Staredit Network

Occam's razor runs out of batteries when it comes to tangible and intangible beginnings.
-------------------------------

Also, to all you "non-religious goody-gooders" out there. Please tell me, WHERE did you get this sense of "good" and "bad"? Surely it isn't instinct: anarchy and dictatorship are the instincts of mankind! Definitely not from logic: "One man is a life, a thousand is a statistic" as they say. Surely logic from those American businessmen like the witty Carnagie in the 1900s brought them to care so much for their employees.

Where then, did your perception of "good" and "bad" come from? If you say the Bible, i'll laugh, because then where did the Bible come from?

No it doesn't; you never won that arguement. You've only ignored my question. If you want to start it again, I'll be more than happy to argue.


Why can't it be instinct? Does a Lion not protect its young?


Proof?


With a well defined instinct-premises, it can come from logic.


Where indeed? If you say god, I'll laugh because then where did god come from? (Don't answer this)

So obviously since you're all-knowing you can say "protecting one another" is a good trait.
Anarchy, the desire to be free: French Revolution, slavery in Egypt, impeaching Bush, liberals, hippies,. Tell me Cheeze, is it not true that people desire to be out of bondage? If not, become a prisoner or a prostitute.

Dictatorship, the desire to control: Monarchy, Carnagie, Napoleon, Hitler, manipulators, Nietzche's Uberman. Grapple someone and you'll see the desire for control.
Proof?
Where indeed? Where DID it come from? Let's find out!

If you want to think it like that, that's fine with me.


Ok, let's look at your examples.


French Revolution.. which one? I'm going to assume the latest one for this. The revolution was meant to bring about a more equal government. This, if anything, is the opposite of anarachy.


Anarchy? How is this anarchy? How is this even related to anarchy?


Once again, anarchy? Where's the evidence that actually points to anarchy. None of these come remotely close for a desire of a world without any form of government.


It's ironic that this is the only group that you stated that's even close to anarchy and yet this same group wanted the rest of the world to embrace christianity. Strange, no?


While I'm not going to doubt you saying Humans desire power, I will note some funny contradictions.

The monarchs, many times, used religious reasons to get more power.

What is "Carnagie"?

Hitler did what he did for religious purposes.

Nietzche's Uberman is sleeping? How is this a form of control?

You need some better examples to prove your point. I'm not going to disagree with you, but that doesn't mean I won't once I research more. Thus, provide more examples to persuade me.


I'm not fully supporting it. If you want me to drop it, I shall. However, this does not mean we can define "good" and "evil" by a silly book.


Yes, I asked that. Answer it. Stop trying to make it look like you've argued when you haven't.

As for the wager, that is what I believe.

I am a nice person, and I care for people. shiz, I have donated about $25+ to the Slavation Army. So, if I am such a "bad guy" for donating money and caring for people less fortunate, and not believing in some superflouse entity. Let me rot in hell. It will be much nicer than having to deal with an unjust, and "fake" god.

'Tis what you think now, being in hell.

Yup. Since I am in hell...

Anarchy and dictatorship are symbols:
People desire to be free (since everyone wants to be free, then that would cause freedom from government; thus anarchy).
People desire to control others (and the completely control others would be to have everyone else below you; thus dictatorship).

If these symbols are incorrect or make you miss the point, i'll stop using them.
Freedom from tyranny
I am not saying "slavery in egypt is desiring to be free", I am saying "slavery in egypt(the famous Jewish one) is an example of how people desired to be free from the egyptians"
People want to be free from this moron; who would want an idiot running their government?'
Oh come on this is obvious! Think extreme liberalism.
Freedom to do what they want
So what if they wish to embrace Christianity? I'm just saying that people desire freedom from "oppression" or anything that makes their lives miserable!

Yes, people will do anything to get power, even abuse religions or break the law.

You don't know who Carnagie is? Carnagie was the first person to make a monopoly of the steel mills! He INVENTED "under-handed business"!

I mean that Nietzche's book agrees with me saying that people are all trying to control one another. Something about that there are an elect few controlling the masses, and the masses are trying to control each other.


A silly book... man don't tell me you're one of them stupid atheists. At the very least, the Bible is history book with a Jewish spin placed upon it. It has the Jewish creation story (Genesis), the book of Jewish laws (Deuteronomy), factual Jewish chronological events (I&II Chronicles, I&II Kings), a book of influential people (Judges), a book of poems and praises to their god (Psalms), a book of wisdom (Proverbs), a book of love (Song of Solomon), and books of prophet's lives and prophecies(Isaiah-Malachi), and when they won a battle the writer wrote in that "God" did it. I've only gone through the first half of the book(s)! A "silly book"; pah let's call every book a silly book, because books are silly.
Why did you have to turn my question of interesting discussion into a mock?

I did answer; what's yours? A possibly flawed piece of logic is better to back yourself behind than refusing to even try. Since you know everything about right and wrong, it shouldn't be too hard to answer should it?

Before I argue, I need to know what kind of stance you're taking on. You might be taking on the side I agree with, in which case, how do I argue?

Don't try to say you have no side, then you have no arguement!

Kirby, you say the atheist's wager has a flaw because it assumes what good and evil is. Although assuming is a flaw, religion does the EXACT SAME THING.

If you're gonna disagree with atheist's wager because of the amount of assumptions it makes, then you must be agnostic or an atheist.

Christianity does not assume what good and evil are
for Christianity, an evil human does not believe in God and does not follow his words
and a good human does believe in God and does follow his words

You just contradicted yourself on the last 2 lines.

im saying that religion doesn't assume good and evil, they specifically point out the differences between the two

I see how you came to that conclusion. You just have a lil misintepertation of the word assume. No biggie.

Even if specifically state something, assuming can still come into play.

@Musician

He didn't contradict himself. You could be Hitler, and commited mass genocide. But, as long as your whole heart believes in God and Jesus as your savior, you will be allowed into heaven.

Which sucks... Because I am an Athiest, but I am a good person. So, according to the bible, I won't be going to heaven, pity.

I think you misread what he said. He stated one thing, then the next 2 sentences he contradicted himself in plain day light. He just had the wrong definition of the word assume, I assume.

Good and evil is all pov. Everyone here already knows this.

Some one said atheist wager is bad because it assumes X. (X being the whole good and evil thing) Then I pointed out that religions assume X as well. So they're no different on the whole X issue. because they both assume what X is.

actually, since he broke the sixth (and probably more) commandment(s), he would go to hell like 1000 times over

This thing is pretty flawed.
What's wrong with leaving a negitive Legacy?
Meh, reminds me of the movie "Pirates of the Caribbean.

Hitler himself didn't kill many people. He didn't order many either; Stalin, on the other hand, did order many.

As for the 6th amendment, it has been shown that if killing is ok if it's for a (just) cause, like in the crusade.

[sub]Sweet, I hope this thing is correct. I might not go to hell.[/sub]

Really? Point out christians trying to take money from the rest of the world by all their charitable donations, feeding the poor, helping th esick and giving faith to the orphans and all that.



Very well put.



Calling God nonexistant is opinion and assumtion. And most of all ophensive to monotheistic people.



Hitler might well be up there, he got rid of alot of God's (Christianity.) nonbelieves. Like noah's flood.

But if G-d (Jewdaeism.) is the correct one than Hitler is most definantly in hell for slaying the chosen people.

So I guess it just all boils down to is Jesus the messiah or not?