Secular family values rock!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Morals and values don't come from religion. They come from empathy. The "Golden Rule" of treating others as you would have them treat you is not something that Judeo-Christian faith can claim to own, it's far older, it comes from human self-awareness.

I have Aspergers and therefore little empathy. I do, however, have morals and values that come from my faith.

And without your faith, you'd have no morals and values?

Correct. I don't have the human self-awareness and empathy you referenced. I need "rules".

Does it have to be religious rules? How about societal rules, like do not kill, do not cheat, do not dump your garbage in the street, do not go 60 in a 30 mph zone?

How about the secular rules under Stalin, Pol Pot or Mao? Because that worked so well.

They were't secular rules -- they were totalitarian rules. The US has secular rules, which overall, have worked out much better than religious or totalitarian rules

Yikes. Totalitarianism is compatible with both secular (communist Russia) and religious (Iran, ISIS) regimes.

It's perfectly possible to be both secular AND totalitarian rules.

Unless you can point us to religious bases for Pol Pot, Stalin and company.

it is the totalitarian rules, in a secular or religious state, that cause the problems. England has a state church - the Church of England - but other religions are allowed exist.

You said they weren't secular. Bolded it for you. They are secular.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Morals and values don't come from religion. They come from empathy. The "Golden Rule" of treating others as you would have them treat you is not something that Judeo-Christian faith can claim to own, it's far older, it comes from human self-awareness.

I have Aspergers and therefore little empathy. I do, however, have morals and values that come from my faith.

And without your faith, you'd have no morals and values?

Correct. I don't have the human self-awareness and empathy you referenced. I need "rules".

Does it have to be religious rules? How about societal rules, like do not kill, do not cheat, do not dump your garbage in the street, do not go 60 in a 30 mph zone?

How about the secular rules under Stalin, Pol Pot or Mao? Because that worked so well.

They were't secular rules -- they were totalitarian rules. The US has secular rules, which overall, have worked out much better than religious or totalitarian rules

Yikes. Totalitarianism is compatible with both secular (communist Russia) and religious (Iran, ISIS) regimes.

It's perfectly possible to be both secular AND totalitarian rules.

Unless you can point us to religious bases for Pol Pot, Stalin and company.

it is the totalitarian rules, in a secular or religious state, that cause the problems. England has a state church - the Church of England - but other religions are allowed exist.

You said they weren't secular. Bolded it for you. They are secular.

For somebody who keeps saying he's so much smarter than all the people of faith here, that was a pretty embarrassing slip on a middle school concept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Morals and values don't come from religion. They come from empathy. The "Golden Rule" of treating others as you would have them treat you is not something that Judeo-Christian faith can claim to own, it's far older, it comes from human self-awareness.

I have Aspergers and therefore little empathy. I do, however, have morals and values that come from my faith.

And without your faith, you'd have no morals and values?

Correct. I don't have the human self-awareness and empathy you referenced. I need "rules".

Does it have to be religious rules? How about societal rules, like do not kill, do not cheat, do not dump your garbage in the street, do not go 60 in a 30 mph zone?

How about the secular rules under Stalin, Pol Pot or Mao? Because that worked so well.

They were't secular rules -- they were totalitarian rules. The US has secular rules, which overall, have worked out much better than religious or totalitarian rules

Yikes. Totalitarianism is compatible with both secular (communist Russia) and religious (Iran, ISIS) regimes.

It's perfectly possible to be both secular AND totalitarian rules.

Unless you can point us to religious bases for Pol Pot, Stalin and company.

it is the totalitarian rules, in a secular or religious state, that cause the problems. England has a state church - the Church of England - but other religions are allowed exist.

You said they weren't secular. Bolded it for you. They are secular.

A totalitarian country can be secular (e.g., communist Russia) or religious (Iran). It is the totalitarian rules in a totalitarian country that cause the problem, whether that totaltarian country is secular or religious. Hope that clarifies it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

LOL, that's like an alcoholic saying that he has self control just like anyone else, except "it's turned over" when he got drunk over, and over, and over.

Not the pp.
Your simile is very lame and not at all relevant.
Reaching, are we?

It's not a simile, it's an analogy. How can you trust yourself to understand what is being discussed when you have issues with the difference between a simile and analogy?

And of course, my analogy is very relevant. Saying that you "turn over" your intellect, as if that somehow makes it okay, is exactly the type of excuse that alcoholics, drug abusers, and people with other types of destructive personality traits use to justify their behavior. It's shameful, intellectually dishonest, and should be called out for what it is.

OK, many of us religious folk don't think you have to "turn over" your intellect to believe. PP may think that. But lots of us engage in tons of critical study of our religions, reading alternative POVs and historical research. I certainly have done all of this (and yet I still believe, go figure).

But anyway, your comparison is not only "lame" like PP said, it's also bigoted. Absolutely no call for taking something that's more akin to exhilaration and going straight to a comparison with alcoholics and drug abusers. You could even have stopped at "the occasional glass of wine for a nice buzz." But your MO is to be as inflammatory and abusive as possible.

So, I'd add to PP's "lame" that your comparison is bigoted, shameful, and intellectually dishonest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

OK, many of us religious folk don't think you have to "turn over" your intellect to believe. PP may think that. But lots of us engage in tons of critical study of our religions, reading alternative POVs and historical research. I certainly have done all of this (and yet I still believe, go figure).

New posters to this thread. This is interesting. What's your religion and can you point me to some of these sources you consider to be most powerful in convincing you it's true?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OK, many of us religious folk don't think you have to "turn over" your intellect to believe. PP may think that. But lots of us engage in tons of critical study of our religions, reading alternative POVs and historical research. I certainly have done all of this (and yet I still believe, go figure).

New posters to this thread. This is interesting. What's your religion and can you point me to some of these sources you consider to be most powerful in convincing you it's true?

That was my post. I didn't say that I've read books that "convinced me it's true." Instead, I've read authors like Borg, Crossan, and Spong who are critical of major tenets of my religion (Christianity).

A key point here is that these authors and/or theologians aren't trying to convince the reader that God does or does not exist. Instead, they're arguing about points that are foundational in many modern-day churches' theologies, like the trinity or crucifixion. Sometimes I find their arguments convincing and other times I don't. Often they disagree with each other.

It's a game for wonks, and I happily cop to being a wonk. However, it's a million times more interesting than the trollish gibberish you see on DCUM--the unthinking repetition of stuff the troll has seen elsewhere, along the lines of "Jesus never existed" and snide quips about sky fairies. Why trolls think that childishness would convert any thinking person to atheism is beyond me!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OK, many of us religious folk don't think you have to "turn over" your intellect to believe. PP may think that. But lots of us engage in tons of critical study of our religions, reading alternative POVs and historical research. I certainly have done all of this (and yet I still believe, go figure).

New posters to this thread. This is interesting. What's your religion and can you point me to some of these sources you consider to be most powerful in convincing you it's true?

That was my post. I didn't say that I've read books that "convinced me it's true." Instead, I've read authors like Borg, Crossan, and Spong who are critical of major tenets of my religion (Christianity).

A key point here is that these authors and/or theologians aren't trying to convince the reader that God does or does not exist. Instead, they're arguing about points that are foundational in many modern-day churches' theologies, like the trinity or crucifixion. Sometimes I find their arguments convincing and other times I don't. Often they disagree with each other.

It's a game for wonks, and I happily cop to being a wonk. However, it's a million times more interesting than the trollish gibberish you see on DCUM--the unthinking repetition of stuff the troll has seen elsewhere, along the lines of "Jesus never existed" and snide quips about sky fairies. Why trolls think that childishness would convert any thinking person to atheism is beyond me!

Atheists have supplied to evidence to show that religion is bogus. Why do Christians fail to see the connection between Jesus/God/resurrection/virgin birth and pagan beliefs? It's all there. Furthermore, moving from polytheism to monotheism was a political move, as it centralized control over the masses, and the bible itself mentions the polytheistic practices of the Israelites.

No, you can't disprove God, but you can find evidence that supports the points I made above. I fail to see how using evidence is childish behavior. Who's the one doing the name calling and failing to produce evidence to support a claim?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OK, many of us religious folk don't think you have to "turn over" your intellect to believe. PP may think that. But lots of us engage in tons of critical study of our religions, reading alternative POVs and historical research. I certainly have done all of this (and yet I still believe, go figure).

New posters to this thread. This is interesting. What's your religion and can you point me to some of these sources you consider to be most powerful in convincing you it's true?

That was my post. I didn't say that I've read books that "convinced me it's true." Instead, I've read authors like Borg, Crossan, and Spong who are critical of major tenets of my religion (Christianity).

A key point here is that these authors and/or theologians aren't trying to convince the reader that God does or does not exist. Instead, they're arguing about points that are foundational in many modern-day churches' theologies, like the trinity or crucifixion. Sometimes I find their arguments convincing and other times I don't. Often they disagree with each other.

It's a game for wonks, and I happily cop to being a wonk. However, it's a million times more interesting than the trollish gibberish you see on DCUM--the unthinking repetition of stuff the troll has seen elsewhere, along the lines of "Jesus never existed" and snide quips about sky fairies. Why trolls think that childishness would convert any thinking person to atheism is beyond me!

Atheists have supplied to evidence to show that religion is bogus. Why do Christians fail to see the connection between Jesus/God/resurrection/virgin birth and pagan beliefs? It's all there. Furthermore, moving from polytheism to monotheism was a political move, as it centralized control over the masses, and the bible itself mentions the polytheistic practices of the Israelites.

No, you can't disprove God, but you can find evidence that supports the points I made above. I fail to see how using evidence is childish behavior. Who's the one doing the name calling and failing to produce evidence to support a claim?

Many of your recent posts have been removed. Pretty solid evidence of childish trolling. You've provided zero evidence, at least on this thread.

That's all I'm going to bother to say to you. Done here.

Don't feed this troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OK, many of us religious folk don't think you have to "turn over" your intellect to believe. PP may think that. But lots of us engage in tons of critical study of our religions, reading alternative POVs and historical research. I certainly have done all of this (and yet I still believe, go figure).

New posters to this thread. This is interesting. What's your religion and can you point me to some of these sources you consider to be most powerful in convincing you it's true?

That was my post. I didn't say that I've read books that "convinced me it's true." Instead, I've read authors like Borg, Crossan, and Spong who are critical of major tenets of my religion (Christianity).

A key point here is that these authors and/or theologians aren't trying to convince the reader that God does or does not exist. Instead, they're arguing about points that are foundational in many modern-day churches' theologies, like the trinity or crucifixion. Sometimes I find their arguments convincing and other times I don't. Often they disagree with each other.

It's a game for wonks, and I happily cop to being a wonk. However, it's a million times more interesting than the trollish gibberish you see on DCUM--the unthinking repetition of stuff the troll has seen elsewhere, along the lines of "Jesus never existed" and snide quips about sky fairies. Why trolls think that childishness would convert any thinking person to atheism is beyond me!

Atheists have supplied to evidence to show that religion is bogus. Why do Christians fail to see the connection between Jesus/God/resurrection/virgin birth and pagan beliefs? It's all there. Furthermore, moving from polytheism to monotheism was a political move, as it centralized control over the masses, and the bible itself mentions the polytheistic practices of the Israelites.

No, you can't disprove God, but you can find evidence that supports the points I made above. I fail to see how using evidence is childish behavior. Who's the one doing the name calling and failing to produce evidence to support a claim?

There are different levels or types of religious belief and the one we hear the most about are the fundamentalists beliefs - it's most straightforward (The bible is the literal word of God) and to the ears of non-believers or liberal Christians, the most simplistic and silly and hard to believe in a modern world. Liberal Christians, who are reading people like Borg and Crossan have a much different, more sophisticated, complex perspective on Christianity, but one that is also difficult for atheists to wrap their heads around.

It seems that for some, the desire/need to believe is very intense, so that they will find ways to deepen and justify their beliefs. Others have an easier time looking at the evidence and saying "No - this cannot be - no interpretation of this makes any sense to me except as ancient stories."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OK, many of us religious folk don't think you have to "turn over" your intellect to believe. PP may think that. But lots of us engage in tons of critical study of our religions, reading alternative POVs and historical research. I certainly have done all of this (and yet I still believe, go figure).

New posters to this thread. This is interesting. What's your religion and can you point me to some of these sources you consider to be most powerful in convincing you it's true?

That was my post. I didn't say that I've read books that "convinced me it's true." Instead, I've read authors like Borg, Crossan, and Spong who are critical of major tenets of my religion (Christianity).

A key point here is that these authors and/or theologians aren't trying to convince the reader that God does or does not exist. Instead, they're arguing about points that are foundational in many modern-day churches' theologies, like the trinity or crucifixion. Sometimes I find their arguments convincing and other times I don't. Often they disagree with each other.

It's a game for wonks, and I happily cop to being a wonk. However, it's a million times more interesting than the trollish gibberish you see on DCUM--the unthinking repetition of stuff the troll has seen elsewhere, along the lines of "Jesus never existed" and snide quips about sky fairies. Why trolls think that childishness would convert any thinking person to atheism is beyond me!

Atheists have supplied to evidence to show that religion is bogus. Why do Christians fail to see the connection between Jesus/God/resurrection/virgin birth and pagan beliefs? It's all there. Furthermore, moving from polytheism to monotheism was a political move, as it centralized control over the masses, and the bible itself mentions the polytheistic practices of the Israelites.

No, you can't disprove God, but you can find evidence that supports the points I made above. I fail to see how using evidence is childish behavior. Who's the one doing the name calling and failing to produce evidence to support a claim?

Many of your recent posts have been removed. Pretty solid evidence of childish trolling. You've provided zero evidence, at least on this thread.

That's all I'm going to bother to say to you. Done here.

Don't feed this troll.

Disagree -- it seems to me that this thread has taken on a useful philosophical tone for believers and non-believers to express and discuss their views.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OK, many of us religious folk don't think you have to "turn over" your intellect to believe. PP may think that. But lots of us engage in tons of critical study of our religions, reading alternative POVs and historical research. I certainly have done all of this (and yet I still believe, go figure).

New posters to this thread. This is interesting. What's your religion and can you point me to some of these sources you consider to be most powerful in convincing you it's true?

That was my post. I didn't say that I've read books that "convinced me it's true." Instead, I've read authors like Borg, Crossan, and Spong who are critical of major tenets of my religion (Christianity).

A key point here is that these authors and/or theologians aren't trying to convince the reader that God does or does not exist. Instead, they're arguing about points that are foundational in many modern-day churches' theologies, like the trinity or crucifixion. Sometimes I find their arguments convincing and other times I don't. Often they disagree with each other.

It's a game for wonks, and I happily cop to being a wonk. However, it's a million times more interesting than the trollish gibberish you see on DCUM--the unthinking repetition of stuff the troll has seen elsewhere, along the lines of "Jesus never existed" and snide quips about sky fairies. Why trolls think that childishness would convert any thinking person to atheism is beyond me!

Atheists have supplied to evidence to show that religion is bogus. Why do Christians fail to see the connection between Jesus/God/resurrection/virgin birth and pagan beliefs? It's all there. Furthermore, moving from polytheism to monotheism was a political move, as it centralized control over the masses, and the bible itself mentions the polytheistic practices of the Israelites.

No, you can't disprove God, but you can find evidence that supports the points I made above. I fail to see how using evidence is childish behavior. Who's the one doing the name calling and failing to produce evidence to support a claim?

Some educated Christians do see this connection --it's even taught in adult Christian education classes in some churches. They may not see Christianity that way their parents or grandparents did, but they are still solid Christians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OK, many of us religious folk don't think you have to "turn over" your intellect to believe. PP may think that. But lots of us engage in tons of critical study of our religions, reading alternative POVs and historical research. I certainly have done all of this (and yet I still believe, go figure).

New posters to this thread. This is interesting. What's your religion and can you point me to some of these sources you consider to be most powerful in convincing you it's true?

That was my post. I didn't say that I've read books that "convinced me it's true." Instead, I've read authors like Borg, Crossan, and Spong who are critical of major tenets of my religion (Christianity).

A key point here is that these authors and/or theologians aren't trying to convince the reader that God does or does not exist. Instead, they're arguing about points that are foundational in many modern-day churches' theologies, like the trinity or crucifixion. Sometimes I find their arguments convincing and other times I don't. Often they disagree with each other.

It's a game for wonks, and I happily cop to being a wonk. However, it's a million times more interesting than the trollish gibberish you see on DCUM--the unthinking repetition of stuff the troll has seen elsewhere, along the lines of "Jesus never existed" and snide quips about sky fairies. Why trolls think that childishness would convert any thinking person to atheism is beyond me!

Atheists have supplied to evidence to show that religion is bogus. Why do Christians fail to see the connection between Jesus/God/resurrection/virgin birth and pagan beliefs? It's all there. Furthermore, moving from polytheism to monotheism was a political move, as it centralized control over the masses, and the bible itself mentions the polytheistic practices of the Israelites.

No, you can't disprove God, but you can find evidence that supports the points I made above. I fail to see how using evidence is childish behavior. Who's the one doing the name calling and failing to produce evidence to support a claim?

Some educated Christians do see this connection --it's even taught in adult Christian education classes in some churches. They may not see Christianity that way their parents or grandparents did, but they are still solid Christians.

what? You make no sense.

The move from polytheistic to monotheistic belief systems - based on pagan thought - goes against Christian beliefs, as it negates the idea of Jesus and an all-powerful, all-loving God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OK, many of us religious folk don't think you have to "turn over" your intellect to believe. PP may think that. But lots of us engage in tons of critical study of our religions, reading alternative POVs and historical research. I certainly have done all of this (and yet I still believe, go figure).

New posters to this thread. This is interesting. What's your religion and can you point me to some of these sources you consider to be most powerful in convincing you it's true?

That was my post. I didn't say that I've read books that "convinced me it's true." Instead, I've read authors like Borg, Crossan, and Spong who are critical of major tenets of my religion (Christianity).

A key point here is that these authors and/or theologians aren't trying to convince the reader that God does or does not exist. Instead, they're arguing about points that are foundational in many modern-day churches' theologies, like the trinity or crucifixion. Sometimes I find their arguments convincing and other times I don't. Often they disagree with each other.

It's a game for wonks, and I happily cop to being a wonk. However, it's a million times more interesting than the trollish gibberish you see on DCUM--the unthinking repetition of stuff the troll has seen elsewhere, along the lines of "Jesus never existed" and snide quips about sky fairies. Why trolls think that childishness would convert any thinking person to atheism is beyond me!

Atheists have supplied to evidence to show that religion is bogus. Why do Christians fail to see the connection between Jesus/God/resurrection/virgin birth and pagan beliefs? It's all there. Furthermore, moving from polytheism to monotheism was a political move, as it centralized control over the masses, and the bible itself mentions the polytheistic practices of the Israelites.

No, you can't disprove God, but you can find evidence that supports the points I made above. I fail to see how using evidence is childish behavior. Who's the one doing the name calling and failing to produce evidence to support a claim?

Many of your recent posts have been removed. Pretty solid evidence of childish trolling. You've provided zero evidence, at least on this thread.

That's all I'm going to bother to say to you. Done here.

Don't feed this troll.

Really? In 8 or so pages, my posts have been removed?

I don't scan them that carefully. So if you're being truthful - and I'm assuming Christians are honest folks - what can I say? I'm not the only one posting. The title of this thread is "Secular Family Values Rock!" I fail to see how supporting this thought is an offense to be reported.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OK, many of us religious folk don't think you have to "turn over" your intellect to believe. PP may think that. But lots of us engage in tons of critical study of our religions, reading alternative POVs and historical research. I certainly have done all of this (and yet I still believe, go figure).

New posters to this thread. This is interesting. What's your religion and can you point me to some of these sources you consider to be most powerful in convincing you it's true?

That was my post. I didn't say that I've read books that "convinced me it's true." Instead, I've read authors like Borg, Crossan, and Spong who are critical of major tenets of my religion (Christianity).

A key point here is that these authors and/or theologians aren't trying to convince the reader that God does or does not exist. Instead, they're arguing about points that are foundational in many modern-day churches' theologies, like the trinity or crucifixion. Sometimes I find their arguments convincing and other times I don't. Often they disagree with each other.

It's a game for wonks, and I happily cop to being a wonk. However, it's a million times more interesting than the trollish gibberish you see on DCUM--the unthinking repetition of stuff the troll has seen elsewhere, along the lines of "Jesus never existed" and snide quips about sky fairies. Why trolls think that childishness would convert any thinking person to atheism is beyond me!

Atheists have supplied to evidence to show that religion is bogus. Why do Christians fail to see the connection between Jesus/God/resurrection/virgin birth and pagan beliefs? It's all there. Furthermore, moving from polytheism to monotheism was a political move, as it centralized control over the masses, and the bible itself mentions the polytheistic practices of the Israelites.

No, you can't disprove God, but you can find evidence that supports the points I made above. I fail to see how using evidence is childish behavior. Who's the one doing the name calling and failing to produce evidence to support a claim?

Some educated Christians do see this connection --it's even taught in adult Christian education classes in some churches. They may not see Christianity that way their parents or grandparents did, but they are still solid Christians.

+1. These are the Borg and Crossan theses mentioned above, among other authors, and they are indeed taught in some adult church study groups. That's where I first ran into these ideas -- in church. What the troll fails to grasp, though, is that questioning things like the virgin birth by no means necessitates renouncing Jesus or his message.

[Anonymous]

Why does every.single.thread, even this one on *secular* values, have to be hijacked by this Christlian-hating troll? Sorry for your thread, atheists, although this hate-monger is one of your own.