Pastor Has Disabled Man Murdered For Insurance Money

Well i think that puts to bed the claim that our morality is derived from religion.

 

Maybe he'll come on Larry King (from his prison cell) and tell everyone that God has forgiven him... oh yeah and please send $500...

The idea that religion is related to ethics is obviously flawed. There are ethical religious people but there are obviously also many unethical religious people. And the same goes for those who are not religious. I believe there's very little correlation.

 

"The want to not sin" is derived from Christianity. There are bad apples from every bunch, and just because someone claims they are Christian, doesn't mean that they are.

 

I am sure you know how faulty that logic is. Also, you forgot to attribute your quote. "Leakin Park bathroom" Leakin Park???

You can find murderers and other "bad" people in any group you look at. So what's next? Someone posts a thread about a crime perpetrated by an atheist to demonstrate how bad atheists are? Or perhaps a thread about a red-haired person who committed a crime to show how bad red-heads are?

The voice of someone who has common sense

 

Of course you can, but what other group, besides the religious, claim their beliefs/gods are the cause of our morality? You have completely missed the point, Which is hardly surprising. After misrepresenting what someone has said pretending to not "get it" is the second most common defence of the religious.

The point isn't that christians are "bad", It's that human morality is in no way a result of religion. As is demonstrated by the fact that a devout christian murdered a disabled man for money... Let me guess, not a "real christian", right?

demonstrably false. The Chinese and the Romans had perfectly moral societies long before jesus was supposed to have existed, As did the Egyptians.

 

I havent missed any point. I can see exactly what you are trying to say - the thing is that you are using the actions of one or a few to judge an entire group of people - not good logic

 

Well, why don't you spend less time on fabricating strawman arguments by attempting to decipher what im "trying to say" and focus on what i actually say, there's a good lad.

 

Here's another example of religious folks not necessarily being moral: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html

 

What? Is that the best you can come back with? I can see exactly what you are saying. You are saying that the actions of this one particular so-called pastor "lays to rest" a claim about religion. You pick one person and use them to judge an entire group of people and you say I am the one who is "fabricating strawman arguments". Hell, this is bigger than just one group - you are judging religion in general by the actions of one human being!

Its always the same with you in every thread I see like this. You preach more about your 'religion' than most anybody I know of! What is the difference between you passionately and incessantly (as will as illogically) preaching your message of "no god" and others doing the same for "A god"? I am sure you will say something along the lines of "because I am right" but the others feel the same way. To me you look much like a religious fanatic.

Personally I dislike organized religion very much and I believe that the majority of those calling themselves Christian are nothing of the sort. You can call yourself anything you like...

If you cant see the error in selecting one or a few people and then using them to judge an entire group then there is something wrong. I am fairly sure that you are full aware of it but you don't care because you are pushing an agenda and that's all that matters. So to me you are not very different from the likes of Jimmy Swaggart.

Now back to your original statement:

The funny thing is that I do agree that morality does not necessarily come from religion. In fact it is more likely to be the opposite. How many have been tortured, abused, killed, etc in the name of religion? Many. So, I am not disputing your thought that morality is not derived from religion. What I am disputing is the way you are trying to demonstrate it - which is wrong.

 

What a useless thread. Why don't you post some story about a black man selling drugs or committing a violent crime and try and categorize all black people that way. I suspect an account banning would ensue. You justify your bigotry by saying these people try to follow christian principals so we are just highlighting hypocrisy, but its still bigotry.

The religious make up 84% of the world's population and most religions promote piety of some sort. Of course there are going to be stories of the religious committing crime. I have no doubt they catch their fair share, percentage wise, of criminals, which means roughly 84% of the crime in the world is committed by "God fearing people". I hope none of you bigots are liberals because you stand for everything liberalism doesn't. Why don't you save your bigotry for your next Klan rally.

 

I'll say it one more time, just for those who apparently can't understand simple sentences written in plain English. At no point did i say this behavior is typical of christians, At no point did i say his religion was the cause of this cowards crime and at no point was i drawing a causative link between his religion and his crime. I specifically made a point of not drawing that conclusion. I specifically worded my post so that conclusion could not be drawn because i know how disingenuous the religious can be.

The point i made, as can be seen in the words i wrote in the initial post, which some dishonest people are refusing to acknowledge, was that it demonstrates that our morality can not possible be a result of religion. let me say it again, read it slowly; The point i was making was that this story demonstrates that our morality isn't a result of religion.

 

hehe, I know someone like that. Can't use a dictionary. In that spirit, your post says whatever I say it does and that is a FACT!

Regardless, your thread implied Christians are not moral. I could post a story about a black guy sucking off the welfare system and say, "Well, I guess that puts to bed the claim that work ethic is at the core of the Black race." It makes you no less a bigot.

 

No, your flawed assumption implied that. My thread implied that our morality can't possibly be a result of religion because, well, that's was exactly what i said.

 

Yeh yeh, nice subterfuge. That might work with your highschool friends, but there are actually adults on this forum. I bet if you ran a company, you'd try and screen out christians as part of your employment screening.

 

You are the one who's statement is flawed. I agree that "our morality can't possibly be a result of religion" but pointing out what one individual did as proof of that is WRONG.

 

Actually, to refute the claim that morality is the result of religion we only need to hold up examples of deeply religious people, like the man who had a disabled man murdered for money or youtube tony who murdered a young girl before killing himself, behaving is highly immoral ways.

Like with all claims, it can be refuted by giving examples of thing which should not have occurred should the claim be true.

 

Following that same logic I could "prove" almost anything I wanted to. I could "prove" that all whites are drug addicts by showing one who is. I could prove that all people who wear red pajamas are insane by showing one who is.

How can you say that this is an example of "deeply religious people"? If I told you that I was a deacon in a church would you just automatically believe it and assume that I am deeply religious and that all my actions are a result of my deeply religious nature? Would everything I do from then on be used as a measure for or against religion?

A pastor or a 'youtube tony' that does something like that or whatever is NOT deeply religious regardless of what they claim to be.

 

You are continuing to miss the point, probably intentionally, because i don't believe someone can still make the same error after having it explained to them this many times. I'm not saying all christians are immoral on the grounds that some of them are immoral. How many times do i have to explain this to you?

Read this very carefully. I'm not, in any way, saying christians are immoral on the grounds that some of them are. What i am saying, have been saying and continue to say is that morality can not be a result of religion if those who are highly religious sometimes act in immoral ways. What part of that are you having trouble understanding?

Not real christians then... if only i could have predicted that defence.

 

I never once said that you were implying that all christians are immoral CAN YOU FREAKING READ? Where the hell did I say that!

I am saying you cannot prove the statement "that puts to bed the claim that our morality is derived from religion." by using the actions of one person! Go back through my posts and try to understand.

I already knew that there was no point in discussing anything with you. Its always the same. You act like others dont understand then you go on to imply that they said things they did not -- the same old game you always play.

 

"Following that same logic I could "prove" almost anything I wanted to. I could "prove" that all whites are drug addicts by showing one who is. I could prove that all people who wear red pajamas are insane by showing one who is."

If you aren't claiming i think all christians are immoral by pointing out one that is then your analogy, and the "logic" you used to form it, are flawed to the point of being a farce.

If you don't think i was making the claim that all christians are immoral how is your analogy appropriate? Answer, it isn't. it would only be appropriate if you understood my argument to be "all christians are immoral because some of them are".

of course it proves religion isn't the cause of morality. if highly religious people can behave in highly immoral ways then religiosity doesn't lead to morality. We don;t need all christians to prove it, Just the one.

The same as if i said X leads to Y. all you'd have to do is find one person who possesses X and not Y to prove it incorrect.