Why believe in god?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do Atheists believe they have souls?

No. They believe that we have neurons that create the experience of emotion and that when you die you are dead, period.

So what would be their reasoning that it's wrong to kill them like a chicken or a worm?j

Atheists seem to have a greatly belief in humanity and equality than religious people do. I care about every animals quality of life, not just my own.

Most religions have a similar moral code regarding how to treat each other. Good Christians or Jews would turn to the ten commandants, which says "Thou shalt not kill." Atheists would turn to humanist values.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do Atheists believe they have souls?

No. They believe that we have neurons that create the experience of emotion and that when you die you are dead, period.

So what would be their reasoning that it's wrong to kill them like a chicken or a worm?j

Atheists seem to have a greatly belief in humanity and equality than religious people do. I care about every animals quality of life, not just my own.

Are you a non-native English speaker, PP? Because your syntax, spelling and grammar is so garbled that you barely make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do Atheists believe they have souls?

No. They believe that we have neurons that create the experience of emotion and that when you die you are dead, period.

So what would be their reasoning that it's wrong to kill them like a chicken or a worm?j

Atheists seem to have a greatly belief in humanity and equality than religious people do. I care about every animals quality of life, not just my own.

Are you a non-native English speaker, PP? Because your syntax, spelling and grammar is so garbled that you barely make sense.

OK I get it. Atheists religion is a belief in humanity / equality and every animals quality of life. Sweet but dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do Atheists believe they have souls?

No. They believe that we have neurons that create the experience of emotion and that when you die you are dead, period.

So what would be their reasoning that it's wrong to kill them like a chicken or a worm?j

Atheists seem to have a greatly belief in humanity and equality than religious people do. I care about every animals quality of life, not just my own.

Most religions have a similar moral code regarding how to treat each other. Good Christians or Jews would turn to the ten commandants, which says "Thou shalt not kill." Atheists would turn to humanist values.

Which are codified where? Isn't that double-speak for, I can ignore my conscience when I want to?

I'll say one thing about this troll thread. It gives DCUM's Muslim posters a break.

[Anonymous]

Interesting you should say that. Atheist troll and the some of the DCUM posters often use the same type of argumentation. They frequently go reductio ad absurdem. And, eerily, they both say "I must have touche a nerve there" to posts that push back aggressively on positions they have taken. Reading through this thread I did wonder if atheist troll and Muslim poster were the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting you should say that. Atheist troll and the some of the DCUM posters often use the same type of argumentation. They frequently go reductio ad absurdem. And, eerily, they both say "I must have touche a nerve there" to posts that push back aggressively on positions they have taken. Reading through this thread I did wonder if atheist troll and Muslim poster were the same.

Argh!

^^and some of the Muslim DCUM posters

^^"I must have touched a nerve there"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do Atheists believe they have souls?

No. They believe that we have neurons that create the experience of emotion and that when you die you are dead, period.

So what would be their reasoning that it's wrong to kill them like a chicken or a worm?j

Atheists seem to have a greatly belief in humanity and equality than religious people do. I care about every animals quality of life, not just my own.

You can't be serious. The death count in the 20th Century from officially atheist regimes is about 100 million.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do Atheists believe they have souls?

No. They believe that we have neurons that create the experience of emotion and that when you die you are dead, period.

So what would be their reasoning that it's wrong to kill them like a chicken or a worm?j

Atheists seem to have a greatly belief in humanity and equality than religious people do. I care about every animals quality of life, not just my own.

Most religions have a similar moral code regarding how to treat each other. Good Christians or Jews would turn to the ten commandants, which says "Thou shalt not kill." Atheists would turn to humanist values.

Which are codified where? Isn't that double-speak for, I can ignore my conscience when I want to?

I'll say one thing about this troll thread. It gives DCUM's Muslim posters a break.

No -- anyone can ignore their conscience anytime and people do so frequently -- if you're religious, it's called "sin" and various religions have ways of being officially forgiven, like going to confession or asking god directly for forgiveness.

If you're not religious, it just wrong and the only way to make up for it is to try to make up to whomever you harmed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
No -- anyone can ignore their conscience anytime and people do so frequently -- if you're religious, it's called "sin" and various religions have ways of being officially forgiven, like going to confession or asking god directly for forgiveness.

If you're not religious, it just wrong and the only way to make up for it is to try to make up to whomever you harmed

Yes, I was really touched by Stalin's tribute to all the people he harmed, and the way he turned over a new leaf with all those public foot washings in Leningrad. I think Mao outdid him though, when he went volunteered in orphanages around the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting you should say that. Atheist troll and the some of the DCUM posters often use the same type of argumentation. They frequently go reductio ad absurdem. And, eerily, they both say "I must have touche a nerve there" to posts that push back aggressively on positions they have taken. Reading through this thread I did wonder if atheist troll and Muslim poster were the same.

I wouldn't say Atheist troll and the Muslim poster are the same person.

I'd say they have the same arguing personality, which tends to the immature and unsophisticated. Yes to the reductio ad absurdem arguments. Yes to the "I must have touched a nerve, huh, huh, huh, didn't I, huh?" Also, if I had a dime for every time the Muslim poster sprung a logical trap on herself, I'd be rich, but that's a different problem. I wouldn't say this arguing style is characteristic of just two DCUM posters, because it's characteristic of pre-teens across the world.

[Anonymous]

21:08 here. sprang not sprung

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No -- anyone can ignore their conscience anytime and people do so frequently -- if you're religious, it's called "sin" and various religions have ways of being officially forgiven, like going to confession or asking god directly for forgiveness.

If you're not religious, it just wrong and the only way to make up for it is to try to make up to whomever you harmed

Yes, I was really touched by Stalin's tribute to all the people he harmed, and the way he turned over a new leaf with all those public foot washings in Leningrad. I think Mao outdid him though, when he went volunteered in orphanages around the country.

Stalin and Mao were bad people -- lots of people have been bad, irrespective of religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're addressing at least 2 different folks. I didn't write about martyrdom.

Maybe they wanted more followers so the holiday was co-opted. Clearly they had some reason to lie, idk.

Can I point out the obvious? You're starting with your own premise: "They were deceitful, I know they were deceitful, damn them!" But unfortunately you can't come up with a credible MO for this alleged deceitful behavior. So you shrug it off with "clearly they had some reason, idk."

I'd love to watch any jury in the country dispose of your "there must be some reason why they're guilty" argument.

Rhetoric teachers would weep.

It was a lie and you know this. It is not up to nonbelievers to supply the motive behind using the Solstice to make Jesus-is-Fun Day. Ask your god why if you are confused.

I tend to agree with this... and if anyone doubts that early Christians co-opted both Solstice and Equinox from earlier polytheistic religions, take a look at the decorated tree in your living room and the chocolate eggs Jesus hides in your backyard. The proof is in the dates and symbols. There is no record of date for the Jesus birth and resurrection, yet these events were attached to pre-existing fetes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're addressing at least 2 different folks. I didn't write about martyrdom.

Maybe they wanted more followers so the holiday was co-opted. Clearly they had some reason to lie, idk.

Can I point out the obvious? You're starting with your own premise: "They were deceitful, I know they were deceitful, damn them!" But unfortunately you can't come up with a credible MO for this alleged deceitful behavior. So you shrug it off with "clearly they had some reason, idk."

I'd love to watch any jury in the country dispose of your "there must be some reason why they're guilty" argument.

Rhetoric teachers would weep.

It was a lie and you know this. It is not up to nonbelievers to supply the motive behind using the Solstice to make Jesus-is-Fun Day. Ask your god why if you are confused.

I tend to agree with this... and if anyone doubts that early Christians [b]co-opted both Solstice and Equinox from earlier polytheistic religions, take a look at the decorated tree in your living room and the chocolate eggs Jesus hides in your backyard. The proof is in the dates and symbols. There is no record of date for the Jesus birth and resurrection, yet these events were attached to pre-existing fetes.

Nobody has disputed this, not even on this thread. Several posters actually agreed with Atheist troll (PP#1) on this particular point. I'm one of them (12/16/2014 14:43) where I pointed out that 95% of Christians already know that December 25th was originally a pagan holiday, but reasonable people understand that many things are lost to time, including Jesus' true birthdate, so the early church fathers took (aka "coopted") an existing holiday.

The relevant point here is that "coopting" =/= "lying" or "deceitful." These words all have very different meanings. Check a dictionary if you doubt it.

In the context of the thread, Atheist Troll, at PP#1 above, was trying to argue that co-opting December 25 was a "lie" because, supposedly, "It proves that they had deceitful intents and were willing to fudge details in order to get what they wanted" (12/16/2014 15:23) and similarly, "It was deceitful plain and simple" (12/16/2014 15:43). She then made a giant and logically incoherent leap from this supposed "fact" of "lying" to arguing that Jesus = Horus of the severed, golden penis. Or something like that, who the heck knows because she's wrong that "several other gods were born on December 25" (12/16/2014 14:18 , where Atheist Troll identifies herself as OP). To digress a bit, yes, there were pagan gods with similar or not identical resurrection stories, but these stories don't necessarily involve December 25th birthdates; the Horus golden severed penis parallels to immaculate conception are laughable; and she started a different thread on Mithras but somebody else blew her out of the water there. Anyway, when challenged about why it would be necessary to lie in the absence of material gain, given Jesus' message of poverty, Atheist Troll(s) shrugged and said "IDK" (12/16/2014 16:43, right above). So who the heck knows how Atheist Troll tried to torture logic to get herself from point A to point B. But to return to the point of your post, the narrow part of Atheist Troll's logically incoherent argument that relies on "lying" =/= "coopting" is wrong, too.

[Anonymous]

It's interesting how these threads tend to go way off topic. Why believe in God? You don't need to justify your beliefs. If you have to ask, you don't have beliefs and don't need them. Problem solved.