All y'all are going to hell

[Subjugation]

it's a decoy.

ip chex?

[Rhino_haha]

It's time for a decently long post, by me.

I'll begin with this statement, I don't believe in God, I don't believe in religion, albeit I don't think it's a bad thing. I was a christian for 16 years, and I've looked at my life from then, and I've looked at my life now, and guess what, it's basically the same. I truly don't belive God exsists, because of well, my common sense has pointed me to not believe in him. What I believe? I believe God, and religion, is just the ignorance of man, whatever we or science cannot prove, we turn to religion. Just look at some religions, how they had gods for EVERYTHING, why?, because they could'nt explain it. Christianity has just bundled up everything we dont understand, to 1 God. I once had a conversation with a Christian about this, and at one point in the conversation he said "evolution isn't real", and then later in the conversation said "God created evolution.", that does 2 things, one, it helps prove my point, evolution is just a theory, we can't prove it yet, so therefore religion takes over. Two, it shows the guy really doesn't know what he's talking about, and just makes me think, why do some people follow this?, because that's what they were told to do. Again I don't think church is a bad thing, becuase it does many good things, ie. brings people together, helps out the community, etc. I just don't want to spend the rest of my life worshiping and praying to something that I just plain don't believe exists. You can throw anything on top of reality, and say "God did this". It's all a state of mind.

So until somebody can convince me otherwise, I'm sticking with my theory.

[Decoy]

spe-cious
adjective
superficially plausible, but actually wrong : a specious argument.
• misleading in appearance, esp. misleadingly attractive : the music trade gives Golden Oldies a specious appearance of novelty.

Me saying that your argument takes the cake on stupidity isn't specious. It's insulting and brief. Insulting because it earns it, and brief because it sparks an entire debate on the existence of free will and choice, which is off topic.
You should also re-read the Oxford dictionary definition for punishment that I posted. It's not just used for reform or prevention. It's the penalty you get for retribution of an offense made. That's it. You're confusing what something IS, with what it's used for most often, and then deeming to look down and label other things as shitfests, and people as stupid. I will up the ante as this is already in useless crap, however.

1: Getting "annoyed" by another person's personal belief system that does you no harm, is beyond retarded. It's genuinely a really stupid way to go through life, one that will probably be burned from your personality as you grow older and realize that nobody wants to hear your shitty poetry.

2: Make sure you're absolutely certain of your position and what you're typing, before you begin insulting people on the Internets, because if you don't, it's recorded there to be used against you.

3: You're not quite as enlightened as you seem to think yourself to be. When you tell other people that their myths make them seem as if the world were flat, your behavior makes YOU seem like a Neanderthal with a club, unreasonably angry at anything you don't want to see.

4: I'm a Kentuckian, while that opens me up for lots of jokes, I've heard them all already, so I'll just say that Kentuckians love to argue. I can keep this shit up for days or weeks if necessary. You should also take note that I'm not a Christian, which is a unique thing in a small town in the bible belt.

Your shot.

God, you're so wrong. Yes, it's the retribution for an action. That couldn't be more obvious. You know WHY, though? To prevent them from doing it again, and to keep everyone else for doing it. That's why punishments exist. Also, I don't think there's anything neanderthalic about being angry at ignorance.

Now stop arguing with me you piece of shit

Oh, and I think it's necessary to point out that in a more natural setting, people don't realize that why they get angry or punish other people for things. But that's why. Ask a lawyer or a moral philosopher (I'm the latter)

[geekbot]

Honest questions:

1) Can you be an atheist and believe that there is right/wrong? If so, what is the source of right and wrong? Does there need to be ultimate truth?

2) If you believe that truths or beliefs are relative, what if somehow I develop a belief that killing people is ok? Am I only limited by society (meaning if I develop that belief in the middle of the jungle and I'm not bound by societal contract, then if that's my belief, it's ok to kill people?).

Question 2 asked a bit differently- if you believe it's ok for anyone to believe what they personally want to believe, when does it become not ok? Obviously when it oversteps societal bounds but is it ok if I practice my people-killing religion in the jungle?


PS- I don't live my life out of fear of punishment.

[Sarien]

God, you're so wrong. Yes, it's the retribution for an action. That couldn't be more obvious. You know WHY, though? To prevent them from doing it again, and to keep everyone else for doing it. That's why punishments exist. Also, I don't think there's anything neanderthalic about being angry at ignorance.

Now stop arguing with me you piece of shit

Oh, and I think it's necessary to point out that in a more natural setting, people don't realize that why they get angry or punish other people for things. But that's why. Ask a lawyer or a moral philosopher (I'm the latter)

You're saying that punishment exists only to prevent someone from doing an action again. You are wrong. Revenge is a perfect example. Some guy fucks your wife, so you kill him. He got his punishment for sleeping with your wife, that is to say, he's dead now, that's the penalty he incurred. He won't be doing it again, but that isn't why he got shot, is it? He got shot because of revenge punishment. You can say that you're a moral philosopher all you want, but you're either lying or you're not a very good one yet. That is to say, most "moral philosophers" I have known in my life tend to not refer to people as "pieces of shit".

You can believe that it doesn't make you like a Neanderthal to get angry at "ignorance", but that don't make it so. If you were half the enlightened moral philosopher you make yourself out to be, rather than getting angry and insulting, you'd be illuminating with your wisdom.

Not being a moral philosopher, I don't mind being crude and insulting to people on occasion. You're a fake and not nearly as clever as you think you are.

[Riesen]

Honest questions:

1) Can you be an atheist and believe that there is right/wrong? If so, what is the source of right and wrong? Does there need to be ultimate truth?

2) If you believe that truths or beliefs are relative, what if somehow I develop a belief that killing people is ok? Am I only limited by society (meaning if I develop that belief in the middle of the jungle and I'm not bound by societal contract, then if that's my belief, it's ok to kill people?).

1) I'm somewhat of an atheist, and I believe in right and wrong. But, I don't believe that we have right and wrong, up and down, because a big old man with a long white beard made it so. The source of right and wrong is nature. We learn by touching a stove that it's a bad idea to ... touch a stove. Anyone can say, "if you touch that, it will hurt", but we all know that when you're on a ladder and scared you're going to fall, someone says, "don't look down." What do you do? Look down. You're going to touch that stove, and regret it. The ultimate truth for many atheist is this: We learn by experience. There is no one watching over us, waiting to judge us. The utimate truth is that we are worm food.

2) I think a good example of this would be the Cannibalistic tribes. They eat human beings, now must of us civilized people see that has grossly barbaric and moraly wrong. But no one has ever gone up to them and told them to stop doing it. So no, in this society it's not okay, but in the Cannibalistic society, it's fine. I'd say that you're only limited by the society you're in at that moment. The societal contract in the middle of the jungle is very different than that of New York City.

[Saturn V]

1) I'm somewhat of an atheist, and I believe in right and wrong. But, I don't believe that we have right and wrong, up and down, because a big old man with a long white beard made it so. The source of right and wrong is nature. We learn by touching a stove that it's a bad idea to ... touch a stove. Anyone can say, "if you touch that, it will hurt", but we all know that when you're on a ladder and scared you're going to fall, someone says, "don't look down." What do you do? Look down. You're going to touch that stove, and regret it. The ultimate truth for many atheist is this: We learn by experience. There is no one watching over us, waiting to judge us. The utimate truth is that we are worm food.

I was going to say the same thing. Right and wrong come from us learning as a species. If we went around killing each other all the time, we wouldn't have made it very far. Basically, what we consider to be "right" is what helps and advances us as a whole.

[Theif of Time]

1) Can you be an atheist and believe that there is right/wrong? If so, what is the source of right and wrong? Does there need to be ultimate truth?

Right and wrong are predominantly what your parents teach you. For church goers, its predominantly what your parents and the church teaches you.
Its allright if you have good parents (My parents come from a christian family, but aren't really very religious themselves. We say grace and stuff when visiting grandparents/relatives who are religious, out of deference)
But only goes to shit when you have bad parents, and aren't taught right or wrong. Or a bad church, for that matter, but there are far more good churches than bad ones. And more bad parents than good parents.
You also develop your sense of what is good, what is bad as you grow older. For example, sleeping with your best friends boyfriend is a bad thing (This happened to a friend of mine: her best friend slept with her boyfriend. While only slightly tipsy, so drunkenness isn't a good excuse. Needless to say they don't get along)
Its hard to explain, but generally you need to have hope that people can determine what is good and what is bad by themselves.
I don't think there is an absolute truth. Everything is relative, and even if you don't approve of someones actions, if you could get into your head you'd at least understand.

2) If you believe that truths or beliefs are relative, what if somehow I develop a belief that killing people is ok? Am I only limited by society (meaning if I develop that belief in the middle of the jungle and I'm not bound by societal contract, then if that's my belief, it's ok to kill people?).

It depends on the context of the killing, I think. Then there is "What goes around, comes around." "Live by the sword, die by the sword." People wil not tolerate you killing them, and will kill you. Or lynch mob you.
Its your belief, so if its ok by you, its still just ok by you. That doesn't make it ok by anyone else.
So basically, yes. You are limited by society. You may also find that if you have this belief in a small group, depending on each other for survival, you will commit suicide by killing them, as its unlikely you could fend off large predators or find enough food, or whatever, by killing them. So its a rather irrational belief in that societal context. In a war, however, the belief that killing people is ok may become neccesary for keeping your sanity. As long as you can tell which people to kill.
Beliefs are definatly relative, in my opinion. Truths are less so.

[Decoy]

You're saying that punishment exists only to prevent someone from doing an action again. You are wrong. Revenge is a perfect example. Some guy fucks your wife, so you kill him. He got his punishment for sleeping with your wife, that is to say, he's dead now, that's the penalty he incurred. He won't be doing it again, but that isn't why he got shot, is it? He got shot because of revenge punishment. You can say that you're a moral philosopher all you want, but you're either lying or you're not a very good one yet. That is to say, most "moral philosophers" I have known in my life tend to not refer to people as "pieces of shit".

You can believe that it doesn't make you like a Neanderthal to get angry at "ignorance", but that don't make it so. If you were half the enlightened moral philosopher you make yourself out to be, rather than getting angry and insulting, you'd be illuminating with your wisdom.

Not being a moral philosopher, I don't mind being crude and insulting to people on occasion. You're a fake and not nearly as clever as you think you are.

Okay, for that thing about the wife or whatever, revenge is a human instinct which serves the purpose of punishment. Although that's mostly just because the person was angry (an emotional vestige) about the wife sleeping with him or whatever. You see, since animals and early humans didn't have the reasoning capacity to actually figure out that doing something to someone that they don't like can prevent them from doing something again, it evolved naturally since the more passive tribes or groups would be too chaotic to survive and would just steal the food of others and whatnot.

The point is, though humans do derive a certain pleasure from "revenge," simply the act of punishment without thinking about its consequences, that doesn't mean that revenge just for the sake of revenge is an end in and of itself. Which is why if the Christian god was so benevolent and omniscient, it wouldn't allow there to be a hell, since it's just making people suffer for no good reason.

[Sarien]

Really not sure where you're getting benevolent from.
The christian god is a jealous, petty, and childish god.

Are you forgetting all about the plagues he let loose, including killing the first born sons of people, just because the people he liked, were being held as slaves? When in a different chapter it talks about how it's OK to have slaves, and proceeds to dictate how to treat them?

I grant you, it doesn't make sense to you. It doesn't make sense to me either that I can write "goddamn" and that dooms me to burn forever and ever (Blasphemy being the unforgivable sin). But it doesn't HAVE to make sense to you, or me. This is their faith, and if they want to have it, good on 'em. Rock on. They're allowed to believe it if they want. And you claim to be a moral philosopher, so I'll treat you like one. You owe geekbot one hell of an apology. If you're so concerned with what is right and wrong? Then here's a big wrong for you. You proceeded to tell that guy, that what he believed was not only wrong, but that you looked down on him, for believing it. He did you no harm, he wasn't even saying anybody else should believe it too. He was making conversation, and you came along blustered and insulted him. Is that good behavior or bad behavior? To insult someone for trying to find their own sense of meaning in the universe that they can feel comforted by inside their own mind, this is a bad thing how? You were not only wrong, you were out of line. So where do you go from here?

[geekbot]

Sarien thanks for defending my post so I don't have to. No apologies from anyone is needed.

Slaves:
The Old Testament plagues in Egypt were a punishment for the sins of the Egyptians (including enslaving the Hebrews and not allowing them to worship God).

All passages in the Bible concerning slaves is talking about bond-servants (not slaves in the American history sense of the word). It was legal at the time if you didn't have money to pledge yourself as a servant to a Jew. Being a bond-servant meant you lived with and served your master. This was generally for 7 years but if you wanted to stay you could pledge to be a servant for life. Most passages in the Bible are about the fair treatment of bond-servants. This is an example of the Bible dealing with specific historically cultual things. Today, these passages would generally be relavant to the fair treatment of employees.

Jewish culture also include the idea of a "year of jubilee". Every 50 years, all debts are to be forgiven (nullified), all borrowed property returned, and all bond-servants (slaves) released. http://biblegateway.com/passage/?boo...=25&version=31

39 " 'If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. 40 He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.

Blasphemy:
http://biblegateway.com/passage/?boo...ontext=context

Blasphemy *will* be forgiven. Specifically, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit won't be forgiven. The meaning of this isn't entirely clear. Most people who take a stab at it interpret it as something like the sin of not accepting God (receiving salvation). Which is convenient because that's sort of the definition of going to hell. But the point is it's something obviously bad but we're not certain the connotations he was trying convey here.

[Jeenyuss]

I hate how when you drink chocolate milk you get a really heavy feeling on your palette and then when you cough chocolate snot comes up and it's just really gross. Overall though I think it's worth it because chocolate milk tastes very good and it's one of my favorite dairy beverages.

[Saturn V]

Really not sure where you're getting benevolent from.
The christian god is a jealous, petty, and childish god.

Are you forgetting all about the plagues he let loose, including killing the first born sons of people, just because the people he liked, were being held as slaves? When in a different chapter it talks about how it's OK to have slaves, and proceeds to dictate how to treat them?

I grant you, it doesn't make sense to you. It doesn't make sense to me either that I can write "goddamn" and that dooms me to burn forever and ever (Blasphemy being the unforgivable sin). But it doesn't HAVE to make sense to you, or me. This is their faith, and if they want to have it, good on 'em. Rock on. They're allowed to believe it if they want. And you claim to be a moral philosopher, so I'll treat you like one. You owe geekbot one hell of an apology. If you're so concerned with what is right and wrong? Then here's a big wrong for you. You proceeded to tell that guy, that what he believed was not only wrong, but that you looked down on him, for believing it. He did you no harm, he wasn't even saying anybody else should believe it too. He was making conversation, and you came along blustered and insulted him. Is that good behavior or bad behavior? To insult someone for trying to find their own sense of meaning in the universe that they can feel comforted by inside their own mind, this is a bad thing how? You were not only wrong, you were out of line. So where do you go from here?

Sarien, you owe me an apology because while I was sitting here reading all your babble, my DVR unpaused and caused me 30 seconds of frantic running around screaming, "WHERE IS THE REMOTE?!" Sure, I could keep it in the same place everytime, but that wouldn't be very manly, now would it?

[Sarien]

I'm very sorry that you can't keep track of your belongings.


See how I turned that around on you? Take THAT.

[Saturn V]

I'm very sorry that you can't keep track of your belongings.


See how I turned that around on you? Take THAT.

TV is forever ruined, you could try feeling a little remorse! :death:

Edit: From IM, "(21:28:54) Sarien: Perhaps it is some definition of the word ruin that I am unaware of. i haven't even found my remote for 3 days" WHO CANT KEEP TRACK OF THEIR BELONGINGINSA NOW!@!#$g vsdf