At least they're my own feelings, and not those of some long-dead white guys who only wanted to protect their stuff. |
What stuff was Jesus trying to protect ?^^^ |
Well, now you're getting into the 2x2 matrix of belief and knowledge. Technically, it is possible to be both agnostic and atheist, precisely because of the belief/knowledge separation you're talking about. On that scale, I (and most other atheists) would be classified as an agnostic atheist, because I don't know whether or not there is a deity, but I have no belief in one. I doubt that you'll find many atheists who fall into the category of someone who knows with certainty that there is no deity. That level of certainty is typically reserved for theists. Technically, it's also possible to be an agnostic theist - ie someone who believes in a deity but doesn't know that there is one, but I don't know any. I would argue that most people who classify themselves as "agnostic" are actually agnostic atheists, but they're choosing to emphasize the "agnostic" part because it's more socially acceptable. If you're sitting there saying, "I don't know for sure whether there's a deity or not." then you don't have a lot of faith in that deity, either. |
Well, since Jesus didn't write the text that is included in the Bible, and didn't have any involvement in the decisions as to which selections went into the Bible, and has never had any involvement in the operation of the religions created in his name, I'd say it's somewhat irrelevant whether he was trying to protect anything. As Ghandi said, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” |
Well yeah... We know we aren't like Christ . That's why he needed to save us with his blood. If we were like Christ he wouldn't have to have suffered , died and risen.
Ghandi was so different than Christ too...he was a racist and sexist also had underage sex partners and left his wife for a German body builder. |
Seems crazy that anyone needed to b saved by Christ's blood. Very gory |
^^ true but at least if you follow the story , it has logic.
Unlike an atheist who believes the morality produced from his feelings is superior than the morality produced by Hitlers feelings. When both are of no universal value whatsoever. |
That may have been said to the Huguenots. Or at 17th-century Salem, MA. Maybe it was Cortez. Or more recently, to the Yezidis. Of course it's not okay to kill me. But your ilk, the religious, has been persecuting and killing people for what they don't believe for a long time. So don't pose stupid moral questions when neither the the laws of nature nor historical precedent are on your side. |
^^^If it's ok to kill a cow or an ant. What is the atheist reason one human without a soul should feel guilty of killing another human without a soul ? |
But if you don't have a soul .. By what logic are you more morally protected from slaughter than a cow? Killing humans is more in line with the laws of nature and historical precedent than gay marriage. |
I can't speak for everyone, but I wouldn't kill a human even if I knew what a "soul" was (and how can a person prove that he has one?) As far as not killing a person, I wouldn't because I'm socialized, altruistic and connected to the world (probably as a result of a brilliant succession of evolutionary adaptations, but some pp may not agree) and I don't enjoy things that would cause people pain. I totally agree with God's law here that we shouldn't kill. And it's one I would have voted for if I were one of those old white guys assembling the books of the Bible. Some people however, BE THEY RELIGIOUS OR NOT RELIGIOUS, may like killing and not feel guilty. I'm saying that it's a complete error to imply that a Godly person (a person "with a soul") would feel the threat of guilt so much that they would not pull a trigger. See the historical examples above. |
What is the theist reason? Because it is written in a holy book? What if that certain chapter of that book hadn't been written, or if it had burned and you had never heard of it. If the Bible didn't say Thou Shalt not Kill, do you think you would feel more murderous on a day to day basis? Why not? |
Why don't "soulless" atheists go around killing everyone? For the same reason that my "soulless" dog doesn't kill me, or "soulless" groups of elephants or chimps don't all kill each other. Because social animals have evolved group behavior that allows them to survive better if they cooperate as a group.
Just because you keep comparing all atheists to Hitler doesn't make it true. More killing is done in the name of God than not. |
|
oP here. I don't know what he thought. |