Vengeful, Psycho Jesus More Effectively Promotes 'Moral Behaviour'

Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5094
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Vengeful, Psycho Jesus More Effectively Promotes 'Moral Behaviour'

Different Views of God May Influence Academic Cheating

ScienceDaily (Apr. 21, 2011) — Belief in God doesn't deter a person from cheating on a test, unless that God is seen as a mean, punishing one, researchers say.


On the flip side, psychology researchers Azim F. Shariff at the University of Oregon and Ara Norenzayan at the University of British Columbia found that undergraduate college students who believe in a caring, forgiving God are more likely to cheat.

The findings emerged from two experiments involving a mathematics test in which honesty was put to the test. Students were told about a software glitch in which the correct answer to each problem would appear after several seconds. To avoid seeing the answer, they were told to press the space bar immediately after viewing each problem and before pursuing a solution without scratch paper or calculators.

The results are detailed in the quarterly International Journal for the Psychology of Religion. The research is part of a larger effort to understand cultural development, in particular the role of religion in encouraging -- or even forcing adherence to -- moral behavior.

"Taken together, our findings demonstrate, at least in some preliminary way, that religious beliefs do have an effect on moral behavior, but what matters more than whether you believe in a god is what kind of god you believe in," Shariff said. "There is a relationship: Believing in a mean god, a punishing one, does contribute to cheating behavior. Believing in a loving, forgiving god seems to have an opposite effect."

In the first experiment, 61 undergraduates took a simple "but tedious" math test. Afterward, they were questioned about their religiosity, views of God and demographics. Their views of God, which involved 14 traits, were analyzed and divided to identify the participants' perceptions of their God's being loving, caring and forgiving or harsh, punitive, vengeful and punishing. Their cheating -- whether they used the space bar to avoid getting the correct answer -- was measured.

No differences in cheating were found between self-described believers in God and non-believers. However, students who specifically perceived God as punitive, angry and vengeful showed significantly lower levels of cheating.

The second study was designed to remove other potential variables such as personality and general religious affiliation. The 39 undergraduate participants were surveyed several days before the cheating task about their views of God in a series of randomly asked questions that touched on a number of different topics. The subjects later took the same math test.

Again, students who believed in a loving God were the most likely to cheat. Again, self-described believers were no more or less likely to cheat than non-believers. In both scenarios, the "punitive God" and "loving God" significantly predicted cheating in opposite directions.

Data emerging from social psychology literature tends to find that, as a general disposition, what people believe every day doesn't really affect moral outcomes, Shariff said. Though some recent research on religion's role, which involved unconsciously activating religious beliefs at a given moment, finds that being in a religious situation matters, little evidence shows that the religious disposition contributes to moral behavior

"According to the psychological literature, people who believe in God don't appear to act any more morally than people who don't believe in God," he said. "We wanted to look deeper at particular beliefs. One idea is the supernatural punishment hypothesis: Punishing counter-normative behavior -- immoral behavior -- has been an important part of living in societies. Societies don't get far without regulating moral behavior."

Even though the trend found in the new study was significant, Shariff cautioned, the results are preliminary. Specifically, the research focused on academic cheating, which is only one type of moral behavior. It is unclear whether the pattern of results will generalize to encouraging positive behaviors, such as generosity. Researchers should examine other impacts of how views of God may influence other types of both negative and positive moral behaviors.

In the journal Science in 2008, Shariff and Norenzayan reviewed 30 years of social science research and argued that there is a nuanced, but very important relationship between religion and moral behavior. Before their review of the literature was done, Norenzayan said in 2008, the public debate on whether religion fosters cooperation and trust had been driven by opinion and anecdote. The current studies add to the recent efforts to inject scientific evidence into the debate.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110420112334.htm

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Recovering fund...
atheistSuperfan
Recovering fundamentalist's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2011-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Different Views of God May Influence Academic Cheating

ScienceDaily (Apr. 21, 2011) — Belief in God doesn't deter a person from cheating on a test, unless that God is seen as a mean, punishing one, researchers say.


On the flip side, psychology researchers Azim F. Shariff at the University of Oregon and Ara Norenzayan at the University of British Columbia found that undergraduate college students who believe in a caring, forgiving God are more likely to cheat.

The findings emerged from two experiments involving a mathematics test in which honesty was put to the test. Students were told about a software glitch in which the correct answer to each problem would appear after several seconds. To avoid seeing the answer, they were told to press the space bar immediately after viewing each problem and before pursuing a solution without scratch paper or calculators.

The results are detailed in the quarterly International Journal for the Psychology of Religion. The research is part of a larger effort to understand cultural development, in particular the role of religion in encouraging -- or even forcing adherence to -- moral behavior.

"Taken together, our findings demonstrate, at least in some preliminary way, that religious beliefs do have an effect on moral behavior, but what matters more than whether you believe in a god is what kind of god you believe in," Shariff said. "There is a relationship: Believing in a mean god, a punishing one, does contribute to cheating behavior. Believing in a loving, forgiving god seems to have an opposite effect."

In the first experiment, 61 undergraduates took a simple "but tedious" math test. Afterward, they were questioned about their religiosity, views of God and demographics. Their views of God, which involved 14 traits, were analyzed and divided to identify the participants' perceptions of their God's being loving, caring and forgiving or harsh, punitive, vengeful and punishing. Their cheating -- whether they used the space bar to avoid getting the correct answer -- was measured.

No differences in cheating were found between self-described believers in God and non-believers. However, students who specifically perceived God as punitive, angry and vengeful showed significantly lower levels of cheating.

The second study was designed to remove other potential variables such as personality and general religious affiliation. The 39 undergraduate participants were surveyed several days before the cheating task about their views of God in a series of randomly asked questions that touched on a number of different topics. The subjects later took the same math test.

Again, students who believed in a loving God were the most likely to cheat. Again, self-described believers were no more or less likely to cheat than non-believers. In both scenarios, the "punitive God" and "loving God" significantly predicted cheating in opposite directions.

Data emerging from social psychology literature tends to find that, as a general disposition, what people believe every day doesn't really affect moral outcomes, Shariff said. Though some recent research on religion's role, which involved unconsciously activating religious beliefs at a given moment, finds that being in a religious situation matters, little evidence shows that the religious disposition contributes to moral behavior

"According to the psychological literature, people who believe in God don't appear to act any more morally than people who don't believe in God," he said. "We wanted to look deeper at particular beliefs. One idea is the supernatural punishment hypothesis: Punishing counter-normative behavior -- immoral behavior -- has been an important part of living in societies. Societies don't get far without regulating moral behavior."

Even though the trend found in the new study was significant, Shariff cautioned, the results are preliminary. Specifically, the research focused on academic cheating, which is only one type of moral behavior. It is unclear whether the pattern of results will generalize to encouraging positive behaviors, such as generosity. Researchers should examine other impacts of how views of God may influence other types of both negative and positive moral behaviors.

In the journal Science in 2008, Shariff and Norenzayan reviewed 30 years of social science research and argued that there is a nuanced, but very important relationship between religion and moral behavior. Before their review of the literature was done, Norenzayan said in 2008, the public debate on whether religion fosters cooperation and trust had been driven by opinion and anecdote. The current studies add to the recent efforts to inject scientific evidence into the debate.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110420112334.htm

 

But if you believe you're "saved" then it's okay to cheat because God's already forgiven all your sins.

Optimism is reality, pessimism is the fantasy that you know enough to be cynical


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Every religious person has a

Every religious person has a god of convenience. They have a moral code and then shape their god to go along with their code where he always either approves of behaviors or forgives their transgressions. So they are the ones with relative morality, it's relative to whatever version of god they choose.

A person that chooses a code of behavior based on logic, evidence and reason has much more of an absolute morality.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 <moved from General

 <moved from General Conversation to Irrationalities>

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
I wonder what the original

I wonder what the original question about belief in God was like...

Did it pitch a spectrum, or did it allow for multiple answers? I think of God as both punitive and loving, and these two traits are both demonstrated in the work of Jesus on the cross.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2375
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Wonder??????

Wowzers1 wrote:

I wonder what the original question about belief in God was like...

Did it pitch a spectrum, or did it allow for multiple answers? I think of God as both punitive and loving, and these two traits are both demonstrated in the work of Jesus on the cross.

 

 

                     Don't wonder, just ask yourself; and tell us if you wish.   Would you cheat under those circumstance,  I would not; I find math easy, as an engineer I used it constantly. For me it is  simple pleasure to answer without cheating.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5094
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I personally can't accept this.

Wowzers1 wrote:

I think of God as both punitive and loving, and these two traits are both demonstrated in the work of Jesus on the cross.

 

If jesus was loving then he'd seek correction and reconciliation in his punishment not blanket retribution. Contriving an invisible god for which people will suffer for not believing in is obviously the work of man.

As it stands jesus is morally inconsistent. Some one explain to me why god is so confused about his own attributes like perfectly forgiving and perfectly merciful and perfectly loving. And don't mention perfect justice. Perfect justice would not condemn kids for disbelieving the unbelievable. Nor would it have a single punishment for all crimes. 

And please don't drone on about the only sin being rejection of god because 'immortal' jesus took all other sins away by 'dying'. This is an assertion that's unsupported outside of the marketing material of the cult that spawned it. In fact, there are elements to this assertion that are well outside the bounds of ludicrous. 

Now, I know you have some belief system that allows you to overlook moral challenges like hell. What do you believe happens to the dhimmis when they die? Do they just go to sleep? What did jesus save you from at calvary?

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:If

Atheistextremist wrote:

If jesus was loving then he'd seek correction and reconciliation in his punishment not blanket retribution. Contriving an invisible god for which people will suffer for not believing in is obviously the work of man.

Blanket retribution? Correction and reconciliation are products of God's grace.

Atheistextremist wrote:

As it stands jesus is morally inconsistent. Some one explain to me why god is so confused about his own attributes like perfectly forgiving and perfectly merciful and perfectly loving. And don't mention perfect justice. Perfect justice would not condemn kids for disbelieving the unbelievable. Nor would it have a single punishment for all crimes. 

And please don't drone on about the only sin being rejection of god because 'immortal' jesus took all other sins away by 'dying'. This is an assertion that's unsupported outside of the marketing material of the cult that spawned it. In fact, there are elements to this assertion that are well outside the bounds of ludicrous. 

Now, I know you have some belief system that allows you to overlook moral challenges like hell. What do you believe happens to the dhimmis when they die? Do they just go to sleep? What did jesus save you from at calvary?

Jesus saves one from death.

Hell is not a moral challenge... What's so difficult about it?

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote:Don't wonder,

Jeffrick wrote:
Don't wonder, just ask yourself; and tell us if you wish.   Would you cheat under those circumstance,  I would not; I find math easy, as an engineer I used it constantly. For me it is  simple pleasure to answer without cheating.

I have no reason to cheat... I'm pretty good at math, I think.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5094
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
This is a sidestep, Wows.

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

If jesus was loving then he'd seek correction and reconciliation in his punishment not blanket retribution. Contriving an invisible god for which people will suffer for not believing in is obviously the work of man.

Blanket retribution? Correction and reconciliation are products of God's grace.

Atheistextremist wrote:

As it stands jesus is morally inconsistent. Some one explain to me why god is so confused about his own attributes like perfectly forgiving and perfectly merciful and perfectly loving. And don't mention perfect justice. Perfect justice would not condemn kids for disbelieving the unbelievable. Nor would it have a single punishment for all crimes. 

And please don't drone on about the only sin being rejection of god because 'immortal' jesus took all other sins away by 'dying'. This is an assertion that's unsupported outside of the marketing material of the cult that spawned it. In fact, there are elements to this assertion that are well outside the bounds of ludicrous. 

Now, I know you have some belief system that allows you to overlook moral challenges like hell. What do you believe happens to the dhimmis when they die? Do they just go to sleep? What did jesus save you from at calvary?

Jesus saves one from death.

Hell is not a moral challenge... What's so difficult about it?

 

Blanket retribution means all who don't believe in god die/go to hell/whatever punishment you choose to believe in. There's no consideration for the quality of their lives or their personal goodness. Blanket retribution. Do you get it now?

As for hell's moral challenge, christians are told to love and forgive but it's not a recommendation they embrace. Most christians are comfortable with the thought that their mighty lord will kill/torture everyone in hell. It's his business, they contend. But they tacitly condone death and torture through acceptance of the doctrine of death and hell. I contend it's morally inconsistent for christians to worship a god who employs a hell. 

So - what about you, Wows? I know you have a particular interpretation of parts of the bible and reject hell. Do you believe non christians simply die? And yet again, Wows, what did jesus save you from with his 'work' on the cross? Are you saved from sin or will god just give you a set of eternal telomeres?

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:As it

Atheistextremist wrote:

As it stands jesus is morally inconsistent. Some one explain to me why god is so confused about his own attributes like perfectly forgiving and perfectly merciful and perfectly loving. And don't mention perfect justice.

I tend to peg it on holiness... a sin, no matter how small, would make one something other than perfectly holy. No matter what you feel about it, that's what it is.

Condemnation is not about belief and nonbelief -- it is about sin. The one who sins is already condemned. The one who believes (and this is more than merely ascenting the fact that something exists) is the one who is not condemned.

Atheistextremist wrote:

Perfect justice would not condemn kids for disbelieving the unbelievable. Nor would it have a single punishment for all crimes.

What about kids? I'm not absolutely 100% what I think happens to kids who do no believe, but I have reason to believe that God saves children who die.

Atheistextremist wrote:

And please don't drone on about the only sin being rejection of god because 'immortal' jesus took all other sins away by 'dying'. This is an assertion that's unsupported outside of the marketing material of the cult that spawned it. In fact, there are elements to this assertion that are well outside the bounds of ludicrous. 

Now, I know you have some belief system that allows you to overlook moral challenges like hell. What do you believe happens to the dhimmis when they die? Do they just go to sleep? What did jesus save you from at calvary?

What does the "immortal" Jesus have anything to do with it? And what about dhimmis?  If they do not believe in Jesus then they are in the same boat as atheists. The one thing I  can say for atheists that cognitively reject Jesus is that you did it, and did it willfully.

You still haven't produced anything that poses a moral challenge though.

Atheistextremist wrote:

Blanket retribution means all who don't believe in god die/go to hell/whatever punishment you choose to believe in. There's no consideration for the quality of their lives or their personal goodness. Blanket retribution. Do you get it now?

God does take into account the quality of one's life. If at the end of days, god weighed sin against good, he'd be lowering his standard of holiness. God is not looking for a positive balance, rather moral perfection and any sin would detract from that. So unless one has a way to remove his or her sin entirely, they fall short. If one has their sin removed, then God does reward good deeds.

Atheistextremist wrote:

As for hell's moral challenge, christians are told to love and forgive but it's not a recommendation they embrace. Most christians are comfortable with the thought that their mighty lord will kill/torture everyone in hell. It's his business, they contend. But they tacitly condone death and torture through acceptance of the doctrine of death and hell. I contend it's morally inconsistent for christians to worship a god who employs a hell. 

I have no problem with it in light of God's holiness. I'm thankful that I am not counted among the one's who are condemned -- this is because God's love was demonstrated in the person of Jesus.

Atheistextremist wrote:

So - what about you, Wows? I know you have a particular interpretation of parts of the bible and reject hell. Do you believe non christians simply die? And yet again, Wows, what did jesus save you from with his 'work' on the cross? Are you saved from sin or will god just give you a set of eternal telomeres?

Jesus saved me from death and sin leads to death. If one says "saved from sin"and "saved from death are saying the same thing.

I believe most will die, and those that have died (including non-believers) will be resurrected again before they are judged. The ones who are not among the believers will be condemned to die yet the others will be allowed to enter into eternal life.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5094
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Ok, Wows.

 

 

Ultimately at the conclusion of judgment day, your lord will be required to murder all the unbelievers/dhimmis/infidels/atheists in cold blood and you don't care about them but are simply thankful jesus saved you. Thanks for confirming that. 

I would never worship any contrived deity that threatened to torture and kill you, Wows. P'raps I'm just not morally inconsistent enough to deactivate my empathy when faced with personal threat. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
And there will be

And there will be zombies.

One question though, have enough people been born and died yet to overflow off the edge of this flat earth? Hows that going to work if this happens in another 50 years or so?

I could make it work with some made up stuff but I'd rather hear some homemade shit from a theist.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Ultimately at the conclusion of judgment day, your lord will be required to murder all the unbelievers/dhimmis/infidels/atheists in cold blood and you don't care about them but are simply thankful jesus saved you. Thanks for confirming that. 

I would never worship any contrived deity that threatened to torture and kill you, Wows. P'raps I'm just not morally inconsistent enough to deactivate my empathy when faced with personal threat. 

Calling it "murder" doesn't make it murder no matter how you spin it.

I don't feel any more threatened by God than I do by the government who passes laws which have penalties of I break them. I'm being very consistent in my application of this. If you feel "threatened" by God, you should should feel "threatened" by governments too. Otherwise, you'd be inconsistent.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5094
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Ball, Wowser.

 

It is murder, it's not justice by any normal measure. You are special pleading an act that is clearly immoral even by imperfect human standards. Does god have his own standards for killing whoever he disagrees with?

There's no spin on this whatever. In the bible it says thou shalt not kill. You are saying something different, aren't you, Mr Inconsistent. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:It is

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

It is murder, it's not justice by any normal measure. You are special pleading an act that is clearly immoral even by imperfect human standards. Does god have his own standards for killing whoever he disagrees with?

There's no spin on this whatever. In the bible it says thou shalt not kill. You are saying something different, aren't you, Mr Inconsistent. 

Okay... what exactly constitutes murder then?

And you still haven't explained how you would feel threatened by God but not threatened by governments.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5094
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I don't feel threatened by

Wowzers1 wrote:

And you still haven't explained how you would feel threatened by God but not threatened by governments.

 

some governments all the time but you'd be silly not to see they are all dangerous given sufficient motive. But god is not a government existing in this space time. He has not communicated with me. 

Instead men have told me that they know god exists and if I do not agree with them god will murder me for some arbitrary intrinsic wrong linked to the garden of eden or whatever other sin you happen to believe in. 

So, Wows. While, there is no god, you believe he is justified in killing me if I don't believe in his invisible, improbable, subjective self, and you accept this for reasons of your own - to facilitate your own escape from mortality, no doubt.  

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5094
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Murder is

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

It is murder, it's not justice by any normal measure. You are special pleading an act that is clearly immoral even by imperfect human standards. Does god have his own standards for killing whoever he disagrees with?

There's no spin on this whatever. In the bible it says thou shalt not kill. You are saying something different, aren't you, Mr Inconsistent. 

Okay... what exactly constitutes murder then?

 

unlawful killing and by any measure we know of, killing some one for not believing you exist, when you do not obviously exist, is unlawful killing. The central issue, however, is that you are reconciled to killing so long as you can rationalise it away as 'morally' justified. I wonder, if god asked you on the day, would you do some of the killing? 

Why not read the UN Charter of Human Rights below. Ask yourself if your concept of god is in breach of it...pay special attention to articles 5, 18, 19 and 30...

And if, as I am sure you will, you choose to claim god is above human morality, please explain how it is that you know this, what supernatural moral laws you are applying to comprehend why it is that god can kill but we should not? What is your frame of reference?

 

 

 

^ Top

Article 1.

  • All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

^ Top

Article 2.

  • Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

^ Top

Article 3.

  • Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

^ Top

Article 4.

  • No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

^ Top

Article 5.

  • No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

^ Top

Article 6.

  • Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

^ Top

Article 7.

  • All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

^ Top

Article 8.

  • Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

^ Top

Article 9.

  • No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

^ Top

Article 10.

  • Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

^ Top

Article 11.

  • (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
  • (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

^ Top

Article 12.

  • No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

^ Top

Article 13.

  • (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
  • (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

^ Top

Article 14.

  • (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
  • (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

^ Top

Article 15.

  • (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
  • (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

^ Top

Article 16.

  • (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
  • (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
  • (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

^ Top

Article 17.

  • (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
  • (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

^ Top

Article 18.

  • Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

^ Top

Article 19.

  • Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

^ Top

Article 20.

  • (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
  • (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

^ Top

Article 21.

  • (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
  • (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
  • (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

^ Top

Article 22.

  • Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

^ Top

Article 23.

  • (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
  • (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
  • (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
  • (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

^ Top

Article 24.

  • Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

^ Top

Article 25.

  • (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
  • (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

^ Top

Article 26.

  • (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
  • (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
  • (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

^ Top

Article 27.

  • (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
  • (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

^ Top

Article 28.

  • Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

^ Top

Article 29.

  • (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
  • (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
  • (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

^ Top

Article 30.

  • Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

It is murder, it's not justice by any normal measure. You are special pleading an act that is clearly immoral even by imperfect human standards. Does god have his own standards for killing whoever he disagrees with?

There's no spin on this whatever. In the bible it says thou shalt not kill. You are saying something different, aren't you, Mr Inconsistent. 

Okay... what exactly constitutes murder then?

Way to dodge, you fucking apologist con artists.

Your imaginary daddy says 'thou shall not murder', and then commands people to murder.

 

Checkmate.

Case closed.

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 some governments all the time but you'd be silly not to see they are all dangerous given sufficient motive. But god is not a government existing in this space time. He has not communicated with me. 

Instead men have told me that they know god exists and if I do not agree with them god will murder me for some arbitrary intrinsic wrong linked to the garden of eden or whatever other sin you happen to believe in. 

So, Wows. While, there is no god, you believe he is justified in killing me if I don't in his invisible, improbable, subjective self, for reasons of your own - to facilitate your own escape from mortality, no doubt.  

 

You did not define murder.

Nor did you explain why you don't feel threatened by government. All you did is give reason why you don't feel threatened by God -- namely because you don't believe that God exists, but that's a given in the fact that you're an atheist.

I don't feel "escaped" from morality, but all the more compelled to live morally by the example God gave us in the person of Christ. I'm not under threat or feel that I have to do something to earn recompense for something I did wrong.

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:I don't feel

Wowzers1 wrote:

I don't feel "escaped" from morality, but all the more compelled to live morally by the example God gave us ...

Non sequitur.

Special pleading.

 

The Christian god is not moral, but immoral.

He's a psychopathic rageaholic.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5094
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 some governments all the time but you'd be silly not to see they are all dangerous given sufficient motive. But god is not a government existing in this space time. He has not communicated with me. 

Instead men have told me that they know god exists and if I do not agree with them god will murder me for some arbitrary intrinsic wrong linked to the garden of eden or whatever other sin you happen to believe in. 

So, Wows. While, there is no god, you believe he is justified in killing me if I don't in his invisible, improbable, subjective self, for reasons of your own - to facilitate your own escape from mortality, no doubt.  

 

You did not define murder.

Nor did you explain why you don't feel threatened by government. All you did is give reason why you don't feel threatened by God -- namely because you don't believe that God exists, but that's a given in the fact that you're an atheist.

I don't feel "escaped" from morality, but all the more compelled to live morally by the example God gave us in the person of Christ. I'm not under threat or feel that I have to do something to earn recompense for something I did wrong.

 

 

I've already said murder is unlawful killing. As for fear of governments, well, yes, I do feel threatened by the governments of China, Japan, Indonesia, Russia, Saudi Arabia and many, many others. These governments have arbitrary interpretations of the rule of law based on fun things like a literal interpretation of religion, or corruption. I am fairly ok with the governments of Australia and NZ. All the others, including the U.S., I reserve judgment on. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5094
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Christ's example

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 some governments all the time but you'd be silly not to see they are all dangerous given sufficient motive. But god is not a government existing in this space time. He has not communicated with me. 

Instead men have told me that they know god exists and if I do not agree with them god will murder me for some arbitrary intrinsic wrong linked to the garden of eden or whatever other sin you happen to believe in. 

So, Wows. While, there is no god, you believe he is justified in killing me if I don't in his invisible, improbable, subjective self, for reasons of your own - to facilitate your own escape from mortality, no doubt.  

 

You did not define murder.

Nor did you explain why you don't feel threatened by government. All you did is give reason why you don't feel threatened by God -- namely because you don't believe that God exists, but that's a given in the fact that you're an atheist.

I don't feel "escaped" from morality, but all the more compelled to live morally by the example God gave us in the person of Christ. I'm not under threat or feel that I have to do something to earn recompense for something I did wrong.

 

 

Did christ use murder of dissenting voices as part of his ministry? Aside from the swine and the fruit tree he struck dead, I can't think of any other killing jesus did as part of his moral instruction... 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:I've

Atheistextremist wrote:

I've already said murder is unlawful killing. 

Under the framework I gave concerning God's holiness and one sin be sub-par to this, it is not unlawful, so it does not fit your definition of murder.

Atheistextremist wrote:

As for fear of governments, well, yes, I do feel threatened by the governments of China, Japan, Indonesia, Russia, Saudi Arabia and many, many others. These governments have arbitrary interpretations of the rule of law based on fun things like a literal interpretation of religion, or corruption. I am fairly ok with the governments of Australia and NZ. All the others, including the U.S., I reserve judgment on. 

At least you're consistent then on fearing governments. But concerning God, there is no arbitrariness there. If you feel threatened because of the arbitrariness, then your feeling is unfounded.

But like I said, I do not feel anymore threatened by the government than I do God. At least I know by my own intuition where I stand with God.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5094
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I guess this is the crux of it.

Wowzers1 wrote:

 

At least I know by my own intuition where I stand with God.

 

 

You know by your own intuition. How do you know? Do you feel better? Are you simply convinced? Do you call the feeling of being in control, god? You obviously can't be detecting any of this using your material senses?

Additionally, on judgment day, would you kill if god expressly asked you to? I ask because I think you will say no and I want to know why you would not kill sinners you think deserve to die. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote: But

Wowzers1 wrote:
But concerning God, there is no arbitrariness there.

Not in your eyes...

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5094
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Let's not bother

Wowzers1 wrote:

 

Under the framework I gave concerning God's holiness and one sin be sub-par to this, it is not unlawful, so it does not fit your definition of murder.

 

 

going any further into this Wows, but a one-sin ticket to death? Really? This is just as silly and unfounded an assertion as original sin. By the bible's definition of sin, our very existence is a sin, our attempt to survive in a hostile world an outrage to the god who created it. It makes no sense whatever unless you really, really want it to. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:Did

Atheistextremist wrote:

Did christ use murder of dissenting voices as part of his ministry? Aside from the swine and the fruit tree he struck dead, I can't think of any other killing jesus did as part of his moral instruction...  

Jesus was threatened by death because he was a dissenter. The legalism that had been propped up. But being a dissenter does imply that one is right... one could be dissenting for reasons contrary to what is right.

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5094
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
What I meant

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Did christ use murder of dissenting voices as part of his ministry? Aside from the swine and the fruit tree he struck dead, I can't think of any other killing jesus did as part of his moral instruction...  

Jesus was threatened by death because he was a dissenter. The legalism that had been propped up. But being a dissenter does imply that one is right... one could be dissenting for reasons contrary to what is right.

 

 

was that christ's ministry was not one that used violent bashings and murder as an educational tool to leverage the dubious masses. Admittedly jesus did dress down the empiricist Thomas in a most undignified manner but he didn't attempt to slay him for his doubts.

I always had trouble reconciling the furious war god of the old testament with the social revolutionary in (parts of) the new. How about you?

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:going

Atheistextremist wrote:
going any further into this Wows, but a one-sin ticket to death? Really? This is just as silly and unfounded an assertion as original sin. By the bible's definition of sin, our very existence is a sin, our attempt to survive in a hostile world an outrage to the god who created it. It makes no sense whatever unless you really, really want it to. 

Silly and unfounded in what respect? Because of original sin? And who is affirming Original Sin? (I'm assuming you're talking about Augustinian Original Sin). But that aside, I do not have to postulate original sin to get that all men are sinners. And what does  God creating man and the world have anything to do with it?

 

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5094
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Groan

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
going any further into this Wows, but a one-sin ticket to death? Really? This is just as silly and unfounded an assertion as original sin. By the bible's definition of sin, our very existence is a sin, our attempt to survive in a hostile world an outrage to the god who created it. It makes no sense whatever unless you really, really want it to. 

Silly and unfounded in what respect? Because of original sin? And who is affirming Original Sin? (I'm assuming you're talking about Augustinian Original Sin). But that aside, I do not have to postulate original sin to get that all men are sinners. And what does  God creating man and the world have anything to do with it?

I think the belief one sin equals death is just as silly as the concept of original sin/the garden of eden you say you don't believe in.

Wows, your definition of sin is so profound, your insistence a single sin earns death so impossible to avoid, that to be born is to be assured of being in sin, to live a life is to sin, to cause god to wish you dead.

This sounds very close to original sin to me. In any case, it's silly and unfounded. Feel free to prove the wages of sin is death anytime you like using acutal evidence.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
 Would a superbeing even

 

Would a superbeing even make up this concept of sin? The whole thing is stupid and could only be fully believed by a mind weakend by self inflicted ignorance.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: It

Atheistextremist wrote:

 It makes no sense whatever unless you really, really want it to. 

What it always boils down to.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5094
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
And Wows

Atheistextremist wrote:

Additionally, on judgment day, would you kill if god expressly asked you to? I ask because I think you will say no and I want to know why you would not kill sinners you think deserve to die. 

 

Could you answer this one for me?

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:This

Atheistextremist wrote:
This sounds very close to original sin to me. In any case, it's silly and unfounded. Feel free to prove the wages of sin is death anytime you like using acutal evidence.

Original sin suggests that people inherit sin from their parents...

Actual evidence? Jesus' death is the evidence for the matter. Otherwise, why did Jesus die?

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:
Additionally, on judgment day, would you kill if god expressly asked you to? I ask because I think you will say no and I want to know why you would not kill sinners you think deserve to die.

Does one hold the executioner accountable as a "killer" when performing capital punishment? If I did, what difference would it make? The instrument of judgment is really not the issue, and I think this is a red herring.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:You

Atheistextremist wrote:

You know by your own intuition. How do you know? Do you feel better? Are you simply convinced? Do you call the feeling of being in control, god? You obviously can't be detecting any of this using your material senses?

Do you know that you are sinner or not? That's the issue.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5094
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
No, it's not a form of fish

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
Additionally, on judgment day, would you kill if god expressly asked you to? I ask because I think you will say no and I want to know why you would not kill sinners you think deserve to die.

Does one hold the executioner accountable as a "killer" when performing capital punishment? If I did, what difference would it make? The instrument of judgment is really not the issue, and I think this is a red herring.

 

I simply think your moral standards would not allow you to kill in cold blood - same as mine. And I wonder why you think something that's morally wrong for you is morally right for god.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5094
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Let me say it another way, then.

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
This sounds very close to original sin to me. In any case, it's silly and unfounded. Feel free to prove the wages of sin is death anytime you like using acutal evidence.

Original sin suggests that people inherit sin from their parents...

Actual evidence? Jesus' death is the evidence for the matter. Otherwise, why did Jesus die?

 

 

It's clear men are incapable of living without sin. They were destined to sin as the sparks fly upward. Do you think it's possible for humans to not sin? To be devoid of lust, anger, moments of hate? Dead people, maybe. But not living. Humans are designed to sin. Call this a birthright or not.

As for jesus dying being proof of the wages of sin being death, this is another issue altogether. Personally, I'm not convinced jesus lived, let alone died on the cross and rose again on the third day. I don't see how the mythology can prove the mythology. The NT is a polluted source and almost entirely unsupported outside itself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:I

Atheistextremist wrote:

I simply think your moral standards would not allow you to kill in cold blood - same as mine. And I wonder why you think something that's morally wrong for you is morally right for god.

I would not kill in cold blood... but you're assuming that it is, and I'm not. It still does not answer the question about an executioner accountable as a "killer" when performing capital punishment though.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 It's clear men are incapable of living without sin. They were destined to sin as the sparks fly upward. Do you think it's possible for humans to not sin? To be devoid of lust, anger, moments of hate? Dead people, maybe. But not living. Humans are designed to sin. Call this a birthright or not.

As for jesus dying being proof of the wages of sin being death, this is another issue altogether. Personally, I'm not convinced jesus lived, let alone died on the cross and rose again on the third day. I don't see how the mythology can prove the mythology. The NT is a polluted source and almost entirely unsupported outside itself.

 

Do I think it is possible for human's to live without sin? I don't think so... But I don't need a doctrine of original sin to establish that all men are sinners, that's all I'm getting at.

But your problem then is not with evidence, but with the quality of the evidence that exists.


 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5094
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
No I would not kill

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

I simply think your moral standards would not allow you to kill in cold blood - same as mine. And I wonder why you think something that's morally wrong for you is morally right for god.

I would not kill in cold blood... but you're assuming that it is, and I'm not. It still does not answer the question about an executioner accountable as a "killer" when performing capital punishment though.

 

as an executioner nor would I want to be around some one who took a human life outside of justifiable self defense of their own or another's life. Of course, I fish spiders out of the toilet so that's no great surprise.  

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 It's clear men are incapable of living without sin. They were destined to sin as the sparks fly upward. Do you think it's possible for humans to not sin? To be devoid of lust, anger, moments of hate? Dead people, maybe. But not living. Humans are designed to sin. Call this a birthright or not.

As for jesus dying being proof of the wages of sin being death, this is another issue altogether. Personally, I'm not convinced jesus lived, let alone died on the cross and rose again on the third day. I don't see how the mythology can prove the mythology. The NT is a polluted source and almost entirely unsupported outside itself.

 

Do I think it is possible for human's to live without sin? I don't think so... But I don't need a doctrine of original sin to establish that all men are sinners, that's all I'm getting at.

But your problem then is not with evidence, but with the quality of the evidence that exists.


 

 

Handy that your definition of sin happens to encompass the entire human race and qualifies everyone as a sinner. Very convenient, but there is so much about religion that is convenient.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5094
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
My core issue

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 It's clear men are incapable of living without sin. They were destined to sin as the sparks fly upward. Do you think it's possible for humans to not sin? To be devoid of lust, anger, moments of hate? Dead people, maybe. But not living. Humans are designed to sin. Call this a birthright or not.

As for jesus dying being proof of the wages of sin being death, this is another issue altogether. Personally, I'm not convinced jesus lived, let alone died on the cross and rose again on the third day. I don't see how the mythology can prove the mythology. The NT is a polluted source and almost entirely unsupported outside itself.

 

Do I think it is possible for human's to live without sin? I don't think so... But I don't need a doctrine of original sin to establish that all men are sinners, that's all I'm getting at.

But your problem then is not with evidence, but with the quality of the evidence that exists.

 

 

 

with original sin, aside from the silly symbolism of the garden of eden, is that it proffers a non existent free will and expects pre-apple Eve to comprehend the nature of right and wrong, to comprehend the repercussions of disobedience, a word she would have had no understanding of as a complete innocent. 

People with sex drives and internal defense mechanisms and competitive urges operating in support of their own loved ones in search of scarce resources in life and death scenarios are not free to act as they would like. We are torn in multiple directions by layers of cognition and instinct. It's only in the prefrontal cortex that we start driveling about universal morality as if something that is possible to loosely and momentarily conceive should be the governing standard for all human behaviour on pain of death.

The nature of life in this place has not shaped us for universal altruism, nor has it shaped any other form of life in this way, nor could it. I can't but feel the central tenets of original sin, or unavoidable sin, constitute a lie, a manipulation of the human urge to make sacrifices for those we are closest to while struggling to survive in a world that is hostile to all life. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Handy that

robj101 wrote:

Handy that your definition of sin happens to encompass the entire human race and qualifies everyone as a sinner. Very convenient, but there is so much about religion that is convenient.

What does something being "convenient" have to do with anything? It does not change facts.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:as an

Atheistextremist wrote:

as an executioner nor would I want to be around some one who took a human life outside of justifiable self defense of their own or another's life. Of course, I fish spiders out of the toilet so that's no great surprise.  

You're dodging the issue though...

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:robj101

Wowzers1 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Handy that your definition of sin happens to encompass the entire human race and qualifies everyone as a sinner. Very convenient, but there is so much about religion that is convenient.

What does something being "convenient" have to do with anything? It does not change facts.

Now sin is a fact, how convenient.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5094
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
An executioner is

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

as an executioner nor would I want to be around some one who took a human life outside of justifiable self defense of their own or another's life. Of course, I fish spiders out of the toilet so that's no great surprise.  

You're dodging the issue though...

 

a killer. And thou shalt not kill. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:with

Atheistextremist wrote:


with original sin, aside from the silly symbolism of the garden of eden, is that it proffers a non existent free will and expects pre-apple Eve to comprehend the nature of right and wrong, to comprehend the repercussions of disobedience, a word she would have had no understanding of as a complete innocent. 

People with sex drives and internal defense mechanisms and competitive urges operating in support of their own loved ones in search of scarce resources in life and death scenarios are not free to act as they would like. We are torn in multiple directions by layers of cognition and instinct. It's only in the prefrontal cortex that we start driveling about universal morality as if something that is possible to loosely and momentarily conceive should be the governing standard for all human behaviour on pain of death.

The nature of life in this place has not shaped us for universal altruism, nor has it shaped any other form of life in this way, nor could it. I can't but feel the central tenets of original sin, or unavoidable sin, constitute a lie, a manipulation of the human urge to make sacrifices for those they are closest to while struggling to survive in a world that is hostile to all life. 

I grant that this world is hostile and ae all make decisions -- good, bad, or indifferent -- to survive and have to live with the consequences. I don't think that makes every decision justified though.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5094
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Agreed, Wows.

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

with original sin, aside from the silly symbolism of the garden of eden, is that it proffers a non existent free will and expects pre-apple Eve to comprehend the nature of right and wrong, to comprehend the repercussions of disobedience, a word she would have had no understanding of as a complete innocent. 

People with sex drives and internal defense mechanisms and competitive urges operating in support of their own loved ones in search of scarce resources in life and death scenarios are not free to act as they would like. We are torn in multiple directions by layers of cognition and instinct. It's only in the prefrontal cortex that we start driveling about universal morality as if something that is possible to loosely and momentarily conceive should be the governing standard for all human behaviour on pain of death.

The nature of life in this place has not shaped us for universal altruism, nor has it shaped any other form of life in this way, nor could it. I can't but feel the central tenets of original sin, or unavoidable sin, constitute a lie, a manipulation of the human urge to make sacrifices for those they are closest to while struggling to survive in a world that is hostile to all life. 

I grant that this world is hostile and ae all make decisions -- good, bad, or indifferent -- to survive and have to live with the consequences. I don't think that makes every decision justified though.

 

but it's hard not to feel that 'good' in a hostile competitive world peopled by humans with limited cognitive capacity must always be subjective and biased towards in-group self interest.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:a

Atheistextremist wrote:

a killer. And thou shalt not kill. 

I see...

I think the actual command is "thou shalt now murder". Hebrew has a particular word for this as in premeditated killing, provoked killing, or manslaughter by and animal or a person.

 

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal