The Bible

Aa
Not true, it has happened and the result is the one I stated. Millions of people (all the ones who were eligible) went to pension at the expense of the next generations. Most of them are Christians.


No only they took this unfair deal but they went on strike when a new government had to end this eden.


You can repeat the experiment a thousand times and you will get the same results.


But if they never do it when it matters then what's the point? At least atheists are honest at saying they only care about themselves.
Actually, I think you are completely wrong to say atheists only care about themselves. I care about my family, my neighbours, my country, future generations. I don't need the threat of reward or retribution from some imaginary being to do so.
 
Yeah but, that sounds a bit like calling me a racist .
Whereas in reality, humanism is the antithesis of racism.

Or to precis the Dalai Lama:

Our prime purpose in life is to help others, and if you can't help them at least don't hurt them
You don't need the imaginary friend bollocks, ancient rules about living in a desert with oxen and donkeys, and a doomsday death cult to do that.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted 154930

Guest
Life is about sacrifice, without sacrifice you can hardly call yourself a good person. So, I agree an atheist could be a far better person than a Christian or Muslim. But, Religion is useful for controlling impulse and acting as a check, because none of us are perfect.
 
Life is about sacrifice, without sacrifice you can hardly call yourself a good person. So, I agree an atheist could be a far better person than a Christian or Muslim. But, Religion is useful for controlling impulse and acting as a check, because none of us are perfect.
My take on religion that the point of it is to decrease that sense of self - our self centredness - which in turn makes us happier. People with big egos normally have big problems; small ego equals a happier and more peaceful life. From a paradoxically selfish point of view, thinking of others is a lot better than being self obsessed. There's even a lot of 'power' in doing stuff for others. A good example is cooking; if I'm cooking for myself, I'll not really bother. It's only me. But if I'm cooking for others, I'll put a lot more effort into it. Same goes for every other area of my life.

And one of the ways (maybe the only way?) to decrease the sense of self is be of service/help/use to others. Which may involve a sacrifice of your time, energy, or cash.

This is how alkies recover in 12 Step programs. At Step 4 the program starts turning your mind towards others and the program is heavily weighted on helping other alcoholics.

Of course, you don't need to be religious to understand or do this kind of thing.
 
D

Deleted 154930

Guest
My take on religion that the point of it is to decrease that sense of self - our self centredness - which in turn makes us happier. People with big egos normally have big problems; small ego equals a happier and more peaceful life. From a paradoxically selfish point of view, thinking of others is a lot better than being self obsessed. There's even a lot of 'power' in doing stuff for others. A good example is cooking; if I'm cooking for myself, I'll not really bother. It's only me. But if I'm cooking for others, I'll put a lot more effort into it. Same goes for every other area of my life.

And one of the ways (maybe the only way?) to decrease the sense of self is be of service/help/use to others. Which may involve a sacrifice of your time, energy, or cash.

This is how alkies recover in 12 Step programs. At Step 4 the program starts turning your mind towards others and the program is heavily weighted on helping other alcoholics.

Of course, you don't need to be religious to understand or do this kind of thing.
One has to be careful, the sense of self should not be allowed to detach itself from the world we live in. Its a common error, I found to my own cost and seen it others.

Speak the truth as you see it, then your not lying to yourself and pretending to be someone else.
 
One has to be careful, the sense of self should not be allowed to detach itself from the world we live in. Its a common error, I found to my own cost and seen it others.

Speak the truth as you see it, then your not lying to yourself and pretending to be someone else.
I reckon we're talking about different things.

I'm talking about that self-importance humans can have, of the self centred variety. The one that worries about what other people think of us. The one that doesn't allow us to admit we were wrong; that justifies our bad-behavior and blames others.

The one that tells us that our happiness is more important than anyone else's and paradoxically ends up with us being miserable because of it.
 
D

Deleted 154930

Guest
I reckon we're talking about different things.

I'm talking about that self-importance humans can have, of the self centred variety. The one that worries about what other people think of us. The one that doesn't allow us to admit we were wrong; that justifies our bad-behavior and blames others.

The one that tells us that our happiness is more important than anyone else's and paradoxically ends up with us being miserable because of it.
I agree with pretty much everything you say, the superego controls the mad imperial ideas of our ego. My own spin, is truth is almost important as sacrifice.

Because truth is who you are. The biggest lies are the ones we tell ourselves
 
Life is about sacrifice, without sacrifice you can hardly call yourself a good person. So, I agree an atheist could be a far better person than a Christian or Muslim. But, Religion is useful for controlling impulse and acting as a check, because none of us are perfect.
In the nicest way possible, I find that to be absolute prairie-shit.
 
I agree with pretty much everything you say, the superego controls the mad imperial ideas of our ego. My own spin, is truth is almost important as sacrifice.

Because truth is who you are. The biggest lies are the ones we tell ourselves
You've obviously thought deeply about this.

And come up with utter bollocks.
 
Whereas in reality, humanism is the antithesis of racism.

Or to precis the Dalai Lama:



You don't need the imaginary friend bollocks, ancient rules about living in a desert with oxen and donkeys, and a doomsday death cult to do that.
Yeah, I know what humanism is, did you spot the smiley, I was just making a weak linguistic jest that if a racist discriminates against a race, a humanist might discriminate against humans. And for the record, 100% humanist according to that poll, I just don't look for labels.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm. 44% Humanist.
But I found that test to be rigged in the way the questions were posed and like most tests was about the tester more than the tested.
Most questions didn't give me the chance of what I would have given as a true answer.
But then I don't have religion, I am more on the lines of philosophy as say Plato would have gone along with.

BTW as a point this thread is meant to be a reasonably serious discussion about the Bible and related issues. Insults* shouldn't form a part of this as the believers have a stance that has meaning for them and their lives and should be discussed respecting that.
Personally in a serious discussion I find the terms 'invisible/imaginary friend', 'sky pixies' and the like to be insulting in this context. What is perceived reality for one person isn't the same for the next. I also consider that the user of the term is belittling himself in that he is unwilling to debate on serious terms, and that he also cannot simply use another term that gives respect to the believer in this particular debate.
Rant over.

*Higgs Bosun apart because he doesn't know any other way to participate bless him.
 

StBob072

LE
Book Reviewer
Hmmm. 44% Humanist.
But I found that test to be rigged in the way the questions were posed and like most tests was about the tester more than the tested.
Most questions didn't give me the chance of what I would have given as a true answer.


.
Indeed, most of these tests are bollocks. I came out at 100% without trying to second-guess what the "humanist answer" should be, and I'm somewhat surprised to find others have come out with a wildly different score.
 

smeg-head

ADC
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Hmmm. 44% Humanist.
But I found that test to be rigged in the way the questions were posed and like most tests was about the tester more than the tested.
Most questions didn't give me the chance of what I would have given as a true answer.
But then I don't have religion, I am more on the lines of philosophy as say Plato would have gone along with.

BTW as a point this thread is meant to be a reasonably serious discussion about the Bible and related issues. Insults* shouldn't form a part of this as the believers have a stance that has meaning for them and their lives and should be discussed respecting that.
Personally in a serious discussion I find the terms 'invisible/imaginary friend', 'sky pixies' and the like to be insulting in this context. What is perceived reality for one person isn't the same for the next. I also consider that the user of the term is belittling himself in that he is unwilling to debate on serious terms, and that he also cannot simply use another term that gives respect to the believer in this particular debate.
Rant over.

*Higgs Bosun apart because he doesn't know any other way to participate bless him.
Totally agree with you. One man's meat is another man's poison. Why should someone be ridiculed for, what is essentially, a way of life for them? I am a believer for the simple reason that without a belief in an afterlife, what alternative is there? One doesn't have to go out spreading the good word or doing good deeds. If you feel right in yourself, then you are living a good life.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top