Well, I'm not going to do your homework for you. But let's use my own personal example: I am a Christian. And I am not religious. Can you figure the rest out now, or do you really need to have this spoon-fed to you? Yes, it was. Excuse me, but your answer is a cop-out. Providing I accept your premise (which I don't): That "primordial hot and dense initial condition" WAS the Universe as it existed at that time. The question to where the Universe came from is where that primordial hot such-and-such came from. Many of the atheists here claim allegiance to science. Well, fine. Use science to step up to answer the initial question of this thread - and do not cop out. Look, I am a Christian and there is a scientific answer to that question that I accept. But why do atheists seem scared of that question? And, that is the Hypocrisy of Atheism, which goes like this: 1. "There is no God because you can't prove that God exists" 2. "Atheism doesn't know what caused the universe to exist and I don't have to prove it" THAT is yet another big blatant blunder of the atheist argument... They claim that science replaces religion, yet cop out on science when it fails the question! http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=10793670&postcount=119 You are really going to have to defend that last statement. On this thread alone, not only do we see many, many lies that atheists have told, many of those liars have since been banned. Answer me this - in the absence of any moral mandate that would come from a God, why would we trust an atheist to tell the truth? Wouldn't the atheist credo be "it's O.K. to lie if you can get away with it?" Wouldn't you agree with that? Doesn't that validate Thomas Jefferson's policy of not allowing atheists on his cabinet because atheists absolutely cannot be trusted? WHY should I trust an atheist? WHY? Tell me - why can't I simply assume that all atheists are liars?
Allow me to begin at the end of your question, and work backwards (somewhat). After a careful examination of The Entire Scriptural account of JESUS CHRIST'S apprehension, arrest, trial, beating, Crucifixion and Death, you'll find that NO ONE KILLED JESUS CHRIST! That's right; it wasn't the Jews, nor the Romans. This is why JESUS could make the statement (TRUTHFULLY), "Therefore MY FATHER loves ME, because I lay down MY LIFE that I may take it again. No one takes it from ME, but I lay it down of MYSELF. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from MY FATHER.(John 10:17-18)" See, JESUS could NOT allow anyone to kill HIM (it would have actually been Murder, because HE was not Guilty of anything that they charged HIM with), because that would have made HIM an Accomplice/Accompanist to HIS own Murder. . .which would have been sin. And in order for HIM to die for the sins of mankind, HE had to be, HIMSELF, sinless; (and just one sin of HIS own, would have kept HIM from Resurrecting). So then, JESUS gave HIMSELF. Willingly and Freely, over to HIS persecutors. . .but only "when HIS time had come", or as another Scripture puts it, "In the fullness of time". Kinda like "High Noon", if you will. The people that JESUS was talking to in John 8:21-22, were, for the most part, the Jewish religious leaders of the day (Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, etc.), most all of whom didn't believe on JESUS CHRIST under any circumstances. . .even though they were all looking for their PROMISED SAVIOR and MESSIAH. But according to all they understood about their Scripture, JESUS just couldn't be THE ONE. . .and oh, how wrong they were. So JESUS was, in essence, saying to them, '. . .because of your unbelief, you're going to die in that very unbelief, while you're still looking for your PROMISED SAVIOR and MESSIAH, because I AM HE but you won't believe it, even though your own Scripture bears witness of me, as does THE FATHER in Heaven. And further, I'll be back in Heaven, and you'll still be in your unbelief.' Reread Vss. 21-59 and see if it make more sense to you now.
Actually, the reason for the death of Jesus was not religious, it was political. The Sanhedrin were liberal extremists. Jesus threatened their power over the people The Romans were conservative extremists. Jesus threatened their ability to keep the people obedient.
I agree with you totally. . .from the human standpoint. But Spiritually, HE couldn't have allowed HIMSELF to be murdered/killed. . .especially since HE was innocent of all charges. . .Spiritually: no sin whatsoever; and Physically/Secular: no laws had he violated/broken. What are your thoughts there? BTW, Please do keep up the Good Work Corwin!!!
I'm sorry but that's disgusting to assume that every atheist lacks moral guidance. I read this thread to the end and you bitch at other people for assuming things about Christians, so please stop assuming things about atheists. And from my experience, I've had WAY more morals than most of my religious friends. I could just as easily say that religion allows my religious friends to act more morally corrupt. "It's ok, God will forgive me when I cheat on my wife." I'm by NO MEANS saying that religious people are morally corrupt, because I know that's not true. But considering I've known TONS of alcoholic mormons, Christians cheating on their wives, not paying child support for children they have made, etc. and I would/have NEVER done these things....What excuse do these people have if they were supposedly taught these morals in religion? Wouldn't it make it worse if these people KNEW BETTER? I, on the other hand, WAS GIVEN THE GIFT OF COMMON SENSE BY MY PARENTS and don't need constant preaching to tell me right from wrong. Some people need to be constantly taught and reminded of how to be moral or treat others. I don't. That is the most disgusting thing that could be said about atheists. We are not all morally corrupt. Ugh.....
Then, tell me, from WHERE does the atheist moral center come from? In the absence of a God-based moral center, from where does atheist moral guidance come from? Don't just tell me I'm wrong for assuming an atheist lacks moral guidance - tell me, from WHERE does an atheist get their moral guidance? Let me see if I understand - when religious people speak from experience, they must be wrong. But when atheists speak from experience, they must be right? Because in the absence of a moral center, and if you cannot explain your moral center, then asking us to completely accept what you claim to be your experience as true, is asking too much of us. Now, MY experince is the opposite of yours. Does my experience count? Then answer me this: in the absence of religion - in the absence of a God-based spiritual faith that tells you to speak the truth, do no harm, love thy neighbor, and show compassion... If atheists have no God-based faith to believe in these things, then WHERE IS THE ATHEIST MORAL CENTER? Is the atheist absent of any morality? Or is there an atheist morality for honesty and love, and if so, WHERE does it come from? Would a society of atheists be lawless? (oh please use the government argument oh please oh please oh please...)
Rub3X, what is that graph? Where is it from? What is your source? Is "religiousity" even a word? I can't find it in Merriam-Webster, it's not in the Cambridge dictionary, it's not in MSN Encarta, it's not in the American Heritage dictionary. In other words, it's not in any OFFICIAL reference of the English language. Of course, you can find lots of made-up words in UNofficial dictionaries. But they are not considered proper references, now, are they? Feel free to cite one of the non-standard dictionaries if you feel they have more authority than the dictionaries I've cited. You made up a graph, then made up a word... Didn't I write earlier that atheists make things up????? hehehehe But, in any case, what is your point - people with low IQs have no value to you? Ah, there's you demonstrating that atheist lack of compassion again. Why do I need external sources, when the atheists here prove my arguments for me??? Let's just look at recent history: - Fidel Castro, Atheist: 1 million killed - Adolph Hitler, Atheist/Paganist: 11 million plus killed - Pol Pot, Atheist: 2 million killed - Joseph Stalin, Atheist: 20 million plus killed - Mao-Tse-Tung, Atheist: 40 million plus killed - Kim-Il-Sung, Atheist: 5 million killed (no, Hilter was NOT a Christian, that's a lie spread by anti-Christian bigots. And don't even try to bring Pope Pius into it or I'll have you crying in your sleep)
Yes corwin you are absolutely correct, all atheists are guilty of mass murder/genecide and christians can do no wrong.
To think that one must be theist to have morality is fucking low. If you think that Corwin, then you're painfully misguided. I have no opinion of any deity, but I'm as pro-life as they come, to use abortion as an example. Nothing disgusts me more than those who think they can take the high ground just because they're pious/theistic. I'm a real humanitarian, with or without a god.
I already told you where it comes from: my parents. Personally, I believe morals to be connected to common sense. Some people are born with it, some aren't. Has NOTHING to do with religion in my eyes. I've seen Christians and atheists alike with no morals. And I have no earthly idea what you were looking for in a government argument. I'm not one to believe the government is the answer to everything. A society of atheists would have laws, so what's your point? I NEVER claimed that atheists are of such a high moral standard that they wouldn't need laws. I was just pointing out that you are incredibly ignorant to believe that all of us are immoral people because I've seen just as many religious freaks cheat, steal, kill, etc. as I have any atheists. So you can stop automatically thinking you are better because "religion gives you a moral base". Just because I don't need anybody shoving their Christian version of morals, etc. down my throat everyday doesn't mean I don't have common sense to figure it out.
I'm sorry if it came across that way. But I was disproving an argument that generically claimed that "religious"(?) people are less intelligent than atheists. Oh, by the way - the graph in question - WHY is the file creation date on it the same as TODAY, hmmm??? More and more, it looks like an atheist made up something again...
LOL are you sure you're a "Microsoft certified professional"? You save a file, check the creation date and wonder why it uses today's date?
Rub3X seems to think that if you are religious, you have a low IQ. And if you are an atheist, you have a high IQ. I don't see any atheists taking issue with that. You don't need to be believe in God to be a good person. But it helps. No, dopey From your browser, you right-click the image and select "properties". Do you need help with that?
It's futile to dwell on labelled groups. You judge a tree by its fruit. Why are we all even still debating. It became obvious long ago that no-one is ever going to convince anyone of anything different. Let's all get to work and make some money, eh? By the way, I see no creation date from the in-browser properties upon right-click. Which browser are you using?
Are we really going to be that ridiculous? Should we start making lists of how many people are in prison for murder who are Christians, Catholics, Mormons? It really is disgusting that you refuse to see both sides of the coin. Yea, there are some mass murdering atheists. So f*cking what???? There are some pretty sick serial killers that are religious as well. You are not going to win this argument. You absolutely cannot prove that religious people stand on higher moral ground when they commit just as many crimes, etc. as atheists do. Get over yourself....
Half of your post is about the semantics of a word that I didn't even write. Nice debating skills. As far as the source, I think this is it: http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm Also Hitler wasn't an atheist, and I don't see what the hell any of that has to do with the subject. Seems like a distraction. Oh and since you think the semantics of the word religiosity are so important, I'll send you a link to it in the dictionary so you can do further research: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religiosity
I get labelled as an insomniac, agnostic, dyselexic. I lie awake every night wondering if their really is a Dog.
I've seen Christians and atheists alike with no morals, too. I'll take it one step further - some of the immorality I've witnessed was from priests. However, I don't paint all priests with the same broad brush. But when you write that morals are connected to common sense, well, common sense is subjective. Hitler believed that the law of survival in the jungle applied to humans, as well. That the strong should dominate the weak, and that love and compassion were signs of inferiority. For him, it was a common sense argument, and I know people today that believe that - they believe that they are justified in lying to get what they want, and justified in hurting innocents in the pursuit of their greater plan. And their anger burns white-hot when other people dare to not believe their lies and not lie down in front of them. I'm glad that your parents taught you a sense of morality. And yes, although I had a somewhat religious upbringing (and I've rejected much of it), my morality comes mostly from my parents, too. I'm not claiming to be better. I'm simply using a common debating tactic, called "apply to self". If you claim that the attacks that I've recently used against atheists are wrong, it's only because I used the same attacks that are being used here against religious people. HOWEVER, based upon my experience, I do need to add that, IN MY EXPERIENCE, atheists do lie more often than people that believe in God. Not everyone was lucky enough to have your parents, firegirl.