IGX

And Happy Easter, Andy.

bennyonesix wrote:

Testiclaw wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:

Testiclaw wrote:
It's a primitive tale by a primitive religion by primitive people, for primitive people.

Life becomes much more beautiful, much more important, when you accept that it's the only life you have.

Homer, Bach and Mozart were primitive people writing for other primitive people?

Please name the greatest atheist poet or writer.

Homer, Bach, and Mozart didn't write the Bible.

Maybe you are as stupid as I think you are on this issue. Homer, Bach and Mozart all believed in religion and an afterlife.

The books were written by a primitive people. That isn't arguable.

You're comparing a belief in a higher power to a belief that Elvis is alive, yet want to have an adult conversation?

If the justification is the same -people believe it, why isn't the latter true?

Honestly, you're both offering the same arguments that have been offered over and over. Litetally, nothing new.

I suggest Hume, Harris and Hitchens. They dismantled everything presented here much better than I could.

Maybe throw a book or two in between your prayers, learn a thing or two.

Testiclaw wrote:

Name a religious document that authorizes or approves of slavery.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Bible

You're not even trying.

Christianity makes it clear that slaveowners are judged by how they treat slaves, and says that a slave's soul has the same fundamental value as the slaveowner's. Those aren't trivial details, and are major changes from the existing systems.

So, moving the goalposts.

It went from slavery to they said to treat slaves better than others, than non-believers.

You really think it takes a bible for us to know not to have slaves, regardless of how we treat them?

Low standards for your God, it seems.

Again: the word of God got the question of slavery wrong.

Testiclaw wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:

Testiclaw wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:

Testiclaw wrote:
It's a primitive tale by a primitive religion by primitive people, for primitive people.

Life becomes much more beautiful, much more important, when you accept that it's the only life you have.

Homer, Bach and Mozart were primitive people writing for other primitive people?

Please name the greatest atheist poet or writer.

Homer, Bach, and Mozart didn't write the Bible.

Maybe you are as stupid as I think you are on this issue. Homer, Bach and Mozart all believed in religion and an afterlife.

The books were written by a primitive people. That isn't arguable.

You're comparing a belief in a higher power to a belief that Elvis is alive, yet want to have an adult conversation?

If the justification is the same -people believe it, why isn't the latter true?

So what, you have defined primitive as temporally prior to you?

Homer wrote what amounts to the Bible for the Ancient Greeks. You consider them primitive?

Perhaps you are being tautological and defining it to = that which wrote the books?

Bach and Mozart were devout. They believed in a primitive book and primitive concepts? Were they primitive?

Jesus, you're missing the point entirely.

Testiclaw wrote:So, moving the goalposts.

It went from slavery to they said to treat slaves better than others, than non-believers.

You really think it takes a bible for us to know not to have slaves, regardless of how we treat them?

Low standards for your God, it seems.

Again: the word of God got the question of slavery wrong.

Again, slavery is a useless word. It is in constant flux and has only recently = chattel slavery.

In the absence of a higher power why would one not abuse those dependent upon you?

Testiclaw wrote:Jesus, you're missing the point entirely.

Homer wrote a Bible. Was he primitive?

Turdacious wrote:

Testiclaw wrote:

Name a religious document that authorizes or approves of slavery.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Bible

You're not even trying.

Christianity makes it clear that slaveowners are judged by how they treat slaves, and says that a slave's soul has the same fundamental value as the slaveowner's. Those aren't trivial details, and are major changes from the existing systems.

The point is that slavery is a useless term and a mistranslation to boot.

bennyonesix wrote:

Testiclaw wrote:So, moving the goalposts.

It went from slavery to they said to treat slaves better than others, than non-believers.

You really think it takes a bible for us to know not to have slaves, regardless of how we treat them?

Low standards for your God, it seems.

Again: the word of God got the question of slavery wrong.

Again, slavery is a useless word. It is in constant flux and has only recently = chattel slavery.

In the absence of a higher power why would one not abuse those dependent upon you?

Because I know what hurts me, what I don't like, how I don't want to be treated. It creates empathy: I don't need fear of an afterlife to know that.

Homer wrote a Bible. Was he primitive?

He didn't write THE bible, you moron.

Testiclaw wrote:Because I know what hurts me, what I don't like, how I don't want to be treated. It creates empathy: I don't need fear of an afterlife to know that.

But does it do that in everybody, or are people free to interpret it for their own benefit? Your way of thinking has no higher power to judge anyone's actions.

Empathy is your response? My god that is laughable. You are arguing that empathy? When has that ever been enough?

He didn't write THE bible, you moron.

Was Homer a primitive person?

What do you mean when you say primitive? Do not say everyone knows.

It is very difficult to follow you. Let's start again.

Do you believe in a Cosmos: an orderly and actual universe?

Do you believe in a Logos: the meaningfulness and actuality of thought?

Do you believe that the Logos corresponds to the Cosmos?

In other words, do you believe that our senses offer us access to the Cosmos and that our minds can use Logos to describe it?

Testiclaw wrote:

tough old man wrote:arent all religions pointless?

I wouldn't stop at pointless, I'd say dangerous and regressive.

You have the Janism and some calmer sects of Buddhism (but even Buddhism has extremists), that are exceptions, but the others are a horrible detriment to our species, and our progress.

Let's go back to the beginning.

Let's take two religions: Ancient Greek Polytheism and Judeo-Christianity.

If those were regressive religions, how was life better before their inception?

All semantics aside, any set of beliefs that gives a person the framework to help them become a better person is good.

Bud Charniga's grape ape wrote:This conversation is going to go well.

Xenu approves

Testiclaw, I think you're being harsh. There are many levels in every religion. In Christianity examples would range from a village priest who helps people in times of uncertainty and carries out administrative functions to manipulative powerful high level clergy who interfere in state affairs and perpetuate splitting the society into "good" and "bad" groups.

In terms of afterlife - it is a very seductive concept that is born out of fear of dying. In original Buddhism and Hinduism (correct me if I am wrong) there is no afterlife and no reincarnation in the sense the West understands it. There is simply nothing exists to reincarnate, something that the modern science only recently suspected. In other words, it is the Absolute that is reborn every time, not some personality.

Very disordered musings, please forgive. The point is that whenever humans get involved in anything shit follows. The ugliest things in the world are created by human mind. So it is no wonder that even if religions started as the way to reduce suffering some homo sapiens species immediately exploited it in their personal interests. Philosophy is no exception, I am afraid: Hitler, Stalin, Mao and other clowns quoted various philosophers in support of their actions. Others use the Bible, Quran or Torah. No difference.

In terms of afterlife - it is a very seductive concept that is born out of fear of dying. In original Buddhism and Hinduism (correct me if I am wrong) there is no afterlife and no reincarnation in the sense the West understands it. There is simply nothing exists to reincarnate, something that the modern science only recently suspected. In other words, it is the Absolute that is reborn every time, not some personality.

Very true... From a historical perspective, Buddhism was a return to and new radicalization of the core teachings brought to India by the "Aryans" or "indo-Europeans".

Janism is a mindblower from a historical and evolutionary perspective. It is likely the oldest religion and appears to topple the current thinking about the course of cultural evolution...

LMAO!