The Bible

Life has no meaning the moment you lose the illusion of being eternal.

Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness, and dies by chance.
-Jean-Paul Sartre

Why not embrace the full implications of your beliefs, instead of pretending 'purpose!' and 'meaning!', in a purposeless and meaningless universe?

 

This:
"
usfan said: ↑
If there is no God, and life is a random accident of nature, there is no reason or meaning in anything, and life is a series of unrelated cosmic accidents.. randomly occurring with no direction or purpose. Morality, 'good', 'evil', purpose, and any moral judgement have no basis, and are empty platitudes."
IS merely your opinion presented as fact and thus cannot be logically considered truth. Morality also is opinion based and entirely subjective just like "God". Atheistic Naturalism is simply a new way to attempt debasement because someone does no accept your chosen God entity as real. Truth be told...no Atheist really cares enough to be insulted or even slightly concerned by someone elses illusions or beliefs, until the believer starts preaching or pushing it on them.
Honestly the primary feeling I get it more pity than anything, with occasional anger when your Dogma starts messing with my Karma.

 

Things they have been given?

And you have studied the Bible? Another get out. It's all there in the Bible which you are supposed to know. The figures are there. The instructions are there for you to examine. You should know where to find them if you know the Bible. I'll give you a hint. Try the Pentatuech.

Well, bless my soul. 'Matthew' uses a verse claiming it refers to Jesus and it clearly doesn't, and he hasn't made a mistake/error. .

Nativity story. completely different genealogies for Joseph. And if Jesus was born of a 'virgin' the genealogies of Joseph are pointless. If one is supposed to be Mary's then under Jewish law it was irrelevant proving the Davidic connection..Luke places the date of Jesus' birth ten years later than Matthew. Quirinius 6CE as Governor of Syria and Herod 4BCE in Matthew.Matthew has Mary and Joseph living in a house in Bethlehem when Jesus was born while Luke says they were living in Nazareth and travelling to Bethlehem for a census. An unnecessary journey under Roman Law.Matthew says that Jesus' family fled to Egypt after the birth and moved to Nazareth only after the death of Herod. Luke says they were living in Nazareth all along and returned there immediately after Jesus was circumcised.Luke knows nothing of Herod's slaughter of the innocents or of a flight to Egypt. In fact, by Luke's chronology, Herod was already dead when Jesus was born.

And there are no errors, just differences of opinion? Strange way to base a religion on.

 

No problem.. you just want your cake, after it has been eaten..

..no need to get snippy.. I'm just following the logical implications of philosophy. HOW can you get embedded morality, meaning, or purpose in a random, atheistic universe? You can't. Those are empty platitudes in an atheistic worldview, and no amount of foot stomping, screaming, or insulting will change it. Why do atheists not embrace the implications of their beliefs, instead of pretending 'morality!' and 'meaning!' in an amoral, meaningless worldview?

Its not my fault, you have no basis for these things.. that is the consequence of your beliefs.

I presented the ARGUMENTS, not as fact, but as rational conclusions of the core beliefs in randomness and atheistic naturalism.

HOW do you have 'morality!' in this belief? There is only relativity, expediency, and survival. Good and evil are manipulative platitudes from those in power, and are not absolute.

The indignation over the obvious conclusions of beliefs remains a mystery to me, and shows the core belief in 'something' in the most ardent skeptic.

The problem you have is that my karma ran over your dogma..

 

It clearly does, according to Matthew. Your opinion here is not Absolute Truth.

Like the rest of your smears and false accusations, which are based ONLY in prejudice and bigotry against the bible, not in facts, which you avoid like the plague.

I can only dismiss your assertions, since you will not present a factual or evidentiary based argument, but rely completely on fallacies and assertions.

You could SHOW your claimed expertise in biblical scholarship with facts, references, and solid arguments, but you don't. Innuendo, smears and accusations, with NO EVIDENCE, is all you've provided here.

 

It's called being a good person.

 

Define 'good' from an atheistic, relative morality, human construct, perspective.

What you say? The state? The majority religious consensus? What is good for you may be bad for another, in a world of moral relativism.

 

So religion does? Morality. It's certainly not embedded. See the difference in various religions and cultures. So, therefore, no embedder. Universal morality? There are few 'morals' that all humanity and societies agree on. Your personal morals depend upon your belief. Morality down the ages has been down to societies.

 

Reverse that. What may be good for Christians may be bad for Muslims. Would you be governed by Sharia Law?

 

..your opinion, as i delineated the 2 possibilities about morality.

Obviously, if there is no Embedder, there is no absolute morality, and it is all a human construct based on expediency, control, and power.

So how do you make your 'holier than thou' judgements, if it is all relative, and anything goes?

I completely disagree with your perception of random amorality throughout human history. I see a very clear line of universal moral values, consistent throughout region, time, race, and culture.

This is a big topic, and has been debated for millennia, and has many threads on this forum, alone.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/morality-absolute-or-relative.441782/

 

I can only define this for myself, as explained. But "Good" to me involves acceptance and appreciation (respect) for my fellow persons, supporting this in society where applicable, having compassion for those of lesser means and situation, keeping to myself those thoughts and actions that may cause harm or discomfort to others, Trying to make better the harmful aspects of society and every day life for those I love and avoiding situations/people that are not helpful to these goals.

 

The question extends to any philosophical division.

What is 'good' for atheists, muslims, christians, hindus, or any worldview may not be 'good' for others, regarding specifics of religious beliefs.

But the overriding definition of 'good', is still ignored. Is it just majority rule and power? What is preferred by elites? Your opinion? Without a moral Infuser, there is only relativity, expediency, and whim, for the values of a culture.. something we do not see in the history of man.

How could you complain about sharia law, if it is the will of the majority, or those in power? Its all just made up, anyway, so one worldview is as good as another, in a world of relativity.

 

Why would another be 'wrong', for rejecting your moral platitudes, and preferring an aggressive, domineering value system of strength, superiority, and control? How could you fault them if they believed in culling weaker members of humanity, or enslavement of passive people?

You have no Higher Power, or absolute morality to appeal to, just your own personal preference and opinion. Why should YOUR beliefs carry any more influence than another's?

 

The basic things a lot of us have been given is: good health (there is always someone worse off), Someone we love, and a brand new day.

 

I guess you simply missed the respect part.

 

That's just one of your moral platitudes.. why should any living thing respect another? They might kill them, or eat them, or coexist symbiotically, but respect? That has no basis in an amoral, atheistic worldview. It is a nostalgic carryover from a human dignity belief.

 

Your beliefs and attitude explain your persona nicely. You asked me a question so I answered.

 

According to 'Matthew'. Have you read the whole chapter? Do you think it does? 'Matthew' simply does it to make his claim that Jesus was prophesied. It refers to Israel - the whole chapter. Matthew is desperate to make Jesus the prophesied Messiah. He uses other texts/events out of context for the same purposes. The Nativity stories themselves in the light of historical and Biblical knowledge are just nonsense.
The facts are in the Bible. The Exodus story is related in the Bible. The numbers given are proof of the story being just a story. Do you believe that a population of a city the size of Chicago could survive in the desert 40 years. I've shown you what the Bible says and the stupidity of the narration. given you facts 'written' on various stele, documents, monuments, 'letters' available for you to read on line in Museums. Do you need me to ask the Museums to send you the actual items. I think they would be reluctant to do so. Ancient History, archaeology are all available to confirm what I have posted. Have you ever studied outside the Bible?
Why did Jonah try to run away to Tarshsish and not hide in a cave somewhere like Elijah?
For the same reason David made a plea to Saul not to chase him away from God. How could Saul do that?

You simply do not want anything to disturb what you have been told.

 

Good health is a gift? From whom? S
Someone we love? Well, I love my 4 children, 5 grandchildren and 7 great grandchildren. I have a shrewd idea where they came from. They certainly weren't a gift.

 

He can't accept that non Christians can have morals on the level with, and sometimes above, many Christians.

 

I didn't say anything about purpose and meaning to life itself. However, that doesn't mean there can't be purpose and meaning to mine, or others, specific life.

 

There does not need to be an absolute standard for all. It may vary from one place to another. But even so, religion is not the innovator of morality, it is the imitator:

 

It's sad that people have to rely on a belief in a supernatural being for life to be meaningful.

 

And yet most Christians only "know" what they have memorized of the bible teachings. They don't Know God. Indeed, the bible tells that the way is narrow and few there be that find it. It says the natural man does not receive the things of the spirit of God nor does he know them for they are spiritually discerned. But just try to find anyone who truly knows what spiritual discernment is and how to obtain it. All knowledge of how to obtain it was lost in the 1600s and early 1700s and today's Christians don't know anything about that history of their own religion.

And when they are offered spiritual truths obtained through genuine spiritual discernment, they reject it. But of course, the bible predicts this, too. And they don't see it. It's like a blind man and an elephant.

 

It's reasonable to ask an atheist why he should be a good person.