Atheism

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position" That is gold - thanks Ed.

Thanks, for that, edgarblythe! Nice...

Atheism is a range of sex positions. That's the main point of it.

The philosophical aspects are simply comfort zones for psuedo-intellectuals.

Don't always drop a turd in the pool, spendi. It doesn't impress.

I'm not trying to impress ed.

Calling what I said a "turd" is not an argument. It's in lieu of an argument. Are you not up for saying that Christian sexual morality is ridiculous? Or evil even?

It wasn't invented because it was "right" or any other such silliness. It was invented for pragmatic considerations of the first order. You'll be telling us next that monogamy is a natural state. The two turtle doves in a pear (pair) tree idea.

Capitalism without Christian morality!!!! Dream on.

The old scattergun presentation, hey? I don't know if you think you are bringing something to the table or merely splattering **** through a fan. At any rate, none of it is a refutation of evolution.

Apparently Spendius is still of the opinion that the reason we have "sexual morality"...has something to do with Christianity, Edgar.

And he seems to think that the only reason non-theists display any sort of "sexual morality" is because they poach from the Christians.

Isn't that weird?

I suspect it is some sort of projection.

I didn't say it was ed. But evolution is not the whole story unless you count social evolution as well. And you can't do that because you would have to claim that Christianity has been a failure and extoll the virtues and conveniences of what went before. How could you admit that Christianity has been a success? You would be undermining a successful operation I think. Putting a spanner into the works.

And not telling the whole story is an indoctrination technique.



I'm used to that trick. It's water off a duck's back to me. Same with "turds", "**** in the fan", "I'm projecting", "weird" and all the other drivel which attempts to win an argument by citing its own assertion.

firefly did a slightly more literary version the other day. If I am what she asserted I am then it logically follows that I haven't got a leg to stand on. That's the idea. It does assume a stupid audience of course.

Because I can say it all back with extra emphasis it doesn't take long to get into the "Yes you are--no I'm not"--you jolly well are--I jolly well am not--you ******* are--no I am not--Are- Not- sticks out tongue and goes mmnaaarh!!!!!"

It's why there are single sex schools.

Christianity is not necessarily a total failure. In its present form it comforts some and a few even see a moral code to follow, by selective reading. But any religious system can do that. They latch on to hopes and fears and integrate with religious ceremony and think they have found undying truth. Sure, morality, such as it is practiced by many of us, had to have evolved to the present state. But it's a thin veneer because it has not been able to overcome the negatives in our nature as yet.

And it never will, because human nature as it is not moral. Why do all soldiers, no matter what religion, pray to their god when they are at war to win? That also means the slaughter of many innocent people who had nothing to do with the political decisions made by their heads of state.

That's a bit wobbly ed. And I never mentioned other religions.

I think Christianity has been a great success. Especially for the poor. And it is not halfway into its mission.

If you cannot accept that the Christian message regarding sexual activity was pragmatic first and only became moral to help to try make it stick afterwards then you are deluded.

Actually, Edgar...

...by his definition, anyone who does not agree with what Spendius pontificates, is delusional.

Helping the poor is not based only on christianity. You have myopia when it comes down to your own religion. You need to study other religions and cultures to really understand human behavior.



Ask yourself; what advantages or disadvantages have religion wrought upon any culture?

spendi, why don't you spell out the Christian message regarding sexual activity so that I can compare to my own thought in the matter?

I'm aware of that. But it's a question of emphasis in a collective.



I have no religion. You have myopia regarding your irreligion. It is because I don't have myopia that I defend Christianity. I see it objectively. My interests are neither here nor there. I don't confuse the carnal with the intellectual. #



Is that a modest way of saying that you are up to speed on other religions and cultures and human behaviour? I think you are in the cradle on all three. You couldn't read one page of Spengler with comprehension.

Anybody who has studied those things would be very wary of mounting a superficial attack on any aspect of them.

From an American historian I learned that the population of North America in the 17th century reacted to death with a shrug of the shoulders. Even that of close relatives. A far cry from Boston last week.

In South America at that time it was considered of the highest moral virtue to capture people for the sole purpose of sacrificing them to the God/s.

The only reason the Romans made doles of free grain was because the 1% who made the doles were faced with the alternative of the 99% starving which was, in those days, a very sticky prospect.

What's the difference, psychologically, between a logo of a fierce beast of prey and having a few shrunken heads hanging off the breech cloth.

Those who chose "dolphins" for the Miami NFL team must have considered sharks. The 49ers and the Steelers have the best names.

What happened to "dragons"? "It's a bit OTT Sophie!"

The study of human behaviour might look at the names of NFL teams and compare them with the names of our football teams to some advantage. Or the kit the players wear. Or an analysis of the words used in commentaries and the tone of voice applied to them.

You could compare the physical requirements of NFL players with those of our footballers and speculate on the relative propensity for assertions.

What have you got in mind for the term "human behaviour"? What do you mean by "understand"?

Your quote is pointless because it doesn't take us anywhere except maybe teaching us that certain formulations of words are the way to get on in life.

What we need are explanations of how to do the things we are recommended to do rather than just saying we need to do them. As I gave a little example of in my last post.

Why do you think ladies' fashions change from season to season? That's a pronounced aspect of human behaviour. So much so that it may well be biological in origin.



The Christian religion, which is what it is accepted that atheism addresses, has had profound advantages despite all the difficulties which it has had to overcome to prosper.

Do you want the US to become an atheist country? If you do that's fair enough as long as you explain what we get just as Obarmy had to try to explain what we get with Obarmycare. If you don't it makes sense to cease promoting the belief.

If you will say which it is we could maybe have a debate instead of going around in circles year after year.

So--will promoters of atheism on this thread sign up for one side or the other. Do you want an atheist society or not. It is fatuous to say that it won't happen.

I couldn't do the subject justice without trying your patience and taste beyond their limits. You must know the broad outlines. What's banned on TV is a rough guide.

spendi, You really don't know your bible, do you? Here's a clue about sex in the bible.
http://www.cracked.com/article_16546_the-6-raunchiest-most-depraved-sex-acts-from-bible.html

Christianity came later in an attempt, now bogged down, to address those sorts of things.

Cardinals smirk when US Bible pushers are mentioned.

US cardinals too~? LOL