What do we really know about the crucifixion of Jesus?

Jun 14, 2010

The many different accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus find little support in historical sources. The reason is that antique sources generally lack descriptions of crucifixions, says Gunnar Samuelsson, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, who recently finished his doctoral thesis on the topic.

Encyclopaedias, monographs and commentaries generally agree on the type of punishment Jesus had to endure on Golgotha in Jerusalem. There is an ample amount of very colourful accounts of crucifixions in the literature, and researchers from all kinds of disciplines seem to endorse them.

'The problem is that descriptions of crucifixions are remarkably absent in the antique literature,' says Samuelsson. 'The sources where you would expect to find support for the established understanding of the event really don't say anything.'

The 400 page thesis offers the reader samples of antiquity's most terrifying texts and gives examples of mankind's amazing resourcefulness in terms of mind-boggling cruelty against fellow human beings. Samuelsson has studied the available ancient Greek, Latin and Hebrew/Aramaic literature all the way from Homer to the first century A.D. While the texts indicate a vast arsenal of suspension punishments, they do not say much about the kind of punishment the Christian tradition claims Jesus was forced to endure.

The thesis shows that although the studied texts are full of references to suspension of objects and the equipment used to this end, no reference is made to 'crosses' or 'crucifixion'. Samuelsson therefore concludes that the predominant account of the destiny of Jesus is not based on the antique texts, but rather on for example the tradition of the Christian church and artistic illustrations.

'Consequently, the contemporary understanding of crucifixion as a punishment is severely challenged. And what's even more challenging is that the same can be concluded about the accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus. The New Testament doesn't say as much as we'd like to believe', says Samuelsson.

Explore further: Study: Alcatraz inmates could have survived escape

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Who was Jesus?

Mar 10, 2009

The historical person Jesus of Nazareth - beyond the accounts in the creeds and the Gospels, which are all characterized by religious belief - is the focus of Tobias Hägerland's dissertation from the University of Gothenburg, ...

Experts split on supposed Jesus tomb

Jan 18, 2008

Archaeologists, biblical scholars and other experts met in Jerusalem this week to discuss a tomb that might be that of Jesus and his family.

Biblical pool discovered in Jerusalem

Aug 10, 2005

Sewer workers in Jerusalem have reportedly discovered the biblical Pool of Siloam -- an ancient gathering place for Jews and a holy Christian site.

Biblical diet 'unhealthy'

Jan 13, 2009

A new study into the diet of ancient Israel has revealed that far from being 'the land of milk and honey', its inhabitants suffered from the lack of a balanced diet.

Recommended for you

Study: Alcatraz inmates could have survived escape

Dec 17, 2014

The three prisoners who escaped from Alcatraz in one of the most famous and elaborate prison breaks in U.S. history could have survived and made it to land, scientists concluded in a recent study.

User comments : 338

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Bob_B
3 / 5 (11) Jun 14, 2010
The question about jesus is bogus, just like religion is bogus.
The question should be: how did the Romans perform them?
Who cares that someone maybe have been named jesus and was tortured like 1000's before.
marjon
1.9 / 5 (14) Jun 14, 2010
The question about jesus is bogus, just like religion is bogus.
The question should be: how did the Romans perform them?
Who cares that someone maybe have been named jesus and was tortured like 1000's before.

Hundreds of millions of people care.
But, you have every right to insult them instead of respecting their religious rights.
John_balls
3.8 / 5 (13) Jun 14, 2010
The question about jesus is bogus, just like religion is bogus.
The question should be: how did the Romans perform them?
Who cares that someone maybe have been named jesus and was tortured like 1000's before.

Hundreds of millions of people care.
But, you have every right to insult them instead of respecting their religious rights.


Thank you for letting us know our rights on discussing fairy tales.
lengould100
3 / 5 (11) Jun 14, 2010
There is no "right" to not be held in contempt for believing fairy tales.
marjon
2.1 / 5 (14) Jun 14, 2010
There is no "right" to not be held in contempt for believing fairy tales.

I would expect nothing less than insults from intolerant, illiberal atheists.
Caliban
3.6 / 5 (12) Jun 14, 2010
There is no "right" to not be held in contempt for believing fairy tales.

I would expect nothing less than insults from intolerant, illiberal atheists.


The situation is actually the opposite. It is Marjon and cadre that insist on trying to impose their belief system upon Science, this science-based site, and thescientifically-minded that enjoy its content.

There is no science to back up your belief. This is a science-based site, not a belief-based one.

If your sensibilities are so delicate as to be offended by being called into question as non science-based, then you would probably be more comfortable with any of the myriad other sites that are more in line with your belief.

I suggest you start with the Discovery Institute.
marjon
2.1 / 5 (14) Jun 14, 2010
I did not post an article about the crucifixion of Jesus.
But I will challenge the insults by intolerant atheist 'scientists' to those who have faith.
Is it normal practice for 'scientists' to ridicule and insult those they disagree with? What maturity!
otto1923
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 14, 2010
The question about jesus is bogus, just like religion is bogus.
The question should be: how did the Romans perform them?
Who cares that someone maybe have been named jesus and was tortured like 1000's before.

Hundreds of millions of people care.
But, you have every right to insult them instead of respecting their religious rights.
(here we go again...) And do not usurp my religious right to insult your idiot belief system. Hundreds of millions of other religionists hate you and your particular godman just as much as you hate theirs. Get used to it.

And again, what kind of god needs you to decide what offends him, or needs you to defend his delicate sensibilities? A weak and petty one, a pure human figment, a projection of your own sad shortcomings, is what kind.
otto1923
4 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2010
"The thesis shows that although the studied texts are full of references to suspension of objects and the equipment used to this end, no reference is made to 'crosses' or 'crucifixion'."

-Correct. The bible even states that Jesus was hung from a tree. This lends further evidence to the obvious conclusion that xians were given a symbol (ankh) from a much older religion, as a knowing gesture and a message from the People who concocted it, that the religion was just the latest incarnation of a System, with all the trappings and mechanisms which always work so well, that had been used to control pops for millenia. Much like those authentic pagan Egyptian obelisks erected in front of the worlds holiest basilicas. Nothing new under the Sun/son. Amen/amenhotep. Holy tutmoses!
CSharpner
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 14, 2010
The bible even states that Jesus was hung from a tree

Interesting... I don't recall that from my many years of forced Church, Sunday School, and religion classes growing up. I figured, "Well, he wouldn't say it unless he read it in the Bible, using the scientific method", so I looked it up:

http://www.bibleg...=Matthew 27:32-56&version=NIV

Looks like it's a cross, but I haven't read the entirety of the Bible in decades, so it's possible I just don't recall it and that I missed it in my quick Googling just now. Perhaps different passages have conflicting accounts? In any case, it'd be interesting to know about that. What chapter and verse did you find that?
otto1923
3.9 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2010
Acts 5
29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
-Also Acts 10, 13, 1 Peter 2
-Because the bible is a mishmash of conflicting accounts and bad editing through the ages, as well as nefarious translating aimed at obscuring the truth, it says different things in different places and in different versions. Adds to the whole 'unknowable will of god he's so much smarter than us' schtick I guess. Oh well.
otto1923
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2010
@csharpener
Interesting... I don't recall that from my many years of forced Church, Sunday School, and religion classes growing up
Question: You were taught by people who in turn believed what they were taught, about what the kjv bible was supposed to mean and what you were supposed to find in it. That particular version is little more than cryptic poetry anyway. But do you honestly believe you were given an unbiased account about what is written in there? Were you told the bible is perfect? Well it's not. You should start with that revelation on reexamining the bible.
marjon
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 14, 2010
Why should anyone expect the Bible to be perfect?
Why is the entire theme of the Bible about faith? Time after time stories of how God's people lost faith in God, suffered, and were rewarded when they regained their faith.
Sounds like a universal truth today. Europe and the USA have lost faith and are not following a moral path. Is it any wonder Europe and the USA are suffering economic punishment and are being attacked? Of course none of the 'rational' atheists believe this. However, when society acted in a moral way, respected life, respected liberty, respected standards, society prospered.
Europe is dying and being replaced by people who do have faith, Muslims.
Maybe you atheists should offer a positive message instead of attacking those few Christians and Jews who are supporting life and liberty for all, even atheists.
xstos
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2010
what do we really know about the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?

not much, but there's likely a bowl of lucky charms there instead due to the recession.

2000 years ago a bunch of witch burning psycho Neanderthals got drunk on some strange red berries. high as kites they created some drunk propaganda that spread like wildfire gossip across the land and somehow got embedded into their primitive monkey brains. 2000 years later, humans have cloning, splitting atoms, space travel, carbon fiber hockey sticks and cell phones and they still believe in the equivalent of magical faerie whisps from the planet narnia.

way to go humanity. way to go. i'm proud of you.
malapropism
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2010
The question about jesus is bogus, just like religion is bogus.
The question should be: how did the Romans perform them?
Who cares that someone maybe have been named jesus and was tortured like 1000's before.

Hundreds of millions of people care.
But, you have every right to insult them instead of respecting their religious rights.

Actually, I don't think there was any particular insult to the hundreds of millions of religious followers arising from this unless they believe that non-belief is an insult. This opinion comes from the meaning of "bogus", which, if you care to check, is generally defined as something that is a "sham, counterfeit or not genuine." Bob B was quite right in that the question as phrased was just a teaser (and as such was arguably "bogus"), being simply the most well known example of supposed crucifixion, but the real question is indeed, "how did they do it?" And it is this the thesis sought (unsuccessfully it seems) to answer.
malapropism
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2010
Why should anyone expect the Bible to be perfect?

Well, for a starter, if this book is received wisdom from a God and said God is held to be omnipotent and omniscient and is perfect him/her/it self, and is the only extant God, and the book is reflective of this God's wishes, then could we not reasonably expect that this God would wish the received wisdom to be also reflective of its own perfection? Therefore if said God is able and willing to intervene in human affairs, could we not further reasonably expect this God to ensure that any errors, omissions or other mistakes that have crept in over the past couple of thousand years are fixed up? So it follows that the book should indeed be perfect, doesn't it?

Is it...?
eachus
2.1 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2010
So it follows that the book should indeed be perfect, doesn't it?


No. I can't compress an education in mathematics, computer science, and formal languages in 1000 characters. So I won't try.

But those of you familiar with Gödel's Proof should realize that shows that the Bible, or any book, written in any useful language, must be inconsistent. (Useful here is a shorthand for can be used to describe something more complex than a very simple subset of arithmetic.)

Could God, in theory, create a book that was perfect? Sure, but it wouldn't be readable. The problem is not with the book, but with the language, any language, that it is written in.

Gödel's Proof is a very tough thing to make part of your belief system. But in computer science and complexity theory, if you don't, you find yourself constantly banging into dead ends.

Roj
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2010
-marjon- Time after time stories of how God's people lost faith in God, suffered, and were rewarded when they regained their faith.
The perpetual recruits to theocracy & faith result from religion having more success controlling paternity, relative to other groups.

When religion provides a structure against polygamy, or its variations, the historical-critical embellishments of its deity are irrelevant. The primal belief in controlling the sexual conduct of your partner, where both participate in the group, has always been more important.
marjon
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2010
Why should anyone expect the Bible to be perfect?

Well, for a starter, if this book is received wisdom from a God and said God is held to be omnipotent and omniscient and is perfect him/her/it self, and is the only extant God, and the book is reflective of this God's wishes, then could we not reasonably expect that this God would wish the received wisdom to be also reflective of its own perfection? Therefore if said God is able and willing to intervene in human affairs, could we not further reasonably expect this God to ensure that any errors, omissions or other mistakes that have crept in over the past couple of thousand years are fixed up? So it follows that the book should indeed be perfect, doesn't it?
Is it...?

Assuming God wanted the Bible to be perfect. It is in His best interest for the Bible NOT to be perfect as it challenges people's faith.
From Adam to Noah to Abraham to Moses to...God challenged their faith and rewarded them when they kept faith. Why?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2010
Why should anyone expect the Bible to be perfect?
Well because it claims to be the perfect word of God. Pretty disingenuous and not to be belived if it isn't as advertised.
Why is the entire theme of the Bible about faith?
Because it's made up.
Europe and the USA have lost faith and are not following a moral path.
Define "moral path".
Is it any wonder Europe and the USA are suffering economic punishment and are being attacked?
By religious zealots.
Of course none of the 'rational' atheists believe this.
Because it's silly.
However, when society acted in a moral way, respected life, respected liberty, respected standards, society prospered.
Yes, like when a bunch of deists and atheists created the US. Then again when their godless children defeated a buch of Catholics who were exterminating Jews.
Europe is dying and being replaced by people who do have faith, Muslims.
And your point?
Rdavid
5 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2010
It's a 400-page thesis about man's inhumanity to man. Nothing more.
marjon
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2010
It's a 400-page thesis about man's inhumanity to man. Nothing more.

Millions of of others disagree.
According to AGW supporters, what really matters is consensus. That doesn't apply with the Bible?
marjon
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2010
Yes, like when a bunch of deists and atheists created the US.

And the first amendment to the Constitution creating the USA was the federal government shall not establish a religion nor shall it abridge the free exercise of religion. They obviously respected everyone's right to their religion. Too bad so many here do not.
marjon
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2010
Europe is dying and being replaced by people who do have faith, Muslims.


And your point?

The faithless will be overtaken by the faithfull just as it has been described in the Bible time and time and time again.
gwrede
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2010
Assuming God wanted...
Assuming God. Period.
otto1923
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2010
Why should anyone expect the Bible to be perfect?
Because it TELLS you it is. 

"16All Scripture is God-breathed" 2Timothy3
"  18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." -Rev22

-Maybe you haven't gotten this far, or maybe you just assume you know what's in there because you're so full of faith or something. 

God wrote the bible. The bible is flawed. Therefore god is flawed. Therefore god is a creation of man and not the other way around.
yyz
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2010
"The faithless will be overtaken by the faithfull[sic] just as it has been described in the Bible time and time and time again."

"It is in His best interest for the Bible NOT to be perfect"

These statements seem contradictory. How can you be sure that descriptions of anything in the *imperfect* Bible are accurate "time and time and time again."?

otto1923
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 15, 2010
Assuming God wanted the Bible to be perfect. It is in His best interest for the Bible NOT to be perfect as it challenges people's faith.
So in other words god would lie to you in order to test your faith? According to the book only Satan would do that (genesis). Which means the book and your religion were conceived by Satan at the behest of god, because Satan never did anything without gods blessing. According to the book (Job).

So we can take it on faith that your religion is evil and offer the bible as evidence. That, and all the miserable things it has caused people to do to one another since it was given unto the world.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2010
The faithless will be overtaken by the faithfull just as it has been described in the Bible time and time and time again.

Would you care to explain why Jesus' name is written in Greek Temples dating back to 200BC?

I can tell you why.

ie Sous Kristos
Hail Zeus, the Annointed One.
or if you're an illiterate desert nomad from the mesopotamian or canaan regions:
Jesus Christ.
Millions of of others disagree.
According to AGW supporters, what really matters is consensus. That doesn't apply with the Bible?

Your 1 billion against my 6 billion.
Birger
5 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2010
The interesting core is that old assumptions about the method of execution are flawed.
One may ask of what relevance this is to us -after all, millions of people were killed in horrific ways in antquity- but the point is that even central aspects of received wisdom re. the gospels are flawed.
This should not be regarded as an insult, unless you are really insecure in your faith. The -for Christians- problematic part is "downstream" of the interpretation itself:
When assessing claims made by religious leaders who base their belief on the non-revised texts, this study is obviously relevant. Even those who depend upon revised translations can never be certain that their particular text is the "true" one.
And if you are frightened by this lack of certainty, just wait until you find out how many rival gospels that once existed (see the book "Lost Christianities" at Amazon.com).

[this comment may contain minor spelling errors -it is not my first language]
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2010
And if you are frightened by this lack of certainty, just wait until you find out how many rival gospels that once existed (see the book "Lost Christianities" at Amazon.com).
Well said Birger.
ArtflDgr
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2010
In 1968 an ossuary was found near Jerusalem at Giv’at ha-Mivtar, and contained the remains of Johanan ben Ha-galgol, who was crucified by the Romans sometime in the 3rd century, A.D. Among the evidence found was a 6-inch iron spike driven through the sides of his heels; the remains of an olive wood plank placed on his foot prior to nail being driven in was also found, evidently acting as a "washer" to prevent the victim from pulling his foot off the nail. Nail marks were also found on the inner portion of the radius arm bones, and both legs were broken as per Roman practice.

A person wishing to change history could easily narrow greek translation to erase such instructions. Hand has broader meaning in greek than english.

Given that it was christianity that invented science and made the universities to study reality (the work of god), its odd that luddites and atheists speak in half truths to change this past history (having nothing to do with validity of god, but only worldview)

ArtflDgr
2 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2010
Since socialism requires revising/making history to create a mental state in the collective masses, maybe, just maybe, you can’t trust them to write or do science, as they can’t resist the power of manipulating science fact. After all if the end justifies the means then ALL information is subjected to becoming a tool to move people the way you want them. They sacrifice validity and function to achieve an arbitrary aesthetic future that only exists as presumption of an end, as the end is never reached. So the truth is sadder than anything people are arguing here, as it’s the presumptive end that justifies the means that then prevents the end forever.
vanderMerwe
4.3 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2010
Re: 'The problem is that descriptions of crucifixions are remarkably absent in the antique literature,' says Samuelsson.

I'm left to wonder if Samuelsson bothered to actually research ancient literature or if he merely let his biases inform his argument.

It's obvious that he didn't bother reading Josephus or Seneca the Younger.
CSharpner
3 / 5 (2) Jun 15, 2010
otto,
Question: You were taught by people who in turn believed what they were taught, about what the kjv bible was supposed to mean and what you were supposed to find in it.

Duh!
That particular version is little more than cryptic poetry anyway. But do you honestly believe you were given an unbiased account about what is written in there?

Asking that question implies you think I think that. On what basis do you form that opinion?
Were you told the bible is perfect?

Given that I grew up in the buckle of the Bible belt, amazingly, no.
Well it's not.

LOL! (this is fun watching you think I'm a Bible thumper! :)
You should start with that revelation on reexamining the bible.

You're a person full of assumptions and and appear to be full hate based on how hateful you're being about a particular religion and how you're acting towards your fellow man on this board (though, you've been relatively OK with me).

continued...
rationabile
3 / 5 (2) Jun 15, 2010
For those you who might enjoy some actual history from original sources, there is this snippet from Cicero's oration against Verres, at the trial of the very corrupt Roman governor of Sicily in 71 BC.

For what was your object in ordering the Mamertines, when, according to their regular custom and usage, they had erected the cross behind the city in the Pompeian road, to place it where it looked towards the strait; and in adding, what you can by no means deny, what you said openly in the hearing of every one, that you chose that place in order that the man who said that he was a Roman citizen, might be able from his cross to behold Italy and to look towards his own home? And accordingly, O judges, that cross, for the first time since the foundation of Messana, was erected in that place. A spot commanding a view of Italy was picked out by that man, for the express purpose that the wretched man who was dying in agony and torture might see that the rights of liberty ...
marjon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2010
Assuming God wanted the Bible to be perfect. It is in His best interest for the Bible NOT to be perfect as it challenges people's faith.
So in other words god would lie to you in order to test your faith? According to the book only Satan would do that (genesis). Which means the book and your religion were conceived by Satan at the behest of god, because Satan never did anything without gods blessing. According to the book (Job).

So we can take it on faith that your religion is evil and offer the bible as evidence. That, and all the miserable things it has caused people to do to one another since it was given unto the world.

Parents lie to their children, in good faith, to protect them and to foster maturity. Is that evil?
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2010
Parents lie to their children, in good faith, to protect them and to foster maturity. Is that evil?
Depends on how long they continue the lie and what the depth of that lie is. According to your religion, all lies are damnable sins, wether you believe them to be true or not. For tyhe most part, yes. Lying to children is entirely evil, simply because they're not informed enough to seperate fact from fiction.

To those who are insinuating that there are no retellings of crucifixion, that's false. The Romans had instruction manuals on how to do it, many survive today.

To those who say there are any first hand accounts of a Jesus of Nazareth, you're either misinformed or overtly lying.

In these discussions, one cannot stick to fanciful reconstruction, or lying forgery to prove their point.
otto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2010
LOL! (this is fun watching you think I'm a Bible thumper! :)
Well sorry, though the assumption was understandable given the tone of your post and the implication that I didnt know what I was talking about.
You're a person full of assumptions and and appear to be full hate based on how hateful you're being about a particular religion and how you're acting towards your fellow man on this board (though, you've been relatively OK with me).
I'm a polemicist. Look it up. Its fun to spit fire and brimstone at the self-righteous. Nicht wahr?

These religions are designed to provoke derision to harden the resolve and cohesion of their constituents. I see a niqab, I get offensive, because I'm supposed to. Am I easy? We all have roles to play. Yours seems to be superficial civility, a little bit, yes? Otto hates nobody. Only the character otto does.
otto1923
5 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2010
@rationabile
O judges, that cross
What do you think they meant by 'cross'? Any sketches? Was it maybe a metaphor? The article says there are few actual descriptions. Was Peters 'tree' a metaphor??
Parents lie to their children, in good faith, to protect them and to foster maturity. Is that evil?
Well thats a sneaky point, but we're not children and the churches implication that we are is another way of crippling our self-confidence and enabling that authority to make us do things we normally wouldnt.

Your faith tells you that god gave us senses and a brain so that we could understand the world and use it to our advantage. Your religion tells you to ignore what your senses and your brain tell you in favor of what the agents of your religion want you to believe. If you accept this disconnect, like the dog with a biscuit on his nose, then you will get your kibble at the end of the day. That is an apt description of your faith; it is nothing more than that. Versteht?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2010
Well thats a sneaky point, but we're not children and the churches implication that we are is another way of crippling our self-confidence and enabling that authority to make us do things we normally wouldnt.
Otto, your statement above brings up another point.

What must adults do for children? Well, that's easy. Raise them to adulthood. Bad parents are seen as having children who never really grow up.

Why would the church do the same thing? Well, that's simple. Turn the average savage into a civil adult. I'd say the church was very successful at this back before we had cities, now I think it's time for us to all grow up and lose the lie.
CSharpner
1 / 5 (1) Jun 15, 2010
Otto,
Well sorry, though the assumption was understandable given the tone of your post and the implication that I didnt know what I was talking about.

hehe. Actually, I was pretty sure you had read that and I wanted to know so I could use it in discussions too. The tone was only in your eyes. You're too eager to fight with the other side and are finding bugymen where there are none.. I have lots of discussions with my very religious friends and one point I make a lot is about inconsistencies in the Bible. Having another one at hand is helpful, especially with chapter and verse so they can validate it themselves.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2010
it's time for us to all grow up and lose the lie.

How will you justify standards to children in an era of moral relativism? (Or maybe you won't?)
Excluding the first 3 commandments, what remaining 7 do all you atheists want to violate the most?
Or if you don't want to violate them, why would you want to follow them?
otto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2010
Turn the average savage into a civil adult. I'd say the church was very successful at this back before we had cities, now I think it's time for us to all grow up and lose the lie.
The church can evoke civility amongst bretheren when it wants, but it is also very good at channeling adolescent savagery against its enemies when necessary. Like the pit bull- we are domesticated to the extent that we either heel or attack at Their command. More evidence that these designer religions were formulated for purely sociopolitical ends. IMHO.
blyster
5 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2010
I have no problem with people having faith. Faith is believing the unbelievable. Personally I don't believe a God would create a universe like this a spend all his time on this insignificant rock. I'd be going from one end to other. This assumes the universe is an experiment of God's and he needs to check things out. That's the version I like anyway.

Actually my main problem with the faithful is their requirement to enlighten us heathens. To force their beliefs down our throat via laws. Have your faith, leave the rest of us alone.
otto1923
5 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2010
How will you justify standards to children in an era of moral relativism? (Or maybe you won't?)
Excluding the first 3 commandments, what remaining 7 do all you atheists want to violate the most?
Or if you don't want to violate them, why would you want to follow them?
Marjon invokes 'the Children'... Dont you realize that someone just like you on the other side of the world, with your exact same inner constituency, is evoking the exact same moral precepts to make a point using a religion which you would describe as heathen, ungodly, and corrupt? And she would feel the same way about yours and you?

What makes you think I peronally am an atheist? The god of you religionists is not, has never been, and will never be, real. No god would ever send a human being to do his work for him; but humans have been inventing gods to justify their actions for 100s of years, and this is a much more compelling reason why they exist, in their present form and function.
CSharpner
1 / 5 (2) Jun 15, 2010
blyster,

To force their beliefs down our throat via laws.

That's definitely true of Islam, but all religions are different and I see this less and less from the Christian community. Having lived in the buckle of the Bible belt (yah, I think I'll be overusing that phrase), I've only met ONE Christian who said they think ALL Christian laws should be the law of the land. Most Christians I know just want the government to stick to government and stay out of religion.
Have your faith, leave the rest of us alone.

Definitely! But I think it's a strawman argument that the average Christian wants to force their religion on the rest of us. Most Christians I know (and growing) have the EXACT opinion you just stated: "Believe what you want, just leave us alone and keep the politicians out of my Church!"

The human psyche looks for reasons to justify its opposition in an "us vs. them" situation and in this case, I think that strawman argument is one of those.
CSharpner
1 / 5 (1) Jun 15, 2010
continued...

The human psyche looks for reasons to justify its opposition in an "us vs. them" situation and in this case, I think that strawman argument is one of those.

I wanted to be clear... I'm not saying those opposed to Christianity are the only ones that do this. I'm saying EVERYONE does this to some degree or another. I'm just pointing out one example that's relevant here.
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2010
Marjon invokes 'the Children'...

I noticed no questions were answered.
Most Christians I know (and growing) have the EXACT opinion you just stated: "Believe what you want, just leave us alone and keep the politicians out of my Church!"

I notice that it is politically correct to attack Christians and Jews, but not Muslims. I think it is because the attackers are cowards. Muslims will kill, Christians and Jews will not. (It could also be that Muslim theocracy is more in-line with the secular statist POV.)
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2010
To force their beliefs down our throat via laws. Have your faith, leave the rest of us alone.

What laws?
Do you support laws based upon the last 7 commandments?
otto1923
4 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2010
I think it is because the attackers are cowards. Muslims will kill, Christians and Jews will not.
Will kill- again, islam is a HUGE agglomeration of sects, peoples, and beliefs. Some are under the kind of stress that provokes them to violence. I've posted plenty of examples of xian atrocity, past and present, in previous posts which you fail to acknowledge and conveniently forget. this makes you a liar by omission, as you repeat the same questions. And youll note in a post above I disparage the burqa, that thing that moslem women wear on their heads because they think god gave them hair so they could cover it up. Actually, its a sign of submission and subservience to their menfolk, and a provocation to non-believers.
Do you support laws based upon the last 7 commandments?
You make it sound as if you think judeo-xians have a monopoly on moral commandments. Unfortunately they demand that you adhere to ALL of them, including the one about blasphemy. Pledge fealty, then be good.
otto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2010
I noticed no questions were answered.
Thats becaues you read posts like you read the bible. They were ALL answered.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2010
What laws?
Do you support laws based upon the last 7 commandments?

What last 7?

There are only 4 commandments:
1) Sabbath
2) Don't murder
3) Don't Lie
4) I'm your only god.

Everything else is a manipulation of the other 4. Very telling that you don't recognize that.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2010
What laws?
Do you support laws based upon the last 7 commandments?

What last 7?

There are only 4 commandments:
1) Sabbath
2) Don't murder
3) Don't Lie
4) I'm your only god.

Everything else is a manipulation of the other 4. Very telling that you don't recognize that.

So you support stealing? That's the one you forgot.

Some are under the kind of stress that provokes them to violence.

Excuses, excuses for slitting the throat of a Jew on TV?
The reason Arabs want their women covered is they, the men, are weak. They, Arab men, don't have much of a tradition of self-discipline and, like modern liberals, blame everyone else for their actions.
(The self control bit was told to me by a Saudi.)
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2010
What laws?
Do you support laws based upon the last 7 commandments?

What last 7?

There are only 4 commandments:
1) Sabbath
2) Don't murder
3) Don't Lie
4) I'm your only god.

Everything else is a manipulation of the other 4. Very telling that you don't recognize that.

I notice you didn't mention anything about adultery or coveting your neighbors wife.
otto1923
5 / 5 (2) Jun 15, 2010
Excuses, excuses for slitting the throat of a Jew on TV?
Whaa? Missed that one. Well, as you would say, extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice. Or as the grand inquisitor said, kill them all, god knows his own.

Moslems in many parts of the world are suffering the results of the 1st mitzvah- be fruitful and fill up the earth. Their religion promises them that god will provide for however many offspring they can produce. As the 3rd Pillar can only support so many indigents, pretty soon they need to have what the infidels got. Sound familiar? all your religions are designed to establish themselves on the graves of the enemy. Yours included. This is just Xian intermission, so to speak.
The reason Arabs want their women covered is they, the men, are weak. They, Arab men, don't have much of a tradition of self-discipline and, like modern liberals, blame everyone else for their actions.
An old excuse. Was the Saudi who told you this by chance another woman?
malapropism
5 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2010
{Prior parts edited out}... Why would the church do the same thing? Well, that's simple. Turn the average savage into a civil adult. I'd say the church was very successful at this back before we had cities, now I think it's time for us to all grow up and lose the lie.

While I tend to agree with you and Otto, it's also interesting to note in this regard the disparity between the parochial attitude fostered by churches of the Abrahamic religions towards "civilising savage peoples" and the documented actuality of those peoples (viz. hunter-gatherer or agrarian tribal societies). In the majority of cases studied by competent observers, there is a distinct separation between their (typically multi-theistic) religion and their moral code; the latter is not informed by the former. There are many good reasons for this but one of the best is that in a small tribal society it's not easy to commit a crime and have nobody know so their religion didn't need to spell out the consequences.
Bob_B
not rated yet Jun 16, 2010
Let the crucifixion end.
Thanks for the insights and replies.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 16, 2010
Auto:
An old excuse

So? That is the Saudi's reason.

in a small tribal society it's not easy to commit a crime and have nobody know


What defines a crime in a tribal society? Who defines 'crime'?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 16, 2010

I notice you didn't mention anything about adultery or coveting your neighbors wife.

Except where I said the rest are a manipulation of the other 4. Both are effectively lying. Like I said, very telling that you don't recognize that.
otto1923
5 / 5 (2) Jun 16, 2010
Auto:
An old excuse

So? That is the Saudi's reason.

in a small tribal society it's not easy to commit a crime and have nobody know


What defines a crime in a tribal society? Who defines 'crime'?
The Chief.
marjon
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2010

I notice you didn't mention anything about adultery or coveting your neighbors wife.

Except where I said the rest are a manipulation of the other 4. Both are effectively lying. Like I said, very telling that you don't recognize that.

When the state takes your property they are lying? They don't usually lie about that. They make a law. The tell you to your face they are stealing your property. Where is the lie?
Where is the lie with adultery if everyone knows you are sleeping with anyone you can?
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2010
People lie to cover bad behaviour. If they or society don't think stealing and adultery are bad behaviour why lie about it?
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 16, 2010
People lie to cover bad behaviour. If they or society don't think stealing and adultery are bad behaviour why lie about it?

To steal something you must lie about its ownership, either to yourself or to another.

To commit adultery is lying to your spouse.

The basic tenets of the ten commandments are not even relevant today. This is what happens when you follow a bronze age superstition without revising it as many other more moderate christians do.

Marjon, if your god has a problem with what I do, let him tell me, not you. Bible even states to do so.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 16, 2010
The basic tenets of the ten commandments are not even relevant today.

Which ones are no longer relevant?
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 16, 2010
The basic tenets of the ten commandments are not even relevant today.

Which ones are no longer relevant?

According to Christians, all of them.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 17, 2010
Jesus condensed the 10 Commandments into two:
""'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.""
otto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2010
Jesus condensed the 10 Commandments into two:
""'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.""
Unfortunately the godman didn't invent these, they've been around since the start of religion itself and are shared by all religions. Your Prince has no monoply on the golden rule.

Notice that acknowledgment of the godhead always comes first, the implication being that cherishing it will only allow for the 2nd to occur. Genuflectors are thus led to believe that only their religion can make people good, and that all who reject it are bad; unneighborly. Worthy of scorn, derision, persecution, etc.
otto1923
5 / 5 (2) Jun 17, 2010
In case you're curious:
http://en.wikiped...den_Rule
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2010
Your Prince has no monoply on the golden rule.

Never claimed He did. Why didn't anyone pay much attention to it before?
There are two parts to an idea, content and selling it. Usually it is the one who sells the idea who tends to get the credit over time.
A good idea should rest on its merits, not its sales staff.
Who is selling the Golden Rule for atheists?
otto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2010
You didn't read the article. Humanists. You sound as if you think xians can take credit because they do the selling. But far more before them and far more since are selling the golden rule. Read the list. Crucifixionaries are a small minority. You only think you own heaven. And god.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2010
You didn't read the article. Humanists. You sound as if you think xians can take credit because they do the selling. But far more before them and far more since are selling the golden rule. Read the list. Crucifixionaries are a small minority. You only think you own heaven. And god.

Who is the great humanist leader everyone knows?
33% Christian is a small minority?
http://www.adhere...nts.html
otto1923
4 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2010
1) Jesus was no humanist.
Humanism- "a secular ideology which espouses reason, ethics, and justice, whilst specifically rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making." -wiki
Xians stole the credo which others had been using for millenia, and tacked it on to the "Our god or none" caveat, as usual.
2) Yes.

Please stop asking thoughtless questions.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2010
1) Jesus was no humanist.
Humanism- "a secular ideology which espouses reason, ethics, and justice, whilst specifically rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making." -wiki
Xians stole the credo which others had been using for millenia, and tacked it on to the "Our god or none" caveat, as usual.
2) Yes.

Please stop asking thoughtless questions.

Who is the great atheist leader promoting the Golden Rule?
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jun 17, 2010
1) Jesus was no humanist.
Humanism- "a secular ideology which espouses reason, ethics, and justice, whilst specifically rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making." -wiki
Xians stole the credo which others had been using for millenia, and tacked it on to the "Our god or none" caveat, as usual.
2) Yes.

Please stop asking thoughtless questions.

Who is the great atheist leader promoting the Golden Rule?
What makes you think there needs to be one? Why is it you crave a great leader? Because your religion tells you one is required?
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2010
Who is the great atheist leader promoting the Golden Rule?

That would be the ancient Egyptian secular laws.
An early example of the Golden Rule that reflects the Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant which is dated to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040 - 1650 BCE): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do." An example from a Late Period (c. 1080 - 332 BCE) papyrus: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another."

From:
5.^ "The Culture of Ancient Egypt", John Albert Wilson, p. 121, University of Chicago Press, 1956, ISBN 0-226-90152-1
6.^ "A Late Period Hieratic Wisdom Text: P. Brooklyn 47.218.135", Richard Jasnow, p. 95, University of Chicago Press, 1992, ISBN 978-0-918986-85-6

Just a tad bit before Jesus, isn't it Marjon? Funny thing is, unlike contemporary writings of Jesus, we have a copy of the Maat. Even more humorous, as the Egyprt civ grew, Maat became a goddess figure. Bringer of Law.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2010
Jesus condensed the 10 Commandments into two:
""'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.""
By the way, wouldn't that be coveting my neighbor's stuff? Bad Jesus, Bad!
otto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2010
I like the theories that say the story about Jesus was really about King Tut:
http://www.domain...hua.html
-The looting of tombs was quite probably done by the priesthood who had records of exactly where they were and what was in them. Some believe these tombs were the source of Solomons gold, but we now know that he didnt exist, except perhaps in tales of another very real egyptian ruler.

The fact that Tut was someone special to them would explain why his was not emptied.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2010

Just a tad bit before Jesus, isn't it Marjon? Funny thing is, unlike contemporary writings of Jesus, we have a copy of the Maat. Even more humorous, as the Egyprt civ grew, Maat became a goddess figure. Bringer of Law.

So, still no great atheist who was/is well known for selling the Golden Rule?
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 17, 2010
Jesus condensed the 10 Commandments into two:
""'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.""
By the way, wouldn't that be coveting my neighbor's stuff? Bad Jesus, Bad!

Do you want your neighbors to covet your stuff?
otto1923
4 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2010

Just a tad bit before Jesus, isn't it Marjon? Funny thing is, unlike contemporary writings of Jesus, we have a copy of the Maat. Even more humorous, as the Egyprt civ grew, Maat became a goddess figure. Bringer of Law.

So, still no great atheist who was/is well known for selling the Golden Rule?
Why ask? Is that the only thing you can think of to say?
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2010
So, still no great atheist who was/is well known for selling the Golden Rule?


How about an Agnostic.

Me. I am a great Agnostic. Treat others as you would have them treat you is a fairly obvious concept. If you had to be told you aren't very moral.

Ethelred
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2010
So, still no great atheist who was/is well known for selling the Golden Rule?


How about an Agnostic.

Me. I am a great Agnostic. Treat others as you would have them treat you is a fairly obvious concept. If you had to be told you aren't very moral.

Ethelred

Who is a the great agnostic who is well known for selling the Golden Rule?
Are you all intentionally ignoring my point or don't you understand?
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2010
What point? That you never acknowledge answers or that you you never answer question?
Who is a the great agnostic who is well known for selling the Golden Rule?
You do know that its hard to sell aphorisms don't you?

Perhaps you mean sell the Golden Mean. The Greeks sold that in temple designs.

You don't have a point on this. You seem to be laboring under the bizarre concept that no one could come up with the Golden Rule independent of the Bible. A book that seems to think its OK to murder innocent villagers and enslave both Jews and Non-Jews is not a book to learn morals from.

I am fully capable of being moral without being told that I am not supposed to keep the children of Jewish slaves as slaves as well. I kinda figured it from it not being the way I would like to be treated.

Life may not be fair but I can be.

Without religion.

For instance I wouldn't send a bear to tear 40 children apart because they teased me or others.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Jun 18, 2010
So, still no great atheist who was/is well known for selling the Golden Rule?

Oh, so not only does it have to come from secular reasoning, but it also has to come from a secular person? Gotta love that moving goalpost.

Marjon, there were very few examples of Atheism that are well known to the western world prior to 500BC but how about we go with Epicurus. He advocated the golden rule several hundred years before christianity was a glimmer in a desert nomad's eye. He was a proclaimed non-theist and well known for his statements to the effect.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2010
You seem to be laboring under the bizarre concept that no one could come up with the Golden Rule independent of the Bible

You obviously don't understand the point.
Atheists can't seem to give any credit to Jesus for the Golden Rule even though He has been the most popular salesman for the concept for nearly 2000 years.
Maybe this is why so many 'intellectual' atheists are so opposed to free markets where individuals can decide for themselves what they want to buy, not some 'intellectual' politburo.
You atheists need to decide what is more important, promoting the Golden Rule or attacking one of the best salesman for the Golden Rule. (It is obvious what is most important. You do not support the Golden Rule.)
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Jun 18, 2010
I am fully capable of being moral

What is 'moral'? What is the basis of your moral standard?
Life may not be fair but I can be.

Without religion.

If your prime motivation is a 'moral' society, why attack those with religious faith who agree?

The motivation of the evangelical atheist is not promoting the Golden Rule.
otto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2010
What is 'moral'? What is the basis of your moral standard?
Please stop asking thoughtless questions.
If your prime motivation is a 'moral' society, why attack those with religious faith who agree?
Because all religions are intrinsically exclusivist, which is immoral. Religions offer guides for 'moral conduct' with the demand that you accept only theirs and the god they purportedly come from. This is immoral.

You ask thoughtless questions as a way of replying without answering. This is lazy and deceptive, both of which are immoral.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jun 18, 2010
You atheists need to decide what is more important, promoting the Golden Rule or attacking one of the best salesman for the Golden Rule. (It is obvious what is most important. You do not support the Golden Rule.)
Which proves my point exactly. Accepting the limited, imperfect Jesus version and the godman who sells it is more important than the golden rule itself. Your god is a jealous, vain, petty coward who sends effeminate gurus to sell his lies for him.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2010
What is 'moral'? What is the basis of your moral standard?
Please stop asking thoughtless questions.
If your prime motivation is a 'moral' society, why attack those with religious faith who agree?
Because all religions are intrinsically exclusivist, which is immoral. Religions offer guides for 'moral conduct' with the demand that you accept only theirs and the god they purportedly come from. This is immoral.

You ask thoughtless questions as a way of replying without answering. This is lazy and deceptive, both of which are immoral.

What is immoral?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2010
You obviously don't understand the point.
Atheists can't seem to give any credit to Jesus for the Golden Rule even though He has been the most popular salesman for the concept for nearly 2000 years.
No he hasn't. He's the most popular one to you because he is well known and you're entirely ignorant of every other culture and group that professed it. Your willful ignorance does not make Jesus a better person, regardless of the fact he never existed.
Maybe this is why so many 'intellectual' atheists are so opposed to free markets
Stop right there. You're not going to start correlating stupid ideas and try to make it a case for your faith. The burden of proof is still on you. We're not going to waste time attempting to prove non-belief.
The motivation of the evangelical atheist is not promoting the Golden Rule.
The motive of the evangelical atheist is total promotion of the golden rule.

Would you prefer we do to you what Christians do to others? Ask Haiti.
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (4) Jun 18, 2010
You obviously don't understand the point
You clearly can't admit it when your demands have been met.
Atheists can't seem to give any credit to Jesus for the Golden Rule
Lie. We (including Agnostics)are making it clear to you that Jesus didn't do it first nor last.
most popular salesman
I think even Jesus would be offended by that remark. Would you buy a used religion from Jesus?
for nearly 2000 years.
He has been dead for most of that time. So 2000 years seems a just a bit hyperbolic.
You atheists
Agnostic.
what is more important, promoting the Golden Rule or attacking one of the best salesman for the Golden Rule
What surprise. A false dichotomy from a fanatic. I prefer the truth. He didn't start it and I don't need a dead Rabbi to tell me what is moral. Especially one that told a follower to steal a mule so he ride it.
You do not support the Golden Rule.
Lie. You seem to prefer the Code of the West. Do unto others before they do unto you.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2010
I think even Jesus would be offended by that remark. Would you buy a used religion from Jesus?
Actually, Marjon, and many others, HAVE bought a used religion from Jesus. One need only know the use of the term "Age" as related to the speech and definitions of the time in which the books of the Gospel were written to understand this. Speaking of which, it's about time for a New New Testament.

OT was the Age of the Ram. NT was the Age of the Fish, I'll have to look up the next one
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 18, 2010
You all continue to make my point. You are more opposed to religion than supportive of the Golden Rule.
A manifestation of which is respect others if you want to be respected.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.5 / 5 (4) Jun 18, 2010
It will soon be the age of the water carrier.
You all continue to make my point. You are more opposed to religion than supportive of the Golden Rule.
A manifestation of which is respect others if you want to be respected.

Then perhaps you should respect the multitude of faiths and civilizations that came before your alleged Christ. As well as respecting the intellect of those who are bringing you demonstrable evidence for their points while you finger plug your ears and shriek uncontrollably.
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Jun 18, 2010
The motive of the evangelical atheist is total promotion of the golden rule.

I have witnessed no examples here. What I have observed is the atheists here want to take my property, insult me and attack my faith.
Is that what atheists want done to them?
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (4) Jun 18, 2010
What is 'moral'? What is the basis of your moral standard?
Do you practice being dense?

Treat others as you would like to treated but take into account the fact that not everyone thinks the same. Its not exactly difficult to come up with.
If your prime motivation is a 'moral' society, why attack those with religious faith who agree?
Why do you keep changing the subject instead of admitting that a person might have had a point?

I didn't attack you. I pointed out that you were wrong and are just being stubborn. Start learning. Stop making things up about the people you discuss things with. Quit changing the subject. Cease the blatant evasions.

Practice the Golden Rule.
The motivation of the evangelical atheist is not promoting the Golden Rule.
How do you know? Where did you find a manual for Evangelical Atheists anyway? Who, besides you, is evangelizing?

Again - I AM AGNOSTIC.

I will promote morals if I feel like it.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
2.7 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2010
I have witnessed no examples here.
Aside from the fact we're trying to educate you by telling you the truth. While you lie and lie and lie to us, then make up silly questions to ignore what we're telling you. We'd prefer that you do unto us (tell the truth) as we're doing unto you( telling the truth)
What I have observed is the atheists here want to take my property, insult me and attack my faith.
Most congressmen are Christian. If you have an issue with government policy take it up with your religion. I'm willing to bet you can't name an atheist congress person or senator.
Is that what atheists want done to them?
Perhaps you should take a look at what your doing to us within this thread. Continue demonizing us, you won't like what happens over time.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Jun 18, 2010


Again - I AM AGNOSTIC.

I will promote morals if I feel like it.

Ethelred

Why bother defending evangelical atheists who do not support the Golden Rule?
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jun 18, 2010
What is 'moral'? What is the basis of your moral standard?
Please stop asking thoughtless questions.
If your prime motivation is a 'moral' society, why attack those with religious faith who agree?
Because all religions are intrinsically exclusivist, which is immoral. Religions offer guides for 'moral conduct' with the demand that you accept only theirs and the god they purportedly come from. This is immoral.

You ask thoughtless questions as a way of replying without answering. This is lazy and deceptive, both of which are immoral.

What is immoral?
What do you mean?
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2010
What is 'moral'? What is the basis of your moral standard?
Please stop asking thoughtless questions.
If your prime motivation is a 'moral' society, why attack those with religious faith who agree?
Because all religions are intrinsically exclusivist, which is immoral. Religions offer guides for 'moral conduct' with the demand that you accept only theirs and the god they purportedly come from. This is immoral.

You ask thoughtless questions as a way of replying without answering. This is lazy and deceptive, both of which are immoral.

What is immoral?
What do you mean?

Define your morality.
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2010
You all continue to make my point. You are more opposed to religion than supportive of the Golden Rule.
So what? Your religion is immoral because it it sets your propietary god above the golden rule. It credits him with something that he didnt invent and doesnt himself practice.

In order to practice the golden rule we HAVE to attack your religion because it rejects unbelievers. Your god says 'treat others as you would yourself- except for heathens, heretics, and atheists.' That is immoral. And you are immoral for trying to sell a god who promotes it.

Admit it- your god and the cult he spawned are EVIL. Your god is satan. 2 sides- 1 coin.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jun 18, 2010
What is 'moral'? What is the basis of your moral standard?
Please stop asking thoughtless questions.
If your prime motivation is a 'moral' society, why attack those with religious faith who agree?
Because all religions are intrinsically exclusivist, which is immoral. Religions offer guides for 'moral conduct' with the demand that you accept only theirs and the god they purportedly come from. This is immoral.

You ask thoughtless questions as a way of replying without answering. This is lazy and deceptive, both of which are immoral.

What is immoral?
What do you mean?

Define your morality.
Why?
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2010
Why do you go around picking fights with the Atheists and Agnostics?

Why don't you answer questions?

Why do you evade them?

Why do you pretend that people have not shown that Jesus wasn't first?

Why do you refuse to accept the obvious? That the Golden Rule is not the exclusive or even the original property of Christians?

Your behavior is why I posted. I pointed out that, as usual, you are evading, dodging, stumbling over your feet and ATTACKING others.

I take it then, that you do practice being dense.

Where does one take lessons?

The Cato Institute of Gold Worship?

Ethelred
CSharpner
2 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2010
Random, but relevant points:

1. BOTH sides in this thread have made factual errors.
2. The Golden rule (by other names, or no name at all) was thought of well before Christianity.
3. In today's western culture, the Golden rule was popularized by Jesus (or, at the very least, the Bible).
4. It's reasonable to assume even without it being popularized by Chrstianity, it would still be known in this culture in some other way by some other name.
5. The Golden rule seems obvious and self discoverable to me.
6. You don't need religion to understand the difference between right and wrong.
7. Most religions promote doing good. That has positive benefits for society.
8. Most religions (or people & societies practicing them) have gone through dark times that have severely hurt societies.
9. Not all religions are "intrinsically exclusivist". Most are.
10. Jesus did exist. What can be debated is whether he was God in human form or just a man.
continued...
CSharpner
2 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2010
11. Rather than arguing "my philosophy or my religion is right and yours is wrong", how about discussing the pillars they rest on. If those are debatable, what are they based on? Are /those/ debatable? Keep working down until you find something that's NOT debatable, then work your way back up, analyzing the first debatable point scientifically. If it can't be proven, then stop there and accept that you're just accepting it on "faith" and then depart on your merry ways.
12. Based on Judeo-Christian beliefs: There's no "thow shalt not lie" commandment. It's "thow shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor". It's a /specific/ kind of lie that's wrong (according to the 10 commandments)... the kind that hurts innocent people. Telling a lie to protect the innocent is OK as one of the stories in the Bible talks about Mary Magdelen telling a lie to the Romans who came knocking on all doors looking for (I forget who) who was hiding on her roof.
continue...
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2010
Define your morality.

LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

That would be the Golden rule in action within the context of this thread and your statements thus far, Marjon.
CSharpner
2 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2010
(...continued part 3 or 3)
13. Adultery is NOT "telling a lie". It's entirely possible to commit adultery without telling a lie. You could do it right in front of your spouse. Telling a lie to cover up another wrong doesn't make the first wrong a lie. It means you've now committed TWO wrongs. The first wrong AND the lie. (assuming, of course, you believe that type of lie is "wrong" ;)
14. Non-religious morality does exist and is based on the what Christians have labeled "The Golden Rule". Simply put, don't hurt innocent people. If you do, by definition, that's "immoral". This is a concept well known long before Christianity. This neither proves or disproves Christianity. It's just a fact.

Last point:
15. Regardless of who's right or wrong, most everyone in this thread claims to believe or practice the golden rule, but few are actually practicing it in THIS thread! HELLO?!?!?!?! To outside observers, this is crystal clear.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2010
3. In today's western culture, the Golden rule was popularized by Jesus (or, at the very least, the Bible).
That is not true. The Golden rule was popularized in Western society before the advent of western society. It is what we would call, a Universal truth. Some people need a framework within which to assimilate that manner of group beneficial activity.
5. The Golden rule seems obvious and self discoverable to me.
Again, a self evident truth.
10. Jesus did exist.
There is absolutely no proof of this outside of a collection of stories recorded well after his death and passed off as period contemporary to the illiterate within the region at that time.
What can be debated is whether he was God in human form or just a man.
No, no it can't be debated. If Jesus did exist, he was certainly not divine. Look at Mohammad, he lived, we know this. He was a well known General in the Medinian army who warred with Mecca. He developed a law disbursed by a religion. TBC
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2010
CONT.

That was enforced through military conquest. The difference between Islam and Christianity is the view of the founder. Christianity holds it's founder to be an altruistic man who spread a message through peaceful rhetoric (for the most part). Islam was born of a man who spread his teachings through war and violent rhetoric.

Neither man was ever divine until after their deaths where the followers, who probably never met them, spoke that their own law was the divine word of god. How was it the divine word of god? Well there were a great many laws against claiming divinity in both cultures, but, if someone who is already dead claimed such divinity how would you punish them?

While one was a brutal warrior general, the other (if he ever lived) was potentially a great philosopher of the human condition.

To grant divinity and claim a work of god is to remove the truth of any statement either man could have made. This is why religion is poison. It is based on a lie, always.
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2010
Marjon, His Loopy Holiness, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, forgives your transgressions. Applying the Golden Rule, you visit a scientific site to stir up trouble, in what?, a vain attempt to have us visit your favorite religious site and stir up trouble? No dice.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.3 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2010
CSharp,
13. Adultery is NOT "telling a lie".
There's a reason why marriage ceremonies start with a "vow". You are violating that oath when you adulter in a marriage within the monogamous Christian religion, as well as within the majority of western society. Breaking that oath is lying ex pos facto.
15. Regardless of who's right or wrong, most everyone in this thread claims to believe or practice the golden rule, but few are actually practicing it in THIS thread! HELLO?!?!?!?! To outside observers, this is crystal clear.
As you may notice we're talking directly to Marjon, and not to Christians on the whole. You and I could debate this rather equitably and perhaps come to some forms of concensus, however, Marjon refuses to listen to anything that doesn't fit his world view, as such we are treating him by the exact tenets of the golden rule. This is why you and I have rather good conversations, while he and I never will.
HaveYouConsidered
3 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2010
The Loose Canon of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster suggests to us that:

12. Thou ought beware those who claim to have achieved Noodly Perfection, for they are False Chefs whose claims of the Perfect Recipe will lead thee astray.

13. Thou shalt be amused rather than angered by the words and deeds of idiots; for I am thy Noodly Lord and I have created idiots solely for entertainment purposes, Mine first and thine likewise.

14. Vengence belongs only to the Holy One. Should you happen upon a restaurant that serves pasta that is not up to the standard of the Holy One, simply deny that restaurant your business in the future. You shall not vandalize, burn, harass, or otherwise disturb the peace.
marjon
1.3 / 5 (4) Jun 18, 2010
You don't need religion to understand the difference between right and wrong.

What social construct would you suggest using to help people mature and understand what is right and wrong?
It does start with the family with grandparents passing on their experiences to the young, who don't listen and repeat the mistakes so they can pass them on to a generation that won't listen because teens and young adults know everything, right?
But how is right and wrong defined? If your family owns slaves and you are raised that it is right and proper to own people, is that right?
Religions have helped define and promulgate standards of right and wrong across generations.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Jun 18, 2010
What social construct would you suggest using to help people mature and understand what is right and wrong?
Oh I don't know, how about parenting? You learn right and wrong from your parents before you ever have a congent memory of a religious organization.
It does start with the family with grandparents passing on their experiences to the young, who don't listen and repeat the mistakes so they can pass them on to a generation that won't listen because teens and young adults know everything, right?
That may be the way it works in your family structure, in mine we learn to respect wisdom and attempt to avoid the mistakes of our forebearers.
But how is right and wrong defined? If your family owns slaves and you are raised that it is right and proper to own people, is that right?
Well according to the scripture of your religion it is quite alright to have slaves. You simply aren't allowed to beat them to death or cause them to go blind. Read your bible.
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2010
Marjon I wouldn't go too far into linking morality lessons about slavery and the bible's text, if I were you.
CSharpner
5 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2010
Marjon I wouldn't go too far into linking morality lessons about slavery and the bible's text, if I were you.

Marjon, HYC is correct. The Bible we grew up with does indeed seem to accept slavery as being OK.
You don't need religion to understand the difference between right and wrong.
What social construct would you suggest using to help people mature and understand what is right and wrong?

Marjon, it's been said MULTIPLE times in this thread: The golden rule. This is self evident and does not require religion to either comprehend nor to self-discover.
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2010
Marjon, Throughout recorded history pious enemies, sure of their righteousness, have spilled each others' blood in the sands. Isn't time we conclude there's a bug in this algorithm and try something new?
CSharpner
5 / 5 (1) Jun 18, 2010
Skeptic,
13. Adultery is NOT "telling a lie".
There's a reason why marriage ceremonies start with a "vow"

Definitely true. That's makes it 2 sins: 1 is breaking the vow, the other is the adultery. If you promise not to murder someone, then you murder them, does that mean that only a lie was committed? Of course not. There are two wrongs there. Breaking the promise, and the act you did to break the promise.

This is just a logical argument. We can agree to disagree. I won't refute your further opinions on this one.
This is why you and I have rather good conversations, while he and I never will.

Yep.
CSharpner
2 / 5 (1) Jun 18, 2010
Skeptic, I want to precede this with:

Your posts are usually the ones I look most forward to because your responses almost perfectly reflect your pseudo-name and usually make the most sense and most of your reasoning in this thread does too...

That is not true. The Golden rule was popularized in Western society before the advent of western society

Huh? That doesn't make any sense at all. In modern, western culture, it derived from Christianity:
http://en.wikiped...den_rule

But seriously, what difference does it really make? I think that's the main point you're trying to make anyway, right? Clearly, the concept existed BEFORE Christianity. But it's use in today's modern western culture is derived mostly from Judeo-Christian culture.

(continued...)
CSharpner
2 / 5 (1) Jun 18, 2010
(...continued)

This is not a fight I have a dog in. I'm just pointing out what appears to be a pretty well accepted idea and even Wikipedia has that as well (and no, I don't consider Wikipedia to be the end-all fact checker):

"but its most common English phrasing is attributed to Jesus of Nazareth in the Biblical book of Matthew".

Anyway, I'm not going to spend any more effort on this point since it's not all that important to me. You can post a response to disagree on where current culture derives the current incarnation of the golden rule and I'm fine with that. My points are:
1. The current western incarnation of it seems to be derived from Christianity.
2. It's not important where it was actually derived. It's a minor and insignificant point.

(continue...)
CSharpner
2 / 5 (1) Jun 18, 2010
(...continued)

10. Jesus did exist.
There is absolutely no proof of this outside of a collection of stories recorded well after his death and passed off as period contemporary to the illiterate within the region at that time.


There's plenty outside of the Bible. You can Google it as well as I can, so I won't post those here. I'll certainly grant you that it IS debatable though as there doesn't seem to be overwhelmingly solid proof and I'll certainly grant you that. But there's enough evidence that that I don't have any good reason to doubt there was a man named "Jesus" 2K years or so ago that walked around making the claim that he was the Messiah. I'm not arguing he WAS or was NOT the Messiah... just that there was someone with the name "Jesus" that made the claim... nothing more than that.

(continue...)
CSharpner
5 / 5 (1) Jun 18, 2010
(...continued)

What can be debated is whether he was God in human form or just a man.
No, no it can't be debated.

LOL! The fact that you and Marj are debating it proves it IS debatable. :) Just because it IS debatable, doesn't mean you're not right (or vice/versa). Neither one of you can prove or disprove the existence of a God, whether Jesus was a real person or just a story (much less, if he was the Messiah). Unless there's solid proof one way or the other AND there are people debating both sides, by definition it IS "debatable". Pure logic dictates that is is debatable based on those simple facts. Most of your posts Skeptic_Heretic are usually based in hard logic and I'm usually right on with you. It appears, in a rare case for you though, that you're letting your frustration get in the way. Consider that a compliment to you because I see that the least in your posts than anyone else that posts frequently on this site.

(continue...)
CSharpner
5 / 5 (1) Jun 18, 2010
(..continued 5/5)

Also, don't assume I'm implying that Marj ISN'T letting her emotions get in the way. :)

I snipped the rest of your post, not because I disagree (I don't really), but because it looks like you're trying to make some other argument against Christianity. I'm not here to defend Christianity (as you've seen from my posts on the "croc" article).

Your posts are almost always very rational, but I think Marj has gotten under your skin (as she does with most of us and we're all guilty of it) and you're letting your frustration of her not ceding to reason get to you a little (which, again, is rare for you.. compliment intended).

Anyway, let me back up to the 10,000 foot view:

Marj, unless you have irrefutable logic and/or facts to support the religion you and I grew up in, you're not serving yourself or the religion you and I grew up in by posting it here. You're just giving ammunition to people that have rightfully developed a distaste for it and the people who believe it.
HaveYouConsidered
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2010
As far as right and wrong go, I can decide that slavery is wrong in the absence of a bible telling me it's okay. My sense of right and wrong is instinctive, and I think most other peoples' is too. What this suggests to me is that one's awareness of right from wrong is a trait that has been subject to evolutionary selection pressure for as long as humans have been a social species. Those who have lacked this awareness have been more likely to be in situations where their success rate in reproduction was lower that those with such an awareness.
CSharpner
not rated yet Jun 18, 2010
Marj, unless you have irrefutable logic and/or facts to support the religion you and I grew up in, you're not serving yourself or the religion you and I grew up in by posting it here. You're just giving ammunition to people that have rightfully developed a distaste for it and the people who believe it.

Clarification:

I'm agnostic: I don't refute any particular religion, especially Christianity, since that's the one I was raised in. BUT.... I can't say for sure which religion is right (if any). My logical side keeps saying, "It doesn't seem likely that any religion is right, though I can't disprove it.", while my hard-wired-from-birth-side says, "Don't you DARE refute this religion or you'll burn in hell for eternity!" Since it's been hard-wired since birth, I don't think I will ever get further than that. So, I'm playing it safe and leaving a door open for the possibility. Hopefully, everyone here can at least understand the psychology of that! :)
CSharpner
5 / 5 (1) Jun 18, 2010
As far as right and wrong go, I can decide that slavery is wrong in the absence of a bible telling me it's okay. My sense of right and wrong is instinctive, and I think most other peoples' is too. What this suggests to me is that one's awareness of right from wrong is a trait that has been subject to evolutionary selection pressure for as long as humans have been a social species. Those who have lacked this awareness have been more likely to be in situations where their success rate in reproduction was lower that those with such an awareness.

Well said! The reverse-religious idea is that if there's not an old book with arbitrary rules in it, then people would have no clue whatsoever what's right and wrong. It think it's abundantly clear that people can determine the difference between basic right and wrong without someone telling them "well, God said so".

(continued...)
CSharpner
not rated yet Jun 18, 2010
(...continued)
Imagine if God told you to rape, torture, mutilate, and murder your mother... Your own sense of right and wrong would tell you to reconsider whether that was actually the voice of God or if it was your own insanity. I could not imagine anyone accepting that as OK even if it seemed like God himself were telling you to do it. Of course, an insane person isn't capable of logic anyway, so they may go ahead and do it. But certainly if you had any sanity, you'd have to question your own sanity if you heard such a command from what you believed to be from God. The point is, anyone would stop and think that it's wrong.

Morality is NOT an arbitrary list of rules. It's real rights and wrongs that are discoverable OUTSIDE of morality... and dare I say it... Some (if not all) of these rights and wrongs ARE absolute and this is from the point of view outside of the need for religion to determine rights and wrongs.
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2010
I'll make the point one more time(this one's for you, Mangy):

The Golden Rule IS.

The golden Rule is PURE; it is FIRST PRINCIPLE; and it is GOLD, BABY!!!

Religion IS DOGMA.

The two are NOT EQUIVALENT.

The Golden Rule IS NOT A DERIVATIVE of religion.

Religion IS NOT NECESSARY to action in accord with the Golden Rule.

From the GOLDEN RULE DERIVES all other moral or ethical principle.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2010
CS:
Huh? That doesn't make any sense at all. In modern, western culture, it derived from Christianity:
http://en.wikiped...den_rule
Actually no, it wasn't. The Golden rule originates with the earliest civilizations. Since our codified knowledge originates with writing one can state that there is a possiblity that a self-evident ideal, that is universally accepted, didn't originate with any particular subset of people, it originated with human thought. Besides, the Greeks are the basis of western Civ and the golden rule was the foundation of their society.

Humans are communal animals, and if you don't think we're animals, well, that's another conversation. In order for communal animals to work together we must be able to group up. To group up automatically causes strife as we all need resources, so "moral" animals, or animals with similar sets of natural rules will survive where animals with disparate rules won't. The reason we have morality is that we ARE morality.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2010
And CS,

Do you really think what Marjon does qualifies as debate? I can randomly ask inane questions and propose strawman arguments but that isn't debate, it's prosetlyzing.

A group of rather sound Christian humanitarians stood on the rubble of a rival church establishment, while there were people in that rubble dead and dying. Their statement was "God spoke here." They didn't move the rubble and save the people, they preached to the living while the dying served as an example.

That is pure evil, and that is the worst of what religion is. Marjon embodies the worst of religious evils and is completely ignorant of why it is evil. That is my contention witgh him/her/it, and that is why my comments tend to have a bit more of an edge in our converse. I don't suffer evil for long, and I don't allow evil teachings, regardless of true intent, to permeate the body of human knowledge.

Also, there isn't one source stating Jesus was a person outside of the Bible. All are forgeries. Pm
indio007
5 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2010
There is not one piece of physical evidence to support crucification event actually took place.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2010
Marjon I wouldn't go too far into linking morality lessons about slavery and the bible's text, if I were you.

The most successful opponents of slavery were Christians. Imagine that.
CSharpner
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2010
I think Marjon is unable to remove the filter of Religion. I think his/her intent is good, if misguided. Marjon's certainly not advocating crushing buildings with people inside in the name of God (unless I missed a post :)

I think Marjon would be served well to step back and ask her/himself, "How do I know MY religion is the right one?" and "How do I know ANY religion is the right one?" and "How do I know there is even a God?"

Those are VERY TOUGH questions to ask when you've been steeped in it from birth, but I think they are absolutely necessary. If *I* were God and someone expected to come into MY paradise and they couldn't give a reason other than "I blindly followed whatever I was raised in", I'd say, "Then how do you know you're right and why should I accept you here?" Just because your parents told you so, is not a good enough reason. While doing this literal soul searching, you might open your eyes to some otherwise unlikely revelations, even if they may be disturbing.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2010
I can decide that slavery is wrong in the absence of a bible telling me it's okay.

Millions before you decided it was right, and still decide it is right. What are you going to do about it?

Marj, unless you have irrefutable logic and/or facts to support the religion you and I grew up in, you're not serving yourself or the religion you and I grew up in by posting it here

I have stated many times Christianity is based upon faith. Faith is belief without proof. I have not attempted any scientific proof of such faith as it is by definition impossible. Conversely, atheists who attempt to attack faith with science is baseless.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2010
I think Marjon would be served well to step back and ask her/himself, "How do I know MY religion is the right one?" and "How do I know ANY religion is the right one?" and "How do I know there is even a God?"

People of faith ask themselves this all the time.

Some (if not all) of these rights and wrongs ARE absolute and this is from the point of view outside of the need for religion to determine rights and wrongs.

What are they? I support a libertarian view of respecting the property rights (including one's life, liberty) of individuals. Many here do not.
in7x
Jun 18, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
CSharpner
5 / 5 (1) Jun 18, 2010
Conversely, atheists who attempt to attack faith with science is baseless.

This is true too, unless they're attacking something that IS provable, like the world isn't the center of the universe, the sun is spherical, the Earth revolves around the sun, etc... all things that religion used to use as central themes that science was able to disprove.

But, you're right to an extent. The existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven with science.

Marjon does deserve credit for making it clear (even if we fail to hear it sometimes) that his/her belief is based without proof.

Maybe you should step back for a moment and clarify what it is you're trying to get at, then explain in further detail. It looks like this conversation is whacking out in many unmanageable directions and assumptions on top of assumptions are making it a useless exercise.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2010
Marjon, Throughout recorded history pious enemies, sure of their righteousness, have spilled each others' blood in the sands. Isn't time we conclude there's a bug in this algorithm and try something new?

We have a political leadership and many voters in the USA that believes the government has all rights to my property.
in7x
4.7 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2010
"People of faith ask themselves this all the time."

"Christianity is based upon faith. Faith is belief without proof."

So why would they constantly ask themselves "where is the proof" when the one and only answer is "there is none and never will be any"?

I suggest that the last thing "people of faith" do is question their belief system.

If that were true, they would have to stand accountable for answers to questions such as:

"do you believe Jesus is really a zombie?"

"do you believe Jesus can really fly (ascend) to Heaven?"

"where is Heaven?"

Questions they either have to sound ridiculous answering affirmative to or simply throw their hands up and cop out with "faith is belief without proof! I just believe for the fun of it."

It is clear that serious thought is something zealots lack - they are content to agree to a paradigm as originally presented to them. And as long as they don't question the belief system of the herd, they will always have the herd to back them up.
Caliban
3 / 5 (4) Jun 18, 2010
I support a libertarian view of respecting the property rights (including one's life, liberty) of individuals. Many here do not.


What I do not support are "people" like "you" hiding behind the notion of a "freemarket"(ie, "property rights") as carte blanche to take what you want, and to hell with everyone else. You turn a blind eye, and willful ignorance to all evidence of the immorality and outright treachery of the freemarket. If the recent collapse of the global economy, and -more recently still- the BP disaster aren't enough to illustrate the inherent immorality in your precious system, then you truly do live in a hole, spewing noise from your datapoint armchair.
You suck. You suck so hard that you blow. That must be how you make all that noise.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2010
Maybe you should step back for a moment and clarify what it is you're trying to get at, then explain in further detail.

I have, many times.
HaveYouConsidered
4.4 / 5 (5) Jun 18, 2010
Marjon, your responses are so off point and selective that I am sincerely wondering if you are actually just a piece of software, and this is some graduate student's Turing test. You seem completely unable to think coherently or rationally, and you pick and choose selective phrases to respond to, hopelessly losing track of the big picture. Is your brain okay?
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Jun 18, 2010
take what you want, and to hell with everyone else

No one takes anything by force in a free market. All trades are voluntary.

I suggest that the last thing "people of faith" do is question their belief system.

Then you don't know many people of faith.
'"They are much more similar than people generally accept," Townes says. "Science has faith. We make postulates. We can't prove those postulates, but we have faith in them.""
http://www.csmoni...ire.html
"Am I free of doubts about God? Hardly." (William Phillips, Nobel Physicist)
www.templeton.org...lips.pdf
marjon
2 / 5 (4) Jun 18, 2010
choose selective phrases

Why waste time on the fluff?

the recent collapse of the global economy,


Has NOTHING to do with a free market and everything to do with government control of the market.

You suck. You suck so hard that you blow. That must be how you make all that noise.

Another data point.
Caliban
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 18, 2010
No one takes anything by force in a free market. All trades are voluntary.


Like, for instance, all the freemarket gold taken from the New World? Like, for instance the diamonds mined and sold by South Africa? Like, for instance the cotton and rice grown in the pre-civil war American South? Or the sugar grown in Haiti?

Your willful ignorance and hypocrisy are boundless.
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2010
Folks, with Marjon we are wasting our time on one of:
1. A piece of AI software running a muck;
2. A psych student researching a term paper about how bloggers to a sci-tech site respond to challenges to rational argumentation;
3. (Sadly) A borderline psychotic.
CSharpner
1 / 5 (1) Jun 18, 2010
Like, for instance, all the freemarket gold taken from the New World? Like, for instance the diamonds mined and sold by South Africa? Like, for instance the cotton and rice grown in the pre-civil war American South? Or the sugar grown in Haiti?

Your willful ignorance and hypocrisy are boundless.


Um, all those examples you gave are NOT "free market capitalism".

The principles of free market trade are simple: You provide something of value (product or service) and people pay you for it. You buy what you want, if you can afford it and it's worth it. If the asking price is too high, you reject it. You sell something at a price you'd like to get for it. The market decides if your price is right or not by buying it or not.

It's pretty simple and it's pretty fair.

Our current economic system is a hodge-podge of free-market and socialism.

(continue...)
CSharpner
1 / 5 (1) Jun 18, 2010
(...continued)

When it comes to acquiring natural resources is not necessarily in the scope of "free market". Free market pertains to goods or services you already own and you have the right to trade them with others who have goods or services (or the universal converter of goods and services known as "currency"). Governments generally decide who gets to take the natural resources (rightly or wrongly), then free market kicks in after that.

Free market is simply the idea that you get to charge what you want for your own goods or services and you have the right to choose to buy or not buy goods or services from others.

Greed and corrupted individuals participate in ALL economic systems. Everybody wants more and many will bend or break the rules to acquire more IN ALL ECONOMIC SYSTEMS!
Caliban
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2010


Um, all those examples you gave are NOT "free market capitalism".


Um, do you mean to say, Csharpener, that those products were not traded in a free market? Do you fail to see the direct connection between the origin and means of production of goods and the free market? Do you wish to say that the free market does not include those origins and means?

Our current economy is most certainly not a hodge podge of free market and socialism. It is a free market system subject to regulation to (supposedly, at least) prevent the worst excesses of the free market model.

You can probably judge for yourself how well that whole deal has worked. Especially if you don't make the intellectual/ideological mistake of trying to divest the free market of the many sins that provide its basis.
Caliban
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2010
choose selective phrases

Why waste time on the fluff?

the recent collapse of the global economy,


Has NOTHING to do with a free market and everything to do with government control of the market.

You suck. You suck so hard that you blow. That must be how you make all that noise.

Another data point.


Yes, and that datapoint armchair just keeps getting bigger, the more noise you make sucking from your hole.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2010
It is a free market system subject to regulation

It is not free if regulated by the state. Since the state controls the money supply, no economy is free. Maybe that is one reason so many want to buy gold. They want to have money free of government regulations.
Free markets are regulated by the traders. Underwriter's laboratory is a fine example of free market regulation as is the IIHS (www.iihs.org).
otto1923
5 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2010
Folks, with Marjon we are wasting our time on one of:
1. A piece of AI software running a muck;
2. A psych student researching a term paper about how bloggers to a sci-tech site respond to challenges to rational argumentation;
3. (Sadly) A borderline psychotic.

Nah, she's just lonely. An attention glutton. But what good are a quiver full of arrows w/o a target?
otto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2010
But, you're right to an extent. The existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven with science.
We can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that religions based on the concept are composed of lies and liars. Like the article above, more evidence.

We can show that 'truths' coveted by xians were actually appropriated from earlier sources. Here's an even earlier source for the golden rule- Gilgamesh: "Such beliefs are embodied in the story in the wrath of the god Enlil and the concept of Namtar (evil fate) and are likely origins/prototypes of later notions such as Babylonian Lex Talionis ("eye for an eye"), the Greek Moira, Hindu/Buddhist Karma, and the Christian Golden Rule. Ancient Sumerian proverb: "you go and take the field of the enemy; the enemy comes and takes your field""
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2010
Conversely, atheists who attempt to attack faith with science is baseless.
How about those who attack faith with logic? I've never used science to try to prove or disprove any being. I've used logic to disprove your stances on multiple occasions. God isn't illogical, neither is belief that there could be a god, as I held for quite a while. It is highly illogical to believe in a personal god that is interested in your daily affairs, especially now that we know the size and scope of the universe. It would also be illogical to state that a creator god would be "perfect" if it required the immense timelines and sheer wastefulness to come up with us.

You will not ever find a scientist talking within the realm of science who will say there is no such thing as A god. You will find the vast majority of them will say there is no particular god, and just about all of them will tell you that organized religion is ridiculous due to the dogma, not the faith.
otto1923
4.7 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2010
CONT
-And we can point out that, despite all claims that their message is peace and love, religions are all capable of eliciting the basest and most deplorable actions from their adherents. No matter what they SAY, this is most obviously what they are best at. And because of this we can surmise that this is what they were CREATED for.

For, as war is inevitable, so is human Planning and Forethought. Religions are the best way of dividing up the people and setting them against one another in the most controlled and predictable fashion. One couldn't imagine a more effective Method of getting people to engage in killing each other so quickly and so enthusiastically.

So- we may not be able to prove that god doesn't exist (yet) but we can indeed prove that religions based on his existance are false, and further are designed to manipulate people against their will. That they claim to own things like morality and salvation makes them reprehensible.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2010
For, as war is inevitable, so is human Planning and Forethought.
From time to time you and I disagree, and when we do it always leads to better understanding on both our parts.

I disagree that war is inevitable in all cases. Today, due to the relative ignorance of the species, I agree that war is inevitable, however, do you envision a time when our war with ourself will cease and we'll begin to wage war against our problems rather than in behest of our patronage?
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2010
I disagree that war is inevitable in all cases.

"We must continue to fight and hopefully prevail through reason and argument against what Adam Smith referred to in 1776 as the "prejudices of the public" (the economic ignorance of our fellow men) and the opposition of the "private interests" (those who wish to use the power of the state to plunder others in society).[14] Until we do, free trade will not replace and then help to prevent future wars. "
http://mises.org/daily/915
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2010
"One interpretation is that agreement with others can be as satisfying as other, more basic, rewards.""
http://www.physor...firstCmt

It should be obvious that I have little need of such rewards.
Many here seem to, however. It is amusing to see arguments about star ratings.
Caliban
3 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2010
I disagree that war is inevitable in all cases.

"We must continue to fight and hopefully prevail through reason and argument against what Adam Smith referred to in 1776 as the "prejudices of the public" (the economic ignorance of our fellow men) and the opposition of the "private interests" (those who wish to use the power of the state to plunder others in society).[14] Until we do, free trade will not replace and then help to prevent future wars. "
http://mises.org/daily/915


Free trade will never replace warfare, moron.
In case mangy hasn't noticed, all warfare is not the result of inequitable resource distribution.

Speaking of the inequitable distribution of resources, God spent an inordinant amount of time beating you with the stupid stick, and thereby made you the envy of everyone here. You should replace Him with your freemarket. Oh, wait- you already did, and His name is MAMMON.

MARJON=MAMMON?
Either way, stinks to High Heaven!
otto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2010
From time to time you and I disagree, and when we do it always leads to better understanding on both our parts.
Ottos mind is relatively intractable.
Today, due to the relative ignorance of the species, I agree that war is inevitable
Why is it that, even as every gen thinks it is reasonable or wise or strong enough to finally be beyond war, along comes an enemy that it ABSOLUTELY has to fight? Gazans have doubled their numbers in 15 yrs. Germans (and Ashkenazim) approached that rate in the early 1900s. Afghans too, before we invaded. All critical, all religiously mandated.

The answers ever since agriculture made them inevitable have been war, famine, and disease. Our Fall from Grace, the Fruit of Knowledge. Solomon said knowledge brings pain. He also said:
'Everything is Beautiful in it's own Time.'
'There is a (Proper) Time for Everything.'
-He was telling us to accept the Inevitable and Plan for it.
Skeptic_Heretic
Jun 18, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
otto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2010
do you envision a time when our war with ourself will cease and we'll begin to wage war against our problems rather than in behest of our patronage?
Maybe in 2014? This age thing you were talking about is interesting. Waterbearer- age of Aquarius? My idea is, that these religions were created as backfires, to outpace the growth of fellow agrarians and slowly create an ever growing island Order in a sea of Chaos. Joshua and Muhammad (and Constantine) showed us exactly how to do this.

Trouble with these religions is they are like doomsday weapons. How to regain Power from the Last One? Islam alone embraces the credo of 'warfare of the cradle'. Western culture has grown strong enough to defeat it... perhaps.

I think those of us who survive the next few years will inherit a peaceful world of unprecedented Prosperity and Beauty. Que the 5th Dimension. Or perhaps Gorgoroth -?
dtxx
5 / 5 (4) Jun 18, 2010
I would say that devout religion and its views in general are at odds with nature. They would have us breed well past the carrying capacity of the earth so there can be more followers. They ignore the fact that nothing in nature can prove any god exists or had to have acted. In fact, god and religion are a whole extra step we just don't need to explain anything. God got cut down by occam's razor long ago.
otto1923
3 / 5 (1) Jun 18, 2010
One must remember, if one buys the Stuff I'm selling, that, above a certain level, there are no Sides. Or rather there are Rulers against the people. Adversaries purpose-built for the battlefield, the boardroom, the bourse. Enemies become friends and back with breathtaking speed and regularity. Like pro wrestlers. Actors can play bad guys, good guys, or presidents.
Prosperity and Beauty:
http://www.youtub...be_gdata
MarvinF77
4 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2010
Wow, I wonder why the freewill article (http://www.physor...15.html) hasn't recieved this much attention.

This article is of particlar interest to me because I've often wondered of what reputable sources recorded what Christians (a.k.a. revisionists) claimed happened to their Jesus, not about if it happened but what supposedly went on.

I've wondered to my self where outside the Bible could I learn about the Jesuses that have been crucified. I've learned that Buddha was Siddhartha Gautama and is very likely to have existed. Jesuses on the other hand do seem to hit a few problems when trying to validate the claims associated as evidence.

I think Bob B may have struck a cord by saying what the article implied, with his own rhetoric about how Jesus and religion being bogus, that crucifixions weren't carried out the way most Christians suggest. Guess the article also means Mel Gibson owes a few refunds.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2010
In fact, god and religion are a whole extra step we just don't need to explain anything.

Not according to some theoretical physicists. According to Scully in is book, The Demon and the Quantum, it is the theoretical physicists who are trying to explain the origin of the universe that don't rule out God. He noted that more biologists rule out God, but not as many physicists.
So far, there are limits to what is known and knowable.
dtxx
5 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2010
Saying that you can't rule something out and therefore that same thing does or must exist is fallacious. I've also never been aware that the point of theoretical physics has anything to do with god. Scientists may be religious sure, and some may try to find evidence of god, but physics is about natual, as opposed to supernatural, phenomena.

There will always be limits to what you or I know. How is that proof of anything other than a finite brain capacity? Unexplained does not mean god did it.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Jun 19, 2010
I read this hoping, not expecting, that this time Marjon would actually engage in a reasoned debate. Without evasions or mendacity. Without putting words in peoples mouths or ignoring the hard questions and honest answers.

Perhaps even admitting to the obvious. That you don't have to be religious to treat others decently.

He won't do that despite the clear and abundant evidence presented here and in other threads.

Any time you want to ACTUALLY engage in rational discourse and honest debate I will happy to try to do such a thing with Marjon. But it is waste of time to try to be fair with someone that refuses to reciprocate.

Which in no way implies that I will not point out Marjon's frequent nonsense and errors and the ever present evasions.

In other words until Marjon engages in actual debate I will take pot shots whenever I feel like it but will not reply to him UNLESS AND UNTIL he actually begins to respond to what people REALLY SAID.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2010
Wow, I wonder why the freewill article (http://www.physor...15.html) hasn't recieved this much attention.

Because freewill is impossible. Christians can't have it because their god has 4 attributes that prevent freewill from being possible: all-knowing, all-seeing, irrespective of time, creator of everything. Simply through foreknolwedge and responsibility for creation, there cannot be freewill. It's a simple logic problem that all of the faithful (with rare exception) fail.
Not according to some theoretical physicists.

If you require a God that has no creator himself, to create the Universe, just say the universe has no creator and you're in the exact same boat, sans god. There's no need for a creator, simply apply the same logic without one. Doesn't mean it's right, but it is probably less wrong.
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2010
engage in a reasoned debate.

What is 'reasoned' debate? I see very little of that.
marjon
1.3 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2010
Unexplained does not mean god did it.

How can you absolutely rule it out?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2010
How can you absolutely rule it out?

By not chaulking it up to god and investigating. That is the difference between you and I. I don't have a limit to where I will apply my reason while you are horribly self limiting in where you allow your curiousity to tread.

Will you at least agree that a simple science experiment can disprove your god?

Here's the experiement. God is all powerful, and states that if two people of faith hold something to be true, and pray for it from god, he shall make it so. Now I know there are many faithful reading this conversation, I encourage you all to participate. I'm going to post a score, if god is real, and you all pray for him to change it, the score must change, as states god's perfect word.

Me:1
God:0

I give myself a point because, he's god, consider it a handicap as I'm not divine. Now if in 4 days, the score remains 1 to 0 in my favor, god cannot exist as stated in the Bible. Ready? Go.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2010
if god is real, and you all pray for him to change it, the score must change, as states god's perfect word.


You said God is all powerful, why must it change? Who are you that God must prove himself to you?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2010
You said God is all powerful, why must it change? Who are you that God must prove himself to you?

Your Bible says so:

Matt 18:19 "Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven."

So it doesn't even require faith. Let's do it marjon. Do you agree that God can, and since we both request it, will prove it by changing the score? If not, then you simply don't have any faith in your God and as such don't even have faith enough to put your statements about god on the line. That's fear. You're merely afraid that I CAN and HAVE proved that your god does not exist by using a framework that is central to your religion and cannot be disputed within your logical framework.

This means I've also proven that you have doubt, and since you have doubt, your Bible states that you ARE NOT a Christian. In the words of The Doctor, "I'm sorry, I'm so sorry."
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2010
"as if merely two Christians agreeing on whatever carnal object or purpose occurs to them obligates God to grant their wish. No, since it is tied in with the next verse it must share, also, the same application: church discipline." http://www.reveli...h-verse/
Read Mathew 18 in context.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2010
What is 'reasoned' debate? I see very little of that.


Of course you don't see that. You don't engage with reality in any way.

I tried. You evaded. You insisted that questions weren't answered by the simple expedient of PRETENDING that they weren't.

YOU don't reason. Of course, that is what faith IS. UNREASON. Belief despite evidence. You are ACTIVELY ignorant. Aggressively so.

So you don't see it. Even when it is pointed out multiple times. You seem to under the delusion that reality will go away if you deny it.

Quit pretending and start dealing with reality or you will never SEE attempts at reasoned debate since you don't want to see them.

Ethelred
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2010
I wonder what the afterlife will be like for those people who've never been in touch with reality in the first place? I guess for them, Hell's filled with rational thinkers. In that case, I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome at least one of them to Hell, this site emulating that situation nicely. Marjon, have you considered that you may already be in Hell?
otto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2010
1John5 "13I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. 14This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15And if we know that he hears us- whatever we ask- we know that we have what we asked of him."
Come on Mojo, give it a try. I dare ya.

" 23Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." matt16
marjon
1 / 5 (4) Jun 19, 2010
What is 'reasoned' debate? I see very little of that.


Of course you don't see that. You don't engage with reality in any way.

I tried. You evaded. You insisted that questions weren't answered by the simple expedient of PRETENDING that they weren't.

YOU don't reason. Of course, that is what faith IS. UNREASON. Belief despite evidence. You are ACTIVELY ignorant. Aggressively so.

So you don't see it. Even when it is pointed out multiple times. You seem to under the delusion that reality will go away if you deny it.

Quit pretending and start dealing with reality or you will never SEE attempts at reasoned debate since you don't want to see them.

Ethelred

Write much, say little.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2010
I wonder what the afterlife will be like for those people who've never been in touch with reality in the first place? I guess for them, Hell's filled with rational thinkers. In that case, I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome at least one of them to Hell, this site emulating that situation nicely. Marjon, have you considered that you may already be in Hell?

To what reality do you refer?
One important point that must be made to have a discussion is an agreement of terms. That is why I ask questions.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2010
1John5 "13I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. 14This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15And if we know that he hears us- whatever we ask- we know that we have what we asked of him."
Come on Mojo, give it a try. I dare ya.

" 23Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." matt16

I am attacked for being a Christian and I am not the one continuously quoting from the Bible. The atheists are doing that. Why?
Bitbull
1 / 5 (1) Jun 19, 2010
Science and religion really have no quarrel. Narrowness of perception cause the conflicts due to unrealistic boundaries being set on want is allowable.
For those with both a scientific interest, and spiritual bent, the Urantia Book will both challenge the deepest intellect, and amaze by its breadth and scope.
otto1923
5 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2010
13 Fear the LORD your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name. 14 Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you; 15 for the LORD your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land.
16 Do not test the LORD..." Deut6

12Jesus answered, "It says: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'" Luke4

-Right mojo? See, if you knew the bible you could use it against heretics
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2010
I wonder what the afterlife will be like for those people who've never been in touch with reality in the first place? I guess for them, Hell's filled with rational thinkers. In that case, I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome at least one of them to Hell, this site emulating that situation nicely. Marjon, have you considered that you may already be in Hell?


Have you ever considered the 'afterlife' to be all around us in a dimension we cannot easily observe? String theory suggests 11 dimensions.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2010
For Ethel:
Me. I am a great Agnostic.

Never heard of you before. The world has heard of Jesus. Who has heard of Ethelred except a few Brits and the Vikings that took much of Britain from him?
Tesla invented radio, but Marconi received the credit.
It is the person who can make the idea stick that will be most remembered and associated with the idea.
otto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2010
1John5 "13I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. 14This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15And if we know that he hears us- whatever we ask- we know that we have what we asked of him."
Come on Mojo, give it a try. I dare ya.

" 23Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." matt16

I am attacked for being a Christian and I am not the one continuously quoting from the Bible. The atheists are doing that. Why?
Like I said, you dont KNOW it.

"29Jesus replied, 'You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.'" matt22
otto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2010
For Ethel:
Me. I am a great Agnostic.

Never heard of you before. The world has heard of Jesus. Who has heard of Ethelred except a few Brits and the Vikings that took much of Britain from him?
Tesla invented radio, but Marconi received the credit.
It is the person who can make the idea stick that will be most remembered and associated with the idea.
So marconi was being dishonest. Are you suggesting that jesus was being willfully dishonest by not acknowledging his sources? I think you are.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2010
Like I said, you dont KNOW it.

As I have said before God is trying to teach his people to have faith.
BTW, the Bible was written primarily in Hebrew and Greek. Do you KNOW those languages and KNOW the Bible from those ancient languages?
That is the critique of the modern Bible from Muslims. It is a translation and therefore no longer God's Word. But the Koran, in its original Arabic is God's Word.
How do you factor translations?
otto1923
5 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2010
" 58 If you do not carefully follow all the words of this law, which are written in this book, and do not revere this glorious and awesome name- the LORD your God- 59 the LORD will send fearful plagues on you and your descendants, harsh and prolonged disasters, and severe and lingering illnesses. 60 He will bring upon you all the diseases of Egypt that you dreaded, and they will cling to you. 61 The LORD will also bring on you every kind of sickness and disaster not recorded in this Book of the Law, until you are destroyed." deut28

-Better get reading. Know any greek, hebrew, or aramaic?
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2010
I already have faith that you are in Hell, marjon, in your meaning of the term.

Now what I want to have more of is lunch.
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (1) Jun 19, 2010
Our Pasta
Our Pasta, who "Arghh" in heaven, Swallowed be thy shame. Thy Midgit come. Thy Sauce be yum, On top some grated Parmesan. Give us this day our garlic bread. And give us our cutlasses, As we swashbuckle, splice the main-brace and cuss. And lead us into temptation, But deliver us some Pizza. For thine are Meatballs, and the beer, and the strippers, for ever and ever. RAmen.
-Kanys
********************
Hail Marinara
Hail Marinara, Full of Spice, The Flying Spaghetti Monster is filled with thee. Tasty art thou amongst sauces, and blessed is the fruit of thy jar, tomatoes (although fools believe they are vegetables). Holy Marinara, Chief Amongst Toppings, Save a plate for us now, and at about 6 o'clock when dinner is served, if you would be so kind. RAmen.
-iamnotanoctopus
********************
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2010
Looking at the responses above, I am criticized for being unreasonable and irrational!?

Ethel: Do you support, defend and agree with auto, have... et al? (Honestly, I don't really care if you do, or do not. But maybe you do?)
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jun 19, 2010
Looking at the responses above, I am criticized for being unreasonable and irrational!?

Ethel: Do you support, defend and agree with auto, have... et al? (Honestly, I don't really care if you do, or do not. But maybe you do?)
Translation: 'I really cant dispute what "auto" says, because he is most obviously right in that I prostrate myself before a false god of weakness and deceit... so maybe I'll try to divert a little attention and put a few posts between me and his damnable argument. Maybe no one will notice.'

-Your god teaches deceit. Its no wonder that you practice it.
Caliban
1 / 5 (1) Jun 19, 2010
And Lo! A cry is heard in the wilderness...no, wait, just the bleating of a deluded knucklehead.

Wherefor doth mangy bleat- doth thy datapoint armchair pain thee?
dtxx
5 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2010
Marjon I think you are mistaking the source of hostility towards christianity. I really don't mind what anyone wants to believe. However, when those beliefs have a major impact on my life I start to care. The majority of our lawmakers at this time believe the christ fairytale, so it begins to carry weight of law. That is wrong. No right to die because god doesn't like it? It feels sickening to say this, but I really wish a long, horrible, wasting terminal illness on those who cannot show compassion because they are afraid of fucking up their bid for an afterlife. How about lack of sex education due to religious values? That is majorly hurting this country. Again, I don't care what you believe, until it is forced on me or impacting me. And that is precisely what is happening. Hence, I will try to tear down and abolish this fairytale any chance I get.
dtxx
5 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2010
Also, I would put forth as examples Japan and Sweden. They are two of the most atheist countries in the world. I know at least in the case of Japan they have one of the lowest crime rates and longest life spans of any nation. How is religion a necessary component of a cohesive and moral society?
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2010
"Shinto and Buddhism are Japan's two major religions. They have been co-existing for several centuries and have even complemented each other to a certain degree. Most Japanese consider themselves Buddhist, Shintoist or both. "
How is religion a necessary component of a cohesive and moral society?

Their religion must have contributed something.
Sweden had a Christian tradition for hundreds of years.
Both countries are small and homogeneous contributing to common standards of behaviour.

The majority of our lawmakers at this time believe the christ fairytale

They also believe in the socialist fairy tale.

Anti-relgionists are so intolerant they cannot acknowledge the positive contribution made by religion.
By their illogic, science should be banned because millions have died from the weapons created by scientist.
I am not mistaking the hostility toward religion.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2010
dtxx: The USA has one of the most religious and has the demonstrated the most charity toward the world than any other nation.
Internally, conservatives give more of themselves and their money to charity than 'liberals'.
Why would you condemn them for that?

"if there’s one question I can ask you to predict your charitable giving, and I can only ask one, it’s going to be about your religious behavior"
"If you compare America and Europe, the big motivating force behind American charity and European un-charity is secularism and religiosity. "
http://www.humane...id=18253
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2010
This summarizes things quite nicely:
"Between these two systems—private property and socialism—there exists fundamental conflict. They are fundamental rival religious systems. Choosing one, you reject the other. Either God commands and judges man, or man commands and judges man.
"
http://www.patrio...sim.aspx
Is it a coincidence those opposed to God here support the state?
johanfprins
4 / 5 (4) Jun 19, 2010
Just a remark after having lived for 68 years: I would have been a much better person with far fewer regrets if my parents did not send me to church for a so-called "Christian upbringing". When I was born I knew instinctively that I should do to other people as I expect them to do unto me (Marjon's "Golden Rule"). The Christian Church destroyed much of this decency in me during my youth.

In either case: Anybody who believes it is his/her duty to protect and defend his/her God against insults and disbelief, does not have any faith worth taking notice of. It is a pathetic God who cannot act in His own interest!
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2010
Anybody who believes it is his/her duty to protect and defend his/her God against insults and disbelief, does not have any faith worth taking notice of. It is a pathetic God who cannot act in His own interest!

I have no need to protect God. God can take care of Himself.
I point out the intolerance, by those who claim they are tolerant, towards those who have faith.
otto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2010
For Ethel:
Me. I am a great Agnostic.

Never heard of you before. The world has heard of Jesus. Who has heard of Ethelred except a few Brits and the Vikings that took much of Britain from him?
Tesla invented radio, but Marconi received the credit.
It is the person who can make the idea stick that will be most remembered and associated with the idea.
So marconi was being dishonest. Are you suggesting that jesus was being willfully dishonest by not acknowledging his sources? I think you are.
Yo! Mojo! Answer the question bitte.
Caliban
3 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2010
Cry us a river, mangy -oops! Careful not to flood the mangy hole! Or maybe you could just blow bubbles. Bubbles have about as much weight as your other contributions.
Robertkc
5 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2010
My parents told me there was a Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, and a god. How many of those were a lie?
Where did Mrs Cain come from?
redyellow
1 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2010
i'm sure someone or the other here has brought this point up--but where is the purpose in debating an issue which is not in any way falsifiable? (existence of god and so forth) and much as i disagree with marjon, i find some of the insults directed towards him/her to be in terrible taste-it weakens the argument being presented and is superlatively immature.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2010
"as if merely two Christians agreeing on whatever carnal object or purpose occurs to them obligates God to grant their wish. No, since it is tied in with the next verse it must share, also, the same application: church discipline." http://www.reveli...h-verse/
Read Mathew 18 in context.

I've read the whole book, while you haven't read a page aside from those we've produced for you.
I am attacked for being a Christian and I am not the one continuously quoting from the Bible. The atheists are doing that. Why?
Well because it's the best ammo against a "Christian".
i'm sure someone or the other here has brought this point up--but where is the purpose in debating an issue which is not in any way falsifiable?
See above, the experiment is currently running. As so far, God is falsified.

And dtxx: high five. Now watch him try to change the subject to another topic he has no idea of. Economics.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2010
Or I should say, as so far, the Christian God is falsified.

A youtube user went ahead and falsified Allah using a similar methodology, which I've changed a little and implemented above. Thunderf00t is his name if you'd like to look up his vids. He's rather eloquent and a bit of a firebrand.
otto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2010
much as i disagree with marjon, i find some of the insults directed towards him/her to be in terrible taste-it weakens the argument being presented and is superlatively immature.
Well, of course you're right, but you should understand the context. Ms 'jon' swenson?- is the only xi- er, 'Christ'-ian who remains in these threads for any length of time. Her habit is usually to repeat the same old questions, countering with more pointless questions and ignoring answers she can't obviously defeat. She thus has built a reputation for herself which elicits increasing levels of ire and frustration from others every time she shows up. She is usually the only target around here however for those of us frustrated with religionism and much to say about it.

I think she represents the typical dogma-tic; selectively blind and addicted to that soporific relief one can get by surrendering ones fears and embracing the epiphany. I do wish some of the others wouldn't turn tail so often.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2010
i'm sure someone or the other here has brought this point up--but where is the purpose in debating an issue which is not in any way falsifiable? (existence of god and so forth) and much as i disagree with marjon, i find some of the insults directed towards him/her to be in terrible taste-it weakens the argument being presented and is superlatively immature.

We agree so far.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2010
Well, of course you're right, but you should understand the context. Ms 'jon' swenson?- is the only xi- er, 'Christ'-ian who remains in these threads for any length of time. Her habit is usually to repeat the same old questions, countering with more pointless questions and ignoring answers she can't obviously defeat. She thus has built a reputation for herself which elicits increasing levels of ire and frustration from others every time she shows up. She is usually the only target around here however for those of us frustrated with religionism and much to say about it.

I think she represents the typical dogma-tic; selectively blind and addicted to that soporific relief one can get by surrendering ones fears and embracing the epiphany. I do wish some of the others wouldn't turn tail so often.

My dogma? It seems the most dogmatic here are those who are evangelical atheists and socialists who must live in a place like Cambridge, MA or Berkley where all agree with them.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2010
"Be civil: Please respond insightfully and respectfully, avoiding personal attacks and name calling. Do not make comments that are threatening, obscene, profane, contain hate speech or degrade others. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. "

Since so many uncivil comments remain, I suspect the editors agree with the uncivil comments, or the editors themselves are making the comments.
We know what passes for editorial standards here.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2010
For Ethel:
Me. I am a great Agnostic.

Never heard of you before. The world has heard of Jesus. Who has heard of Ethelred except a few Brits and the Vikings that took much of Britain from him?
Tesla invented radio, but Marconi received the credit.
It is the person who can make the idea stick that will be most remembered and associated with the idea.
So marconi was being dishonest. Are you suggesting that jesus was being willfully dishonest by not acknowledging his sources? I think you are.
Yo! Mojo! Answer the question bitte.

Nein
otto1923
not rated yet Jun 19, 2010
For Ethel:
Me. I am a great Agnostic.

Never heard of you before. The world has heard of Jesus. Who has heard of Ethelred except a few Brits and the Vikings that took much of Britain from him?
Tesla invented radio, but Marconi received the credit.
It is the person who can make the idea stick that will be most remembered and associated with the idea.
So marconi was being dishonest. Are you suggesting that jesus was being willfully dishonest by not acknowledging his sources? I think you are.
Yo! Mojo! Answer the question bitte.

Nein
Ist mir Scheissegal.
dtxx
not rated yet Jun 19, 2010
Hmm, otto I think I understand some of your unusual capitalization now. Ich spreche kein Deutsch :)
MichaelJM
4 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2010

For me, and Marjon you may have argued this, religion is about values to live by.

For the longest time I tended to be agnostic and science ruled my thought. After going through a difficult time, I realized why many people turn to a greater being for strength: so that they may imitate Him (be better people). "Faith in God" means also belief in God's rules or morals. It is important to learn morals from Him because no man is perfect. This is similar to way that rights of individuals in the US come from God not government; the importance of this lies in the fact that those rights can never be taken away.

I believe religion and science can coexist. Being religious is not about waiting for miracles but rather about taking the mantle and asking the best out of oneself. If I were given examples of how my faith harms others or myself I would gladly give it up for pure scientific thought.

The value of tolerance, and distaste of ignorance, is not always lost on the religious.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
the importance of this lies in the fact that those rights can never be taken away.

Agree 100%.
A consequence of this seemed to disturb the atheist Rand. God is perfect, man is not and cannot be perfect, but should strive to always be better. It is worthwhile for man to stop and celebrate his progress, but he must always be aware of how much farther he must go. Rand complained about Frank Borman reading from the Bible as is Apollo 8 capsule came out from behind the moon. As he was one of the first humans to see an earthrise, and he was a test pilot who witnessed many friends die to get him to the moon, Borman earned the right to be humble and read from the Bible, or whatever he chose.
Rand thought Borman should take pride and boast about such an accomplishment.
Many in the USA now seems to have lost that desire to improve, to advance to get better, to be better.
dtxx
5 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2010
Please don't bring up rights. First of all, rights are purely a construct created by human intellect. Here in the USA we get our rights from the constitution. Go to Somalia and see what rights you have.

Just as an example from christianity, how about the rights of jewish slaves not to be beaten to death or blinded? Where are their inalienable, god endowed rights that we feel we have?

I would argue that you have no rights whatsoever in the face of a deity who will throw you into eternal anguish for not doing precisely, exactly what he tells you. Rights are not conditional, or guess what... they aren't rights.

What am I missing?
johanfprins
4 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2010
I point out the intolerance, by those who claim they are tolerant, towards those who have faith.

Marjon: So why are you crying? Your prophet Jesus told his followers that it is going to be like this. Be happy that you are following the road and stop attacking other people who all have the inalieniable right, granted to them by God no less, to be intolerant of your views. Why are you intolerant of intolerant people when you have been advised "to turn the other cheek"?
croghan27
not rated yet Jun 20, 2010
I suspect the editors of physorg put in articles of this nature because they know that it will generate all sorts of comments and responses on the general tropic of rational vs. faith based belief systems.

That being said I agree with marjon's first posting about the 'right to insult', even if I find it gratuitous and unnecessary. I do not follow her belief system, but so long as it does not interfere with mine, why bother?
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2010
That being said I agree with marjon's first posting about the 'right to insult',

If everyone has freedom of speech, everyone has the privilege of being insulted from time to time. If he didn't want to be insulted, perhaps he should've followed the golden rule.
Glyndwr
1 / 5 (1) Jun 20, 2010
These debates waste time......we would be better just to get on with it and research and create for a better life

We are here now whether god is real or not.....lets make the most of our time....with 500 billion galaxies MINIMUM why the hell do we do this to ourselves
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
We are here now whether god is real or not.....lets make the most of our time....with 500 billion galaxies MINIMUM why the hell do we do this to ourselves
Because the people with the money believe in Christ for the most part, and as such they won't spend it on research that potentially invalidates their creator myth. It's astounding that we've come this far.
Mr_E
3 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2010
Jesus/Crucifixion represents the fixing of the first point -zero degree -of Aries the ram (little sheep) on the cross Pisces the fish which look like the cross symbol(+)
The little sheep-Aries-was crucified on the cross-Pisces. It is the junction point of Aries and Pisces of Sidereal Zodiac. It is a celestial astrological event. The drama of crucifixion was celebrated even before Jesus Christ. I think in the Bible,there are many references to astrology. For example. Virgin Mary represents the Zodiac sign, Virgo. The polar opposite sign is Pisces, which represents compassion and self sacrifice by which Christ is known. Otherwise virgin birth itself is an impossibility. The father, Child and Holy Ghost represent the 1st sign Aries, (The Holy Ghost-the self), the 5th sign, Leo (Child), and 7th sign Sagittarius (Father) This is the trinity.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 20, 2010
This is the trinity.
You should have summed it up with "and this is bullshit".
otto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2010
Because the people with the money believe in Christ for the most part, and as such they won't spend it on research that potentially invalidates their creator myth. It's astounding that we've come this far.
True true, but let's be accurate and suggest that the wealthy seek to support the god myth in general. This would include not only the Arab dynasties but the bloombergs, ellisons, spellmans, lehmans, and zuckerbergs who favor the continued belief in god, to promote conflict and the sociopolitical divisions which thrive on it. Above a certain Level it matters little the specific cult or the form of deity or avatar- only the power of the addiction itself, to herd the masses into the proper warrens.

Belief in fantasy is extremely Useful. If people will fall for concepts like the trinity and the soul, they'll believe anything, if it is delivered with sufficient Authority.
otto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2010
Oh did I forget the rothschilds? Silly me.
http://www.univer...ypotter/
-Best to entrap them as young as possible.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2010
Belief in fantasy is extremely Useful. If people will fall for concepts like the trinity and the soul, they'll believe anything, if it is delivered with sufficient Authority.


This is a GREAT TRUTH. The theoretical physicists do the same: They believe in EVEN more impossible fantasies, like: Wave-particle duality, probability amplitudes, and complementarity: The latter "trinity" is far more BS than the trinity of Christianity. And in fact it can be proved by simple experiment and logic that it is ABSOLUTE nonsense! Even so the theoretical physicists cling to it with far more devotion than I have found religious people clinging to a concept like the Christian Trinity! I will rather believe a fundamentalist Christian than a modern theoretical physicist. At least they are FAR LESS dogmatic in their beliefs.
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2010
“I thought Oz was a great Head,” said Dorothy.

“And I thought Oz was a lovely Lady,” said the Scarecrow.

“And I thought Oz was a terrible Beast,” said the Tin Woodman.

“And I thought Oz was a Ball of Fire,” exclaimed the Lion.

“No, you are all wrong,” said the little man meekly. “I have been making believe.”

“Making believe!” cried Dorothy. “Are you not a Great Wizard?”

“Hush, my dear,” he said. “Don’t speak so loud, or you will be overheard—and I should be ruined. I’m supposed to be a Great Wizard.”

L. Frank Baum, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, 1900
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
Some ideas can be wizardly and wonderful and make us happy and content, and still be a bunch of baloney. That's fine, until we as a society start making public policy out of the baloney, then force everyone on the globe to eat our baloney even if their food is already fine with them.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2010
How about this:

Religion Physics

God Wave
Son Particle
Holy Spirit Probability

Who is correct?. Religion has a better chance because I can prove that physics is wrong!!
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
Oh did I forget the rothschilds? Silly me.
http://www.univer...ypotter/
-Best to entrap them as young as possible.

You also forgot the Blackmoors and the House of Gelph.
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
The key hallmark of scientific thought is that a good theory is one that can be proved wrong (yet, hasn't been so far, against all available physical evidence put to it).

So if you can prove physics wrong--by all means do so! We are all waiting--seriously. You'd win the Nobel Prize for this, and would have our utmost respect.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2010
I point out the intolerance, by those who claim they are tolerant, towards those who have faith.

Marjon: So why are you crying? Your prophet Jesus told his followers that it is going to be like this. Be happy that you are following the road and stop attacking other people who all have the inalieniable right, granted to them by God no less, to be intolerant of your views. Why are you intolerant of intolerant people when you have been advised "to turn the other cheek"?

Don't 'intelligent', 'rational' people advocate 'tolerance'?
Those that are not tolerant are 1)not intelligent, 2) irrational, 3) hypocrites. Or, does being anti-religion give sanction to immoral behaviour?
Mr_E
3 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
skeptic_heretic,

What I am saying is, this is The Trinity Christianity refers to. Or means. I don't know whether they know it or not. If it is BS i will call it so. I will not bother to post it. Unfortunately it is not.
HaveYouConsidered
not rated yet Jun 20, 2010
Marjon, intelligent rational people won't advocate tolerance of ideas that have collectively resulted in death and misery over thousands of years. We advocate noticing that those ideas have value to the future benefit of mankind when each group insists it's religion is the only right one, then fights about it.
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (1) Jun 20, 2010
Marjon, the pious do not hold a monopoly on moral behavior--far from it. Not when they turn to violence and religious fascism to exercise domination over their fellow man. If your worldview depends on this assumption, many false conclusions will be drawn from believing that, and your religion will hurt many more people than it will help. If so, it should be discarded as untenable.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
Don't 'intelligent', 'rational' people advocate 'tolerance'?
Those that are not tolerant are 1)not intelligent, 2) irrational, 3) hypocrites. Or, does being anti-religion give sanction to immoral behaviour?

Actually the term tolerance is born of Christian schools of thought making their way into mainstream politics. The PC movement is YOUR movement. Not mine. I advocate the freedom of speech ideal that rails against anti-blasphemy laws and encourages derision of outdated institutions like yours, and by that I mean creationism and blind faith in lieu of evidence.
What I am saying is, this is The Trinity Christianity refers to. Or means. I don't know whether they know it or not.
No, it's complete crap. The trinity was born of the Council of Nicea trying to determine a way to rectify the discordant teachings of the various sects of Christianity. They took a raised hand vote to state that Jesus was divine in nature and part of god. This is known fact.
johanfprins
4 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2010
Don't 'intelligent', 'rational' people advocate 'tolerance'?

No! Should you be tolerant of a murderer, a rapist etc. There is no reason to be tolerant with wrong beliefs. Be tolerant to allow people to believe wrong ideas, but do not tolerate it when these ideas lead to murder and mayhem; as happenned in ALL religions I have come across in my life (maybe Buddhism is an exception; but I do not have any evidence in this case and would not be surprised if it also happenned in this case). Any organisation always deteriorates into sickness with time. For this resaon alone, all organisations should not be allowed a lifespan of more than 10 years.
Mr_E
5 / 5 (1) Jun 20, 2010
Skeptic,

I don't know the real origin of Christian Trinity. May be you are right. But the crucifixion of the little sheep (or ram) on the cross really coincides with Aries and Pisces conjunction. It is not crap completely. What about Virgin Mary giving birth. It is symbolic of the birth of Jesus. Some connection with the sign Virgo. The character Jesus truly represents Pisces, which is the opposite sign of Virgo. Christ's message is Compassion and self-sacrifice. It is not the physical self. But the ego/mind. Religion makes use of symbology. If we mistake the symbol for the actual. we are in error.
Mr_E
5 / 5 (1) Jun 20, 2010
One more thing. I still think The Concept of Trinity must have originated from Aries-Leo-Sagittarius Trinity. Because, Aries represents in astrology, the first house which denotes the Self. Leo represents 5th house of the Offspring, or child (creativity also) and the 9th house represents the father by the Sagittarius sign. Astrology dates back to time immemorial. And it is a discovery. So many people must have got these ideas from Astrology. Why Christianity prohibits the practice of astrology? What do you think?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2010
@JfP
but do not tolerate it when these ideas lead to murder and mayhem; as happenned in ALL religions I have come across in my life (maybe Buddhism is an exception; but I do not have any evidence in this case and would not be surprised if it also happenned in this case).
The Tamil Buddhists were the first to employ suicide bombing to get their political point across against a counter theocracy.@Mr.E
I don't know the real origin of Christian Trinity...One more thing. I still think The Concept of Trinity must have originated from Aries-Leo-Sagittarius Trinity.
So in light of the evidence you still hold to your personal dogma.
Astrology dates back to time immemorial. And it is a discovery. So many people must have got these ideas from Astrology. Why Christianity prohibits the practice of astrology?
As I said above, the significance is thus. The sun rises in the constellation of the RAM, Moses symbol is...The Ram. Jesus is the fish, guess where the sun rises? Pisces.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
All of these religious stories are filtered down from times, referred to as ages, where the religious iconography follows the positional rising of the sun within a constellation. Christianity prohibits astrology so they will not be completely discarded in a few decades when the sun begins rising in the symbol of Aquarius, the water bringer.

As Jesus himself said, "I will be with you until the end of the age."

All religious dogma is thinly veiled astrology and sun worship turned into stories of morality as told by people who believed the stars guided the fate of mankind.

Science has killed this practice, it's time for its adherants to educate themselves and recognize this. We're out of the Bronze age, time to think and act like it.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
Marjon, intelligent rational people won't advocate tolerance of ideas that have collectively resulted in death and misery over thousands of years. We advocate noticing that those ideas have value to the future benefit of mankind when each group insists it's religion is the only right one, then fights about it.

But 'intelligent', 'rational' people will advocate ideas that result in death and misery for the past century? Ideas like socialism, collectivism, moral relativism?
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
For this resaon alone, all organisations should not be allowed a lifespan of more than 10 years.

How do you plan to enforce such a rule? Who will enforce such a rule?
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
Marjon, intelligent rational people won't advocate tolerance of ideas that have collectively resulted in death and misery over thousands of years. We advocate noticing that those ideas have value to the future benefit of mankind when each group insists it's religion is the only right one, then fights about it.

How about for the future benefit of individual humans? Do you understand the difference between collective 'rights' and individual rights? Individuals get trampled in the rush to 'benefit mankind'.
Mr_E
5 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
J.Krishnamurti has said that All organizations are against the individual. Osho has said that the Freedom of the individual is the death of the organization.
I like the title of the former's book 'Freedom from the known' and 'Education and the significance of life'. Osho's 'One Earth, One humanity' is also my favorite. Ekhart tolle's 'Power of NOW' and 'A new earth' are also provide answers to our problems. They have put human problems to a nicety. Just my style.
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2010
Marjon, while you raise an interesting question about individual rights vs. those of a larger collective, you seem to do so to dodge the wider point I was making, rather than to respond to it directly. I can make it again this way, but in the context of your question about rights: The Holy Roman Catholic Church is at present engaged in protecting its rights as an organization while ignoring the rights of the youth whom many of its clergy have deeply harmed and abused. So my point again is that the pious and their "way" is not without the faults you appear to be ascribing only to secular modes of organization and governance.
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2010
Marjon, Yesterday you also avoided another direct question from me, so I'll pose it again. Within the context of your worldview, how do you know you're not already in Hell?
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2010
Marjon, In 1600, when Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake by the Romain Inquisition (established by the Holy See), for the heretical belief that the sun was just one of many stars, and some of the others might also have planets and life on them, who was being intolerant?
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2010
Marjon, My teenage daughter had for some months a close and good friend on Facebook. After the subject of religion came up, and my daughter wrote that she chooses not to believe in any god, the other girl wrote back to say that her parents informed her that the devil is in my daughter and that my daughter would burn in hell. And, of course, that they were not allowed to chat anymore. Who was being intolerant in that situation?
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2010
Marjon, Can you name a single example of a war in which one or both sides were composed of atheists or agnostics exclusively? Can you cite any historical example of a war in which one or both sides failed to assert that "God is on our side!"?
Caliban
4 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2010
@HaveYou.

All very good, meaningful, legitimate questions. Unfortunately, one thing that you may depend upon is that they will not recieve any thoughtful treatment from the thing I refer to as mangy.

I know that some of you are displeased by my total rejection of mangy's position, and my seemingly unfeeling, unrelenting derision of mangy's every word.

However, it should be clear to everyone that mangy's purpose here is not to seek enlightenment; engage in spirited debate; speculate, nor give rein to the imagination after some new revelation regarding our universe is published here.

No, mangy's purpose is to derail meaningful discourse, to obfuscate, to sow discord -in short: to generate noise to drown any meaning inherent in the debate that should be possible in this forum.

Essentially -just as in the principles(religious, political, economic) mangy espouses- it is mangy's purpose here to stifle discourse, to arrest insight, to PREVENT HUMAN PROGRESS.

otto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2010
I point out the intolerance, by those who claim they are tolerant, towards those who have faith.

Marjon: So why are you crying? Your prophet Jesus told his followers that it is going to be like this. Be happy that you are following the road and stop attacking other people who all have the inalieniable right, granted to them by God no less, to be intolerant of your views. Why are you intolerant of intolerant people when you have been advised "to turn the other cheek"?

Don't 'intelligent', 'rational' people advocate 'tolerance'?
Those that are not tolerant are 1)not intelligent, 2) irrational, 3) hypocrites. Or, does being anti-religion give sanction to immoral behaviour?
Marjon enjoys the thrill of martyrdom. Xians are dupes.

Intelligent rational people have a duty and a right to be intolerant of dangerous hypocrisy. You peddle religionist addiction. Goddam the Pusher man- er, woman. Your lies threaten young minds and clear thinking.
otto1923
5 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
I don't know the real origin of Christian Trinity.
It can possibly be traced back at least as far as Osiris, Horus, and Isis.
http://www.near-d...046.html
-Again, more egyptian precursors.
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
Caliban, right you are. Employing logic and reason with some people is like having an argument with someone blind from birth about whether red or blue is the prettier color.

I think the more interesting question is how primate tribal behavior drives modern institutions of State and Religion, and how the needs of the tribe always overcome the rights of the individual. Classic survival advantage arguments to be made herewith. For example, religion teaches that murder is wrong yet at the level of a "tribe" all bets are off.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
Marjon, while you raise an interesting question about individual rights vs. those of a larger collective, you seem to do so to dodge the wider point I was making, rather than to respond to it directly.

I believe my point is a bit wider than whatever point you are trying to make. It is a fundamental issue of individual human liberty and whether a mob, that calls itself a government or 'mankind' can use force to take that liberty.
Capitalism.org is an objectivist organization and follows in Rand's atheist POV.
it is mangy's purpose here to stifle discourse, to arrest insight, to PREVENT HUMAN PROGRESS.

My purpose here is to challenge the socialists here who want to use force to take an individual human's right to progress as he chooses instead of a collective 'human progress'.
otto1923
5 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
I believe my point is a bit wider than whatever point you are trying to make. It is a fundamental issue of individual human liberty and whether a mob, that calls itself a government or 'mankind' can use force to take that liberty.
Religionism has always threatened liberty and it now threatens to destroy the world. Obviously. We cannot afford to tolerate it any longer.
My purpose here is to challenge the socialists here who want to use force to take an individual human's right to progress as he chooses instead of a collective 'human progress'.
Religionism is stasis at best, regression and destruction at worst. NO MATTER WHAT YOU FEEL, your obsolete cultures based on deception and exploitation will end, just as they all have, and the world will be a better place for it.
Caliban
3 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
@HYC,

Well, the definition of "murder" has been pretty loose, historically, and has always been ignored when it was expedient to do so.

State and Religion are equivalent in all the ways that matter to individuals, and exist for the same purpose, which is actually supra-tribal, and that purpose is CONTROL. Sometimes that control is directed, more or less benevolent, and evolutionarily sound, but almost always it is for the purpose of accumulating wealth, and thereby, power.

In that regard, the group regulates the behavior of the individual, to ensure that the individual produces the wealth that is accumulated by the "Elite".

Religion and the "Free Market" are but two of the structures that are cynically manipulated by the Elite to push this agenda of greed, by any available means, and largely without regard to the consequences, which "we, the people" are a buffer against. And that way lies Death.

Thus, my contempt for a puppet/tool like mangy- a willing servant.

CONT
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
Marjon, I would think you are jumping to the conclusion that this site is a hotbed of socialism. I founded two corporations during my career and have spend many years as a capitalist, but I can see that it falls short of being a total answer in that the maximization of profit tends to come at the expense of other important social needs and goals (but these are met in other ways and means,some of which could be labeled as socialistic, and yet they work just fine). The only force I see being used here is the force of reason and dialogue.
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
Again Caliban, you got that right, but some of your points took me a half-century to see clearly for myself. Have you read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" or "Hoodwinked"? Marjon, the world needs a lot less polarized ideology and more pragmatism.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
agenda of greed,

In a free market, people voluntarily trade with each other without a coercive government. Unless the two traders each obtain something they value more for the trade why should they trade?
If I value that soda more than the $1 in my pocket, and the seller of the soda values the $1 more than his soda, when we trade, be both win.
Manipulation can only occur when the government, who has the monopoly on force, changes the rules and skews values. That is not free trade.
My contempt lies with socialists who support a mob rule to confiscate my wealth that is freely earned. They are even lower than a common thief as they don't have the courage to commit the act themselves.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
I founded two corporations during my career and have spend many years as a capitalist, but I can see that it falls short of being a total answer in that the maximization of profit tends to come at the expense of other important social needs and goals (but these are met in other ways and means,some of which could be labeled as socialistic, and yet they work just fine).

People can run their companies in the manner they see fit. In a free market, it they treat there employees poorly, they will loose profit to their competitors who treat there people well. People can market their community involvement to attract business. BP tried that, but they also played the political game, like Enron and most other companies today because the government has too much power over their fates.
I read private companies are sitting on $1.3 trillion in cash waiting to see what Congress and Obama are going to do to them.
How many principles will you sacrifice for pragmatism?
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
Marjon, 'm happy to sacrifice any and all principles that history teaches lead to human misery. Also, to one of your points, ideally (to me anyway) corporations should run in the manner their shareholders see fit, even though this is usually left to management. But when shareholdership is dominated by an elite few, Caliban's points are well taken.
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
Marjon, lucky you are indeed to have wealth. More than half of the 6+ billion people in the world live on less than a dollar a day, and the resources of their countries is being effectively stolen by the first world, so you can have cheap gas for your SUV, sold to you at well under the true cost of the resource (offset by legalized accounting gimmicks that favor the power elite and keep the military industrial complex satiated by ever more bogeymen they can lay fear into you about).
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
Also Marjon, if you want to talk about the virtues of the free market system (and I agree there are many), don't use Enron as an example. They manipulated the electric power market and were just a bunch of thieves.
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
Marjon, Capitalism fails us when, for example, the shareholders of BP are pensioners in another part of the world who'd rather get their dividend checks than clean up the mess sooner or provide timely assistance to the many families whose lives and livelihoods have been so damaged in the Gulf.

One has to wonder why the oil firms have not seen it as in their interest to create a mutually funded organization to respond to spills and to do R&D around technologies that make this response credible and effective. Profit goals are often much too short-sighted in western firms.

When I traveled on business to Japan, the firm I met had--seriously--a 250 year business plan.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
Capitalism fails us when, for example, the shareholders of BP are pensioners in another part of the world who'd rather get their dividend checks than clean up the mess sooner or provide timely assistance to the many families whose lives and livelihoods have been so damaged in the Gulf.

Capitalism enabled BP to have the monetary resources with which it may be able to compensate those for their losses.
As the ads say, investing in the stock market entails risk.
Profit goals are often much too short-sighted in western firms.
When the government forces quarterly reporting, what do you expect? And when the government can change the rules of the game on a whim, any business would be wise to stay 'short-sighted'.
Another government feature that should be changed is secrecy in out of court settlements. If a civil suit is brought to court, the results should be made public. Firestone and Ford were able to cover up a tire issue that killed people and Toyota, too recently?
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
Marjon, Here's another case where Capitalism fails us. My wife and I pay $7300 per year to maintain private health care insurance in the United States, and each time in the past 5 years we filed a claim they turned us down.

Here in Costa Rica, we pay $43 per month for the universal coverage in that "socialized" system, and they've never turned us down and don't care about pre-existing conditions. The quality of the care is excellent.

My last chest x-ray in the United States set me back over $500. Here, it's $18 if you are NOT under the universal coverage, otherwise it's included.

Let me give you some advice: when a US politician tells you that the US has the best healthcare system in the world, just know they are a big fat liar. Trust me on this.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
Here's another case where Capitalism fails us. My wife and I pay $7300 per year to maintain private health care insurance in the United States, and each time in the past 5 years we filed a claim they turned us down.

"The real players here are those in the private sector. Hospitals, medical equipment suppliers, the lodging and travel industry, universities; all must take an active role to ensure the viability of the cluster for the long-term, particularly amidst the whims and unpredictability of politics"
"some difficulties still remain, chief among these are the ability to maintain a sustainable pool of educated professionals (such as doctors, nurses, and technicians), and finding ways to ensure that the entire healthcare sector is transparent with regards to quality and pricing. "
http://www.medica...;issue=7
The US healthcare system has little basis in a free market.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
"Health care costs have become unaffordable to many Massachusetts families, individuals and small businesses. This is not news to me – I have been talking about this for years.
"I believe that the lack of transparency in health care costs and quality contributes to the high costs of health care.

In 2004, while I was at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, I issued a report titled “The Cost of Not Knowing” which focused on how little information existed in the public domain about the cost and quality of health care services. Since then, I have been pushing providers to publicly disclose detailed information about their medical services.
"Reform Medicaid so that the state lives up to its promise to pay its fair share of expenses"
"Eliminate costly mandated benefits and permit mandate-lite and mandate-free options "
http://www.charli...Care.php
The USA does not have a free market health care system.
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
Marjon, You cite many relevant points and facts, but what do they add up to? That the collection of entities acting in their own self interests do not serve the needs of society in an efficient manner.

Just look at Wellpoint, an insurer that used a computer program to automatically rescind the polices of women recently diagnosed with breast cancer, and a firm earning billions of dollars in profit, whose female CEO just got a $5 million raise (to $13MM) for her excellent stewardship of that firm.

By the time these victims get their day in court, they're dead, Marjon. But the firm and its CEO are doing quite well indeed, thank you. They are under-regulated, not over-regulated.
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
Marjon, the real question you need to consider is why are so many self-proclaimed "god fearing" people so pious on their sabbath yet so devilish the rest of the week?

Why do the employees, management and shareholders of firms like Wellpoint or Enron so willingly trade their morality and ethics for shortsighted profit?

Even though I'm an ex-Chairman and CEO myself, and 99.99% atheist, even I can see how morally corrupt that sort of thing is. Don't blame it on socialism, don't blame it on the government or any political party.

Look in the mirror.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
[qDon't blame it on socialism, don't blame it on the government or any political party.
"countries that have a free market policy are the least corrupt, whereas countries that are dependant on government are the most corrupt. This then is the simple truth about corruption, though my socialist friends will scoff at this idea. "
"The best example of how a market-driven economy weeds out corruption, compared to a government-dominated country, is the 'Enron-UTI' saga. Enron, one of the wealthiest companies in the world, as well as its auditor (accounting giant Arthur Andersen), both went bankrupt as soon as the accounting scandal unfolded. The punishment for fraudulence was swift and lethal. "
"the three pillars of liberty, property rights and free trade will not only help to curb corruption but also foster a sustainable and civil society."
http://www.strike...as2.html
Madoff was enabled by the SEC who failed to investigate tacitly giving investors false confidence.
Caliban
3 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
HYC,

Spot on. You've articulated a number of things I intended to bring up- and probably done so better than I would have, while simultaneously addressing the specific AND the general! I suppose now I can rest my outrage for a while. Excellent work!
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
"Firms are profit seekers, but they will seek it where the institutional incentives signal profit is available. In a free market, firms profit by satisfying their customers, investing wisely, and making prudent loans. Regulations, policies, and political rhetoric can change those incentives."
"When the law either poorly defines the rules of the game or tries to override them through regulation, the invisible hand that makes self-interested behavior mutually beneficial may become more of a fist."
"Did people suddenly get greedy in their pursuit of McMansions, second homes, and flipping homes for easy profit? Yes, but only because abnormally low interest rates made it foolish not to be. This was hardly a failure of free markets or greed. It was the predictable consequence of government distorting the interest rate."
http://www.csmoni...oop.html
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
Another note about Madoff. It was a competitor in Boston who tried to get the SEC to investigate Madoff.
The SEC declined tacitly giving 'investors' (victims) assurance that Madoff was legit.
otto1923
5 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
People can run their companies in the manner they see fit. In a free market, it they treat there employees poorly... How many principles will you sacrifice for pragmatism?
Religions teach people to think in terms of simplistic dogmas which leave them blind to the inevitability of business owners colluding to fix prices and reduce benefits... of elected officials seeking office to deliver for the special interests who put them there... of bureaucrats soliciting kickbacks for fat govt contracts. They are easily persuaded that only those outside their particular religion would do these things. But the system enables these criminals to gain these positions of trust by espousing these very religious virtues, as proof of their honesty. Duped again- but enough victims can blame it on the next religion, and so the system itself endures.

Society would be much better equipped to recognize dishonesty without religion.
otto1923
5 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
So, Marion,
What do we really know about the cruci-fiction of Jesus? Well, due to the thorough lack of descriptions of similar methods of execution as the article states, we may conclude that the myth was another contrivance of sociopolitical Schemers intent on creating Order out of Chaos.

Thus we can toss it on the ever-growing bonepile of biblical lies along with the one about 2M Israelites in goshen, the kingdoms of David and Solomon, the idea that Jesus thought up the golden rule himself, or the one which made the magdalene a whore. If she ever existed anyways, which you can understand is highly doubtful. Maybe she was really cleopatra?

What do you think? Or are you still occupied with getting creamed on unrelated topics?
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
Another note about Madoff. It was a competitor in Boston who tried to get the SEC to investigate Madoff.
The SEC declined tacitly giving 'investors' (victims) assurance that Madoff was legit.
"I have noted that the stock bubble that inflated Enron's Wall Street prices did not originate from corporate America but rather from the Fed."
http://mises.org/daily/2210
I founded two corporations during my career and have spend many years as a capitalist,

What does that mean?
In the 'Myth of the Robber Barons', the author differentiates political entrepreneurs from economic entrepreneurs. Which were your HYC?
Caliban
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2010
Mangy!

What's the matter? Your bleats are weak, and getting weaker- barely possessed of the strength to escape the confines of the mangyhole!
Has the datapoint armchair swollen to such proportions as to stifle the bleat?
Then you'll just have to SUCK HARDER, mangy!
Mangy- SUCK HARDER!
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
I'm happy at this point to let stand in full the body of my comments--and others--and Marjon's. Time to move along to other stories and greener pastures. This particular pasture has a flogged horse in it that's beginning to yield an unpleasant odor. Marjon, a little less Glenn Beck might do you a world of good.
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
Marjon: Oh I now see you left a question for me that I failed to see earlier. What kind of entrepreneur was I? The kind whose technology resulted in the discovery and development of two anti-cancer drugs. And, elucidated the details of the rice genome, a species on which the human race is depending for 50% of its global daily caloric needs, and which is under increasing pressure from climate change, pollution, and pestilence.

But I leave you with this. Governments, regulators, corporations and religions, at the end of the day, are nothing but words on paper and bits on hard drives. What makes these institutions living entities are the people who own, control, and occupy them and, collectively, who act and make the decisions that affect us all. And so it is those people--the choices they make--that give rise to the equities and inequities in this world.

Shoot the messenger all you want. I can take it. But no matter how much you try, you can't kill the message.
johanfprins
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2010
Do you understand the difference between collective 'rights' and individual rights? Individuals get trampled in the rush to 'benefit mankind'.

Yes the Christian Churches have burned them at the stake and are now excommunicating and "shunning" them.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
are nothing but words on paper and bits on hard drives.

These words give sanction for those people to acquire and wield power.
People deferring to words on paper are keeping foreign flagged ships from sopping up more oil from the Gulf.
you can't kill the message.

What is the message?
Free markets acknowledge the flaws you describe. By enabling people to choose freely, instead of being coerced by words on paper or bit on a computer, they have the power and authority to decide for themselves.
The kind whose technology resulted in the discovery and development of two anti-cancer drugs.

You profited from the misery of other humans?
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2010
Marjon, of all people, actually had the gall to put forth this bit of accidental irony:
Write much, say little.
Such hypocrisy.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
Marjon distorted reality with this post:
I am attacked for being a Christian


No. YOU attacked AS a Christian because someone said something, that was NOT directed at YOU, that you found offensive because it smacked of too much reality.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
For those with both a scientific interest, and spiritual bent, the Urantia Book will both challenge the deepest intellect, and amaze by its breadth and scope.
Well it will challenge ones ability to not laugh themselves sick.

http://www.skepdi...tia.html
http://en.wikiped...tia_Book
The Object of Derision itself
http://www.uranti...ook/read

Choice quotes

The preuniverse manipulations of space-force and the primordial energies are the work of the Paradise Master Force Organizers; but in the superuniverse domains, when emergent energy becomes responsive to local or linear gravity, they retire in favor of the power directors of the superuniverse concerned.


Continued
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
Yet more wonderfully silly stuff from The Book of Unrantia.

Satania is not a uniform physical system, a single astronomic unit or organization. Its 619 inhabited worlds are located in over five hundred different physical systems. Only five have more than two inhabited worlds, and of these only one has four peopled planets, while there are forty-six having two inhabited worlds.


My favorite
987,000,000,000 years ago associate force organizer and then acting inspector number 811,307 of the Orvonton series, traveling out from Uversa, reported to the Ancients of Days that space conditions were favorable for the initiation of materialization phenomena in a certain sector of the, then, easterly segment of Orvonton.


Any claim of cherry picking will be laughed at. As will anyone that can consume such rubbish and pronounce it good.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2010
Any claim of cherry picking will be laughed at. As will anyone that can consume such rubbish and pronounce it good.
It's amazing that if this book was published around say, I don't know 150 AD, it might be the very religion we would be discussing on this very page.

There's a reason why there's a Church of Elvis the Divine. Died on the John, buried, seen eating a hotdog in Nevada 3 days later....

Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
Another strange Marjon post
Never heard of you before.


Nonsense. I have replied to your silliness many times. You have ignored my wisdom in all instances. Usually evading all facts.

Tesla invented radio, but Marconi received the credit.


Nonsense. Tesla recieved a PATENT for an idea and thus real credit in the USA via royalties. Marconi made it WORK and deserves credit for that.

It is the person who can make the idea stick that will be most remembered and associated with the idea.


So then, you agree that MARCONI deserves the credit for radio?

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
Ethel: Do you support, defend and agree with auto,


Otto has issues. A subscription in fact. However he does often have a point buried amongst the silliness. Like you he a fondness for invisible sources but at least he doesn't evade questions.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
Internally, conservatives give more of themselves and their money to charity than 'liberals'.


That is counting giving money to religion. Subtract that out and the get the REAL amount given to charity.

No I don't know the answer but clearly the Before is significantly greater than the After.

In other words, as long a you include money given to pay for an invisible product that claim is based on dubious figures.

Ethelred
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
HYC: Just wondering how many lobbyists you had to hire and how many former FDA and Dept. of Ag. employees did you have to hire to bring your products to market?
I am not surprised you don't like a free market. Most corporations don't. It is easier for them to pay off politicians and have laws changed in their favor than to have to satisfy the needs and wants of millions of customers directly.
Big corporations can afford the overhead to deal with govt regs keeping out the smaller, more innovative companies.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2010
Internally, conservatives give more of themselves and their money to charity than 'liberals'.


That is counting giving money to religion. Subtract that out and the get the REAL amount given to charity.

No I don't know the answer but clearly the Before is significantly greater than the After.

In other words, as long a you include money given to pay for an invisible product that claim is based on dubious figures.

Ethelred

Read the book. It was written by a liberal.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2010

Read the book. It was written by a liberal.
And that has no affect on what he is saying. Your rebuttal of "it's in the book" is getting very tired.
Big corporations can afford the overhead to deal with govt regs keeping out the smaller, more innovative companies.
Your free market statements are also getting very tired. Big companies have the ability to copy and reproduce a small companie's technology almost overnight. How would a small computer startup function against HP in a free market, you know, where there's no such thing as patent laws?
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
And that has no affect on what he is saying. Your rebuttal of "it's in the book" is getting very tired.

If he questions the research from the author, take it up with the author.
Big companies have the ability to copy and reproduce a small companies technology almost overnight.

Ever hear of lawsuits?
It is usually cheaper for the big company to buy the technology from the smaller company. Happens all the time.
Big companies don't have the nimbleness to copy the technology overnight. They have huge bureaucracies and processes that limit their innovation.
LM Skunkworks describes what a large company must do to innovate. It must effectively become a small company.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jun 21, 2010
Marjon, of all people, actually had the gall to put forth this bit of accidental irony:
Write much, say little.
Such hypocrisy.

Ethelred
And this:
You profited from the misery of other humans?
Freemarket entrepreneurs taking advantage of workers and consumers? The troll plays with us. 'Whatever' says the troll as she withers under scrutiny.

Where are all your righteous friends? Jesus did not preach to the choir. He sought out sinners and drove out demons. No madam I am not expressing admiration. I'm playing with you.
Like you he a fondness for invisible sources but at least he doesn't evade questions.
So thats a yes then -?

My sources are invisible like the purloined letter. You guys ought to scrutinize me half as much as you do aetherman or the hapless godder.
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2010
Good Morning Marjon. To address your smear tactic, my firm never hired a lobbyist, and never had over 12 people in it over its lifetime, so it was never the big bad company you assume it was. It sold specialized computational equipment to the firms and universities who you are attempting to smear, whose research we greatly sped up. Wow, what a piece of human trash you are to think that an anti-cancer treatment is "profiting from the misery of others." Now you sound like the socialists whom you claim to hate. You and your belief system is truly pathetic. I pity you.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
Ever hear of lawsuits?
It is usually cheaper for the big company to buy the technology from the smaller company. Happens all the time.
Under what law, moron? Free Market, remember?
Mr_E
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2010
Otto,
Thanks for the link. The word Horus points towards Astrology. Horus/hour/horo came from the sanskrit Hora which is from 'Ahorathram' which is actually a 4 lettered word (not obscene)in Sanskrit. A(ho+ra)thram means day+night which is 24 hora(hours) in a day. Definitely The trinity must have come from Aries-Leo-Sag. combination. I am referring here to Sidereal Zodiac not tropical which is fallacious. I hope some one may call all this BS. so that I can stop this. Because I am not only lazy, but hard pressed for time. Thanks for reading.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
It sold specialized computational equipment to the firms and universities who you are attempting to smear,

You said you developed anti-cancer drugs and new rice. That not the same.
I support free market development of products that will benefit health and well being and they need to make a profit to stay in business. However, as you support nationalized health care, where will the funds come for the investments in such products?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
I am referring here to Sidereal Zodiac not tropical which is fallacious. I hope some one may call all this BS. so that I can stop this.
I already have and you've failed to listen. Thank you for proving yourself to be yet another pseudoscience troll. As a Cyril Fagan follower you should be aware that Mr. Fagan often had to consume large amounts of narcotics before he engaged in any of his work, simply because a properly functional mind wouldn't be able to say what he said without shitting its pants in laughter.
You said you developed anti-cancer drugs and new rice. That not the same.
I support free market development of products that will benefit health and well being and they need to make a profit to stay in business.
So you really are retarded.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jun 21, 2010
The preuniverse manipulations of space-force and the primordial energies are the work of the Paradise Master Force Organizers;
Holy Jesus. And I thought Icke had gone over-
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
Ever hear of lawsuits?
It is usually cheaper for the big company to buy the technology from the smaller company. Happens all the time.
Under what law, moron? Free Market, remember?

It is called a contract. We currently have trademark and copyright laws, but it is not required for these laws to be administered by a government.
If people want to claim their products are organic they can obtain independent certification from a private company, NSF.
One important function of a government in a free market is to protect private property rights.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2010
It is called a contract. We currently have trademark and copyright laws, but it is not required for these laws to be administered by a government.
What contract? You put a product out to market, I buy one and copy it. I have a bigger and better factory. You are out of business.

Welcome to the free market. You keep asking for a free market but you don't know what one is or how one works. THERE ARE NO LAWS OR CONTRACTUAL AUTHORITY IN A FREE MARKET. The government not only won't get involved, THEY CAN'T GET INVOLVED in a free market.

You're so stupid it's becomming difficult to continue this constant education for you. Perhaps that's why you're so dumb, your teachers jsut got sick of hearing the same stupid unrelated statements and questions over and over and over.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
What kind of entrepreneur was I? The kind whose technology resulted in the discovery and development of two anti-cancer drugs. And, elucidated the details of the rice genome, a species on which the human race is depending for 50% of its global daily caloric needs, and which is under increasing pressure from climate change, pollution, and pestilence.

That is much different than having to actually go through the process of having such drugs and food products approved by some government agency.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
It is called a contract. We currently have trademark and copyright laws, but it is not required for these laws to be administered by a government.
What contract? You put a product out to market, I buy one and copy it. I have a bigger and better factory. You are out of business.

Welcome to the free market.

Try it.
People have been copying Coke for quite some time and they are still in business.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
Welcome to the free market. You keep asking for a free market but you don't know what one is or how one works. THERE ARE NO LAWS OR CONTRACTUAL AUTHORITY IN A FREE MARKET. The government not only won't get involved, THEY CAN'T GET INVOLVED in a free market.

Why do continue to make false assertions?
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
Here is the Marjon Algorithm, in a nutshell:

1. Attack every post to try to raise the ire of the other person, even if what Marjon writes is completely contradictory to Marjon's past posts.

2. Repeat step 1.

Pathetic. Deeply troubled. You try to hurt others as entertainment. Sadistic. It's like Marjon never left middle school. Please Marjon, get some psych counseling. You claim the moral high ground but spill vile, hate, envy and prejudice in every post, yet claim to be pious.

Perhaps the community of readers and writers would be better served to simply ignore you as random noise, since there is no consistency to your message other than these attributes.

And you never answer my question: How do you know you're not already in Hell?
otto1923
5 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
Welcome to the free market. You keep asking for a free market but you don't know what one is or how one works. THERE ARE NO LAWS OR CONTRACTUAL AUTHORITY IN A FREE MARKET. The government not only won't get involved, THEY CAN'T GET INVOLVED in a free market.

Why do continue to make false assertions?
Why do you continue to expose yourself as the imbecile attention-glutton that you are? Arent you embarrassed?
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
How do you know you're not already in Hell?

Do you believe Hell exits? Atheists keep asking questions about Jesus and God, but to them, they are fictional characters. Engaging in such a discussion is pointless.
In order to have a reasoned debate definitions must be agreed to.
SH can't agree to the definition of a free market for example. No one here, except for me, will agree to Mises's definition of socialism, state control of property.
Since atheists don't believe Jesus ever existed, why do they bother to post and why does physorg bother to publish articles about a historical figure they believe did not exist?
The folks who should be embarrassed are those who can't control their emotions and must resort to insults while lecturing me.
Accepting new heuristics are difficult for so many.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
Try it.
People have been copying Coke for quite some time and they are still in business.
Because there are IP laws preventing it.
Why do continue to make false assertions?
Who is the protector of IP and manufacturing methods in a free market Marjon? If you say government, it's not a free market. Go ahead, tell me who is responsible.
Do you believe Hell exits?
If hell exists I'll be tortured by being forced to engage in conversations with you for all of eternity.
SH can't agree to the definition of a free market for example.
Uh no. You jsut don't know what a free market is. I've stated the definition multiple times now.
No one here, except for me, will agree to Mises's definition of socialism, state control of property.
Because von Mises and his opinion are neither an authority, nor relevant to the concept of socialism in a definitive mechanical view.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
Unlike you, Marjon, I've actually read von Mises, and Marx, and Paine, and Young, and Forsythe, and Carnegie, and jsut about every other famous or infamous book on economic principle.

You want an example of government that is in line with the common and accepted definition of socialism? Technocracy. Do you know what that is? That is when the ruling class doesn't rule, they simply apply the scientific method to all forms of problem both social and economic in order to provide net benefit for all people and all classes. Beyond that everything is a flavor of capitalism, oligarcy, or theocracy.

You want to call me a socialist? Go ahead. I'd far prefer a government that can methodically reason within fields of expertise utilizing the expert mental resources of society regardless of what morons like yourself think they prefer after watching a few episodes of Beck.

But don't you worry, it'll never happen. Because as long as the church exists, the only authority you'll pay is church
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
Try it.
People have been copying Coke for quite some time and they are still in business.
Because there are IP laws preventing it.
Why do continue to make false assertions?
Who is the protector of IP and manufacturing methods in a free market Marjon? If you say government, it's not a free market. Go ahead, tell me who is responsible.
Do you believe Hell exits?
If hell exists I'll be tortured by being forced to engage in conversations with you for all of eternity.

The 'free' in free market means the buyer and seller are free from coercion in the market. In order to have a free market, buy and seller must have private property to trade. That property can be protected by government laws, it can be protected the individuals themselves or a third, private party.
Your definition of a 'free market' where you sell stolen IP, won't last long. Nothing new will be created. SW won't be supported. HW won't be supported. Customers will return to the originals.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
The 'free' in free market means the buyer and seller are free from coercion in the market.
WRONG! The Free in free market means free from regulatory authority.
Your definition of a 'free market' where you sell stolen IP, won't last long.
No kidding, because there is no such thing as a free market, just like there is no such thing as anarchy.
Nothing new will be created. SW won't be supported. HW won't be supported.
Taadaa! He finally gets something correct. This is why the free market cannot succeed. Without rules there is no progress.

FYI: Von Mises definition of the free market: A free-market economy is an economy where all markets within it are unregulated by any parties other than those players in the market. This requires no coercive regulation, no coercive subsidization, no coercive government-imposed monopolistic monetary system, and no coercive governmental monopolies.
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
Marjon, again you failed to answer: In the context of your worldview (not mine), how do you know you're not already in Hell? Don't try to weasel out this time.
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
Marjon, it's a simple ontological question in only a few words yet so far you've been stumped by it for 48 hours. It should have taken you but a moment to answer.

(I have discovered a truly marvelous answer but, Hanc marginis exiguitas non caperet.)
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
@HYC: Ah the beauty of having a simple statement that yields thousands upon thousands of incorrect results in proof. Very well placed obscure reference.
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
Hmmm, either I've rendered Marjon's brain into a steaming pile of fused connections, or Glenn Beck is on in Marjon's timezone. Oh, wait a minute: I'm being redundant.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
Marjon, again you failed to answer: In the context of your worldview (not mine), how do you know you're not already in Hell? Don't try to weasel out this time.

It matters not as you do not believe.
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
Still not an answer Marjon, even if you spent six hours per word on it. (You keep referencing my worldview when the question excludes this.) I caution you that not answering the question is a very telling answer in itself.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
SH: Definition of Free Market:
a genuine free-market economy:
1. All means of production are privately owned.
2. The use of these means of production is under the control of private owners who may be individuals or corporate entities.
3. Consumer demand determines how the means of production will be used.
4. Competitive forces of supply and demand determine the prices for consumer goods and the various factors of production, including labor.
5. The success or failure of individual and corporate enterprises is determined by the profits or losses these enterprises earn, based on their greater or lesser ability to satisfy consumer demand in competition with their rivals in the marketplace.
6. The market is not confined to domestic transactions and includes freedom of trade and the free movement of people internationally.
(cont)
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
(cont)
7. The monetary system is based on a market-determined commodity (for example, gold or silver), and the banking system is private and competitive, neither controlled nor regulated by government.
8. Government is limited in its activities to the protection of life, liberty, and property.

By this definition neither the United States nor any other country in the world is currently a free-market society. "
http://www.thefre...t-state/
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
Oh my, the Marjon process appears to have crashed and is doing a core dump. Good Marjon, that's good. Keep it coming. We're still tracing your IP address. Oops, forget I wrote that last little bit.
otto1923
5 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
How do you know you're not already in Hell?

Do you believe Hell exits? Atheists keep asking questions about Jesus and God, but to them, they are fictional characters. Engaging in such a discussion is pointless.
In order to have a reasoned debate definitions must be agreed to.
SH can't agree to the definition of a free market for example. No one here, except for me, will agree to Mises's definition of socialism, state control of property.
Since atheists don't believe Jesus ever existed, why do they bother to post and why does physorg bother to publish articles about a historical figure they believe did not exist?
The folks who should be embarrassed are those who can't control their emotions and must resort to insults while lecturing me.
Accepting new heuristics are difficult for so many.
Hehe. Marions favorite word again.
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
C'mon Marjon. Before we can tackle other topics all the rest of us are waiting for you to really answer the question this time.

Or is your non-answer going to be your answer? I caution that this will give you a very low score for this round, and you may lose the game altogether.
Caliban
3 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
Hey, everyone-
I just came across this: a publicity photo for Mangy's "New Free Market Prosperity" tour.

http://www.joebag...-on.html

Very kind of Joe Bageant to make it available.
HaveYouConsidered
Jun 21, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
The come-down after watching one of the bad reruns of Two-and-a-Half Men always leaves me feeling the same way.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
C'mon Marjon. Before we can tackle other topics all the rest of us are waiting for you to really answer the question this time.

Or is your non-answer going to be your answer? I caution that this will give you a very low score for this round, and you may lose the game altogether.

It is amusing how those here are worried about their 'star' rating. It is even more amusing when only one or two people are submitting a rating.
The answer: I am not dead.
Caliban
3 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
mangy is the only one here voicing any concern over the "star" ratings. Probably because mangy knows that if it were possible to award a "ZERO stars" rating, that would be the consensus rating of mangy.

Don't despair, mangy- no doubt higher ratings await at the Cato Institute- or even the Discovery Institute. !JOY!
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
Marjon, you awaken!

You claim, "I am not dead."

Prove it, again, within the context of your worldview.

HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
Marjon, did you ever see that episode of The Twilight Zone where the Hell's Angel motorcyclist dies in a wreck and finds himself in Hell? And, it's just the living room of a nice family watching their mind numbingly boring home movies--for all eternity. When he asks what it's like in Heaven, they explain that it's just exactly the same, except that in Heaven everybody likes the home movies. So, how do you know you're not dead?
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
Being 99.99% atheist, the .01% in me was just assuming that God was ticking off the star ratings.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
Marjon, did you ever see that episode of The Twilight Zone where the Hell's Angel motorcyclist dies in a wreck and finds himself in Hell? And, it's just the living room of a nice family watching their mind numbingly boring home movies--for all eternity. When he asks what it's like in Heaven, they explain that it's just exactly the same, except that in Heaven everybody likes the home movies. So, how do you know you're not dead?

I keep being told this is a site about science yet you keep talking about fiction.
I am sure there is a site where you can talk about the Twilight Zone.
HaveYouConsidered
5 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
I see you are back to running the Marjon Algorithm again.

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as judge in the field of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods.
—Albert Einstein
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
It is amusing how those here are worried about their 'star' rating. It is even more amusing when only one or two people are submitting a rating.
The answer: I am not dead.

Correction, you are not dead, from the neck down. The rest of you is showing no sign of life.
epicureous
2 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2010
Hahahahaha!!!! People are so funny! Science is my god, some guy sitting on a throne in heaven is my god. I think if one could understand how completly intertwined both of those belief systems really are you'd be laughing just like me. It's nice to know both sides are both wrong, yet are both completly correct. You're not ignorant for believing one or the other, but you are blind if you can only recognize one as being the whole truth. It's alright , you're not alone; most fail to recognize the ambiguity of symbols.
otto1923
5 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2010
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as judge in the field of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods. -Albert Einstein
See? There's proof that Einstein was a POLYtheist-
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2010
Marjon YEAs:

Read the book. It was written by a liberal


If he questions the research from the author, take it up with the author.


Notice the lack of NAMING the book or even bothering with a link. Nor even mentioning how much was given to religion.

Just an irrelevant claim that the unknown author of an unknown book was a liberal.

Yet Another Evasion

Ethelred

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.