The summer 2011 totally legitimate and like official atheist thread, endorsed too

[mjmacky]

So, you don't think we need the concept of God?

To clarify, this is how I feel:
It may benefit the psychological condition of the individual, but it's detrimental to the function of a community. The personal benefits I attribute to it as a coping mechanism to loss/separation/despair. The general detriment I attribute to concepts of divine forgiveness and favoritism to justify morally heinous behavior and decisions.

My thoughts go in much more detail beyond this, but I think this serves as a good header regarding my stance.

[OlegL]

But if you open a sociology book, you will read in it that religious people are often happier than non-religious people.

[bigboab]

You need a good upbringing to lead a morally correct life. A good upbringing does not necessitate the inclusion of a religious concept.

[mjmacky]

@Oleg
That statement meant virtually nothing, I hope you didn't confuse it for making a point

@bigboab
I agree with your second statement thoroughly. Your first one though I feel needs more elaboration. Some of the finer (as compared to broad/course) points of morality concern how actions impact indirectly and over time. A good upbringing may show a child how to pay attention to the extending consequences of their actions. The general broader senses of morality, however, would still be understood by children with terrible upbringings, excepting significant psychological damage and problems with mental development.

[OlegL]

excepting significant psychological damage and problems with mental development.

Well, I was never a normal child, and now I am not a normal adult. I am definitely developmentally delayed. So, it's quite possible I don't understand the general broader senses of morality.

[Quarterquack]

so it's not true that the Bible talks about ridiculous moral concepts.

Actually, it IS true. The Bible is the equivalent of a color-inside-the-lines kindergarten book given to a child who is on an assignment to copy one of Monet's paintings.

Don't believe me? This is what I would call a Grade 5 level theological dilemma that the Bible struggles with (I label it as such because I used it against a priest when I was in my 5th grade during one of our arguments). A man is born. The man is baptized. He now has the Holy Spirit within. The man grows to the ripe age of 30. The man converts to Islam. The man decides it was a mistake. The man wants to come back to Christianity. Now here comes the big question: Does the man need a second baptism?

The problem may not be apparent at first, so let me explain. Nowhere in the Bible is a problem of this (gargantuan!) scale tackled. The Ten Commandments do not list it as a Sin, (You Shalt Not Have Any Other Gods Before Me does NOT and will NOT count, as you can easily believe in the same God but follow a different religion, isn't that what Christianity did to the Jews who originally had that very commandment bestowed upon them?). So therefore, if you have not committed a sin by not altering your belief about the monothiestic deity but by changing the route by which you intend to see him/her face to face, then why do you need atonement to go back to your original religion? Even with that argument, assuming that it IS a sin. Does the Holy Spirit leave you every time you sin, or is there somewhere in the Bible where there existed a list of sins that can have God pulled out of you, and a list of sins where God will just switch on your conscience button instead.

My dear foolish pastor, in his urge to try and "save" me, pulled the "Baptism is an enactment, and it symbolizes your unison with the Church once again. It is mandatory upon return to the belief." At which point I laughed, told him he just made up a rule that does not exist in the Bible because he THOUGHT it was so, explained to him that he had thus embraced moral relativism, instead of searching for an absolute answer, and therefore his whole book which tries to prove the opposite was a steaming pile of crap. The question was never about the answer. The question was a way to prove that there is no answer.

I never visited that church again. So tell me, Oleg. What does the Bible say about Euthanizing someone who went into a coma on life support?

The moral concepts in the Bible are ridiculous because they're at a childish level. I can easily figure out that I shouldn't kill people. I've known it since before the first time I read the Bible.

[OlegL]

What does the Bible say about Euthanizing someone who went into a coma on life support?

I honestly don't know how to answer you. I don't have any religious education; however, there is a synagogue not far from my house. I rarely go there, but I might visit it today and ask a rabbi these types of questions.

[mjmacky]

You Shalt Not Have Any Other Gods Before Me does NOT and will NOT count, as you can easily believe in the same God but follow a different religion, isn't that what Christianity did to the Jews who originally had that very commandment bestowed upon them?

This might test how well I retained the details, but it's pretty much along these lines. The original context of that commandment, which stems from the polytheistic and unorganized past of Judaism, was that different tribes were worshipping different gods. There was also the instance as they were being driven out of Babylon to unite the different tribes (whereas Yahweh identified himself as many other names as to say, "see I'm that same guy as the other one, we're already buddies"), but I don't remember if these were related. So it can be interpreted this way, not only could the first commandment be addressing other religions altogether, it might also be interpreted as different sects under the same supposed god. Thank goodness it's not real, because this would be one terrible instruction manual.

[mjmacky]

I might visit it today and ask a rabbi these types of questions.

Answering logical fallacies... members of the cults always provide lackluster and unconvincing answers. I'd prefer you to only post a response if it's truly brilliant in addition to be insightful. The only way you'll be able to tell that's the case is if his response sounds completely wild or zany to you, and only then does it have a 50 % chance of being worth posting.

[bigboab]

A good upbringing, would require your close associates and family to be morally correct in their actions. A case of do as I say and do and not do as I say only. I am excluding what is in the genes in these statements. I have seen children raised by relatives in a good family regress to the criminal life of their blood parents. I remember an old saying. 'Bad blood is bad blood, no matter how it is dressed'. Thank goodness you can get exceptions.