Originally posted by Quiero Mota
"True Christian" is another way of saying "Haha you sinned, I'm more religious than you". It's a derogatroy term that's pretty meaningless. You're either Christian or you're not, the "true" is understood and granted.
I think that people like Marchello and JIA would disagree with you.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
No, notice how I said "all five".
Yeah you did but I got the impression you were implying that Christanity was more consistent than Hinduism.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
But now that you brought it up, Christians agree with eachother more than Hindus; you won't find very many atheistic Christian denominations.
Yeah so you proved me right. You didnt come out and say it explictly but my suspicions were correct.
Bro one of the reasons why Christanity is more consistent is because the Chruch had a habit of killing off other Christians with different beliefs and putting forgeries in the Bible. Hindusim has more of a history of tolerance thats why it has moe diversity. 😬
Originally posted by anaconda
everything considered a religion
Everything what do you mean by everything please elaborate?
Originally posted by anaconda
😂 😂 oh man that would have been the ultimate contradiction if that denomination existed 😂 🙄
Mainstream Satanism is inherently atheistic. They treat is as a philosophy for approaching life, not literal dogmatic truths involving fairy tale deities.
So it wouldn't be impossible...but most Christian denominations wouldn't really consider them Christian. But it's really just the difference between seeing the life of Jesus as literal fact and following his example, and seeing it as metaphoric guidance and following his example.
...
P.S. dj, love the Dragnet reference. 👆
Originally posted by DigiMark007Thanks......Couldn't help it....lol.
Mainstream Satanism is inherently atheistic. They treat is as a philosophy for approaching life, not literal dogmatic truths involving fairy tale deities.So it wouldn't be impossible...but most Christian denominations wouldn't really consider them Christian. But it's really just the difference between seeing the life of Jesus as literal fact and following his example, and seeing it as metaphoric guidance and following his example.
...
P.S. dj, love the Dragnet reference. 👆
Though I've read some about Satanism, and it does coincide with atheistic views of some. Nothing to do with the devil mind you, just that there is none, nor a god, and that life is for the here and now. So, enjoy it. Though I haven't read all their literature on the subject.
Originally posted by debbiejo
Thanks......Couldn't help it....lol.Though I've read some about Satanism, and it does coincide with atheistic views of some. Nothing to do with the devil mind you, just that there is none, nor a god, and that life is for the here and now. So, enjoy it. Though I haven't read all their literature on the subject.
I've seen detailed synopses on every book of the Satanic Bible, though I haven't actually read the text itself. It would probably be amusing, but I'd have to hide it or my family would freak.
But your description isn't far from the mark. It's inherently selfish, though that can still include altruism toward others if it serves your greater selfish needs. Close to an Ayn Rand-style philosophy. But then it delves into hokey paranormal stuff like voodoo dolls, curses, and soul purging, and has some detailed accounts of rituals for such practices.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
But your description isn't far from the mark. It's inherently selfish, though that can still include altruism toward others if it serves your greater selfish needs. Close to an Ayn Rand-style philosophy. But then it delves into hokey paranormal stuff like voodoo dolls, curses, and soul purging, and has some detailed accounts of rituals for such practices.
Yes and that kinda backs up my point that being selfish could be considered to be an atheistic concept. Theres no god, no afterlife just enjoy life.
Originally posted by Alfheim
Yes and that kinda backs up my point that being selfish could be considered to be an atheistic concept. Theres no god, no afterlife just enjoy life.
I dislike the comparison, because all altruism has its roots in the selfish nature of our genes, which affects our actions on a macrocosmic level. Reciprocal altruism (doing "good"😉 got it's beginnings when rogue strands of "altruist" genes tended to survive better because they weren't constantly at war. Benevolent product, but with a selfish base.
No religious label or god erases that.
But the problem is that there is no intent with the genes. They don't consciously act selfish...it's just a convenient label for the process of natural selection. So, too, with us. Our altruism might be the by-product of a selfish desire to survive. But we aren't immediately aware of it in those terms, so we can't be labeled "selfish" because we think we're doing it for "good" reasons.
See the problem?
The answer is simply that nothing is either good nor bad, selfish nor altruistic. It is simply a determined set of causal occurences that are of neutral morality. It is only when we ascribe labels to it does it seem like it is good or bad, when in fact both are nothing more than arbitrary labels.
OK then please explain why religon is mumbo jumbo.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I dislike the comparison, because all altruism has its roots in the selfish nature of our genes, which affects our actions on a macrocosmic level. Reciprocal altruism (doing "good"😉 got it's beginnings when rogue strands of "altruist" genes tended to survive better because they weren't constantly at war. Benevolent product, but with a selfish base.No religious label or god erases that.
I dunno man but something tells me thats just a theory and your pasing it off as a fact. Im not saying that its without merit but it just seems merely a matter of opinion its not fact like the speed of sound.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
But the problem is that there is no intent with the genes. They don't consciously act selfish...it's just a convenient label for the process of natural selection. So, too, with us. Our altruism might be the by-product of a selfish desire to survive. But we aren't immediately aware of it in those terms, so we can't be labeled "selfish" because we think we're doing it for "good" reasons.See the problem?
No not really.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
The answer is simply that nothing is either good nor bad, selfish nor altruistic. It is simply a determined set of causal occurences that are of neutral morality. It is only when we ascribe labels to it does it seem like it is good or bad, when in fact both are nothing more than arbitrary labels.
Your making this a bit more complicated than it needs to be and your not stating anything I dont know. This is what im trying to say....it seems sometimes that athiests tend to believe the opposite of what religous people believe and I dont think thats a coincedence as you once stated that opinion was not without merit. If you dont believe there is a god or an afterlife it could be argued that this could give you a selfish point of view. Im not passing this off as fact its just a way of looking at things, really to be quite honest I think good people will do good regardless of what they believe this is just a point of view for people that say that religon causes violence, when it could be argued its not the religon itself but there are other factors involved.
Originally posted by anaconda
I see all belief in a supreme being/s, omnipotent omnipresence deity as superstitious lunacy.
Thats just a matter of opinion, period.
Originally posted by anaconda
I find the entire idea of religion stupid, and I mean all religions, they tend to be oh so helpful, but in fact all they do is create havoc and dispute, always trying to push their believes upon those who don't believe. Threatening of eternal damnation, or submit or die and all this crap. People can believe in whatever they want for me, doesnt mean I have to follow it wheter it being judism, christianity islam and other smaller religious ways, buddhism included.
Right so what you're saying is religon is stupid because some people tend to push their beliefs on other people? Right so did the Vikings push their religon on to over people? Do Buddhists push their beliefs on other people? What about Hindus and Jainists? So basically what you've done is labeled religon stupid because some people are negative while ignoring the fcat there are still alot of religous people that are still postive. Dont you think thats a bit ignorant?
Originally posted by Alfheim
I dunno man but something tells me thats just a theory and your pasing it off as a fact. Im not saying that its without merit but it just seems merely a matter of opinion its not fact like the speed of sound.
It's evolution. If you want to argue Creationism/evolution, that's one thing. But if you accept evolution as the fact that it is, nothing I said is speculation. I don't feel like posting entire chapters by evolutionary scientists that show these things in action, but I'm not just pulling it out of my behind.
Originally posted by Alfheim
Your making this a bit more complicated than it needs to be and your not stating anything I dont know. This is what im trying to say....it seems sometimes that athiests tend to believe the opposite of what religous people believe and I dont think thats a coincedence as you once stated that opinion was not without merit. If you dont believe there is a god or an afterlife it could be argued that this could give you a selfish point of view. Im not passing this off as fact its just a way of looking at things, really to be quite honest I think good people will do good regardless of what they believe this is just a point of view for people that say that religon causes violence, when it could be argued its not the religon itself but there are other factors involved.
"Atheism leads to selfishness" is very different from "atheists believe the opposite of theists" so you're dealing with two seperate things.
The second one is a generalization. I don't disagree with it, but it will only be true in certain cases. I think I alluded to cooperative meme-plexes last time we had this conversations, and how they strengthen one another, so meme evolution might tend to produce findings that agree with your hypothesis, but not as a certainty.
The first one I disagree with simply because I don't think anything is selfish or unselfish. They're arbitrary distinctions. I could say that I think theists are selfish because they need a prescribed religious moral law to act altruistically, and that many do it simply to get into heaven. But I wouldn't be any more right than you.
On a more functional level, I have to deal with "Where does your morality come from?" constantly from concerned theists (as do most atheists), so anything is good in my mind that debunks the stereotype that atheism needs to be a selfish philosophy.
Originally posted by anaconda
I see all belief in a supreme being/s, omnipotent omnipresence deity as superstitious lunacy. I find the entire idea of religion stupid, and I mean all religions, they tend to be oh so helpful, but in fact all they do is create havoc and dispute, always trying to push their believes upon those who don't believe. Threatening of eternal damnation, or submit or die and all this crap. People can believe in whatever they want for me, doesnt mean I have to follow it wheter it being judism, christianity islam and other smaller religious ways, buddhism included.
You need to learn more about Buddhism. It might help you realize that there are some good religions in the world.
You shouldn't need any organization to tell you what is right and wrong...Of course this comes down to cultural influences which you can not avoid no matter where you are.
Of course this comes back to the relativist ideas which ignore the basis for how you need to make society ie. you need to lay down ideals and laws. Can these ideals and laws extend to places outside your sphere of influence? Is there such thing as a universal truth that all can be held accountable for? Maybe not. But it does make things much simpler and more efficient.
My basic line is, I don't need the Church to tell me what is good and bad. I've known that all my life.
Of course some will argue good and bad are points-of-view but such grey statements are a hindrance rather than a step forward.