time. if one murders, they try to get away with it and not face punishment etc.

    the golden rule can only be practiced legitimately by those who can be honest with themselves. it's something that can't be forced.
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2010
  17. Kapyong Writer Registered Senior Member


    so you lied -
    you claimed repeatedly that no answers have been give.

    You did NOT previously say the reasons given above were 'incomplete' - you repeated over and over that NO reasons had been give.

    Now you finally admit reasons HAVE been given, but YOU consider them 'incomplete'.

    So you were repeatedly and consciously lieing when you said there were no explanations given here.

    How do you think such a blatant lie will affect your credibility here?

  18. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    FYI the quote you attributed to me, was not mine.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You may continue.
  19. SolusCado Registered Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Fair enough. I didn't mean to denigrate "Darwinists". I just couldn't think of a better term. I was actually thinking of "Nietszcheans" from the Andromeda television series...
  20. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    That is exactly what it means.

    I'm saying that the interpretations of others are as valid as your interpretations, on their faces. And since contrary interpretations were widespread for long periods of time, you have a serious dispute to address. It is not sufficient to simply sweep the beliefs of millions of Christians over thousands of years under the rug.

    There is no "written tenet" in the Bible the declares slavery off-limits. You have to add a bunch of your own assumptions and interpretations to the actual text in order to arrive at that prohibition.

    Not if "we all" includes the majority of honestly self-identified Christians throughout history.

    Many people over the years have seen no contradiction - including entire societies of earnest Christians, for centuries on end.

    He never bothered to say anything about the subject. Seems like he would have, if he considered it a big deal.

    And yet, that is the Christianity that everyone has to deal with, and so defines what is Christian and what is not.

    Or not - God gets to create the rules, right? And so God can create a Universe where humans are both perfect and glorious.

    Those very rules of logic and relation are inventions of God. He could have created them otherwise, if he'd wanted, no? Why didn't he choose to create a universe wherein things can be gained without risk?

    If God is subject to some underlying rules of logic and philosophy, then he is neither omnipotent nor the ultimate creator. In such a conception, God is simply a very powerful alien.

    Along with the addition of your own interpretations of Biblical text, rules of logic and inference, etc. If you stick purely to the Bible, then you have nothing to say about slavery (or a host of other relevant issues).

    Yes, as detailed in this post and the last.

    If the Bible is a "basis" for "characterizations" then you are, by definition, introducing your own elements of interpretation and inference above and beyond the contents of the Bible.

    Or not - that whole relationship between "capacity for failure" and "lesser beings" is itself a creation of God, no? And so he could have created a universe in which we can't (or don't) fail, and yet are not diminished by this. Why would that be outside the power of an omnipotent creator?

    Again, if there are bounds on the power of God, then God is not an omnipotent creator, but simply a very powerful alien.
  21. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    What is a Darwinist? It's not like evolution is a philosophy. :wtf:
  22. SolusCado Registered Senior Member

    OMG, if the best you can come up with is to call me a liar for saying "no answers have been given", and then later saying "no COMPLETE answers have been given" then I think you and I are done here. Feel free to address ACTUAL points.
  23. Emil Valued Senior Member


    Oopsss post very quickly.Until I wrote what I wanted you're away, yet I post.

    I think the golden rule is an attempt to define morality.
    If you steal be ready you'll be stolen.
    If you are violent, be ready you'll be the victim of violence.
    If you do not want to be stolen or to be the victim of a violent, then do not steal and do not be violent.
    These rules must be imposed also to other members of society.
    If you can not impose these rules because you're in the minority, then or you adapt or forsake that society.
    The society which chose the correct rule will survive.
    These rules will be set somewhere in the super-ego (through history) and become moral norms.


Share This Page