The Religion Discussion

[MG Man]

all you asshats

[Habit7]

^^^why being a sceptic of all religions would automatically make me arrive at atheism? Won't I be just as sceptical of atheism too?

[bluesclues]

all you asshats

lsurely im not a skeptic. i know exactly what im talking about. and it is as plain as day.

[nareshseep]

[nareshseep]

[York]

So what makes morality and kindness good over immorality and cruelty? Why should an atheist or any human be good over evil?

[Slartibartfast]

So what makes morality and kindness good over immorality and cruelty? Why should an atheist or any human be good over evil?

Basic survival. We can do more working together than working against each other. Also, there is no reason why one person deserves a chance at existence over another. This means that there is no reason why we should not all have an equal right to live freely.

Now, to derive what is morally right and wrong in an ideal and overly simplified way, the most morally right actions should produce the least net harm in a given situation. This means that you actions should not harm other or make the lives of others more difficult unless it is for the greater good. Of course this does not apply to self sacrificial acts of kindness since you should be free to exist or not exist however you want as long as it does not impose on others.

If you want you can give me examples of what you feel is moral, kind, immoral and cruel and I can illustrate what I mean using your examples.

[bluesclues]

So what makes morality and kindness good over immorality and cruelty? Why should an atheist or any human be good over evil?

Basic survival. We can do more working together than working against each other. Also, there is no reason why one person deserves a chance at existence over another. This means that there is no reason why we should not all have an equal right to live freely.

Now, to derive what is morally right and wrong in an ideal and overly simplified way, the most morally right actions should produce the least net harm in a given situation. This means that you actions should not harm other or make the lives of others more difficult unless it is for the greater good. Of course this does not apply to self sacrificial acts of kindness since you should be free to exist or not exist however you want as long as it does not impose on others.

If you want you can give me examples of what you feel is moral, kind, immoral and cruel and I can illustrate what I mean using your examples.

oh really. and what about the odd one(s) in the group. u working with them too or throwin them one side and making them feel like shyt?

U say these things, and at the end of the day, your kindness is truly selective no? if u had to split 1million dollars as a gift between your best friend and a strugglin stranger. wouldnt u give ur best friend more than half? answer honsetly. we looking at natural biases here, and why we were taught to put judgemental attitudes aside. basically instructed to be neutral and fair in all our dealings not just with humans, but also animals.

[nareshseep]

An example of a false dilemma case is presented. ^^

[nareshseep]

12250128_10153039210801511_518967041982815171_n.jpg (20.51 KiB) Viewed 1878 times

12250181_10153039210561511_5901610116731659541_n.jpg (27.56 KiB) Viewed 1878 times

[Slartibartfast]

So what makes morality and kindness good over immorality and cruelty? Why should an atheist or any human be good over evil?

Basic survival. We can do more working together than working against each other. Also, there is no reason why one person deserves a chance at existence over another. This means that there is no reason why we should not all have an equal right to live freely.

Now, to derive what is morally right and wrong in an ideal and overly simplified way, the most morally right actions should produce the least net harm in a given situation. This means that you actions should not harm other or make the lives of others more difficult unless it is for the greater good. Of course this does not apply to self sacrificial acts of kindness since you should be free to exist or not exist however you want as long as it does not impose on others.

If you want you can give me examples of what you feel is moral, kind, immoral and cruel and I can illustrate what I mean using your examples.

oh really. and what about the odd one(s) in the group. u working with them too or throwin them one side and making them feel like shyt?

U say these things, and at the end of the day, your kindness is truly selective no? if u had to split 1million dollars as a gift between your best friend and a strugglin stranger. wouldnt u give ur best friend more than half? answer honsetly. we looking at natural biases here, and why we were taught to put judgemental attitudes aside. basically instructed to be neutral and fair in all our dealings not just with humans, but also animals.

Let's just assume your entire argument is true, as unlikely as it is. What bearing does my actions have on what should be considered "kind" or "right"? I am not perfect and just like anyone else I am open to temptation.

[Habit7]

[MG Man]

^^^why being a sceptic of all religions would automatically make me arrive at atheism? Won't I be just as sceptical of atheism too?

you still don't understand what atheism is don't ya

[bluesclues]

So what makes morality and kindness good over immorality and cruelty? Why should an atheist or any human be good over evil?

Basic survival. We can do more working together than working against each other. Also, there is no reason why one person deserves a chance at existence over another. This means that there is no reason why we should not all have an equal right to live freely.

Now, to derive what is morally right and wrong in an ideal and overly simplified way, the most morally right actions should produce the least net harm in a given situation. This means that you actions should not harm other or make the lives of others more difficult unless it is for the greater good. Of course this does not apply to self sacrificial acts of kindness since you should be free to exist or not exist however you want as long as it does not impose on others.

If you want you can give me examples of what you feel is moral, kind, immoral and cruel and I can illustrate what I mean using your examples.

oh really. and what about the odd one(s) in the group. u working with them too or throwin them one side and making them feel like shyt?

U say these things, and at the end of the day, your kindness is truly selective no? if u had to split 1million dollars as a gift between your best friend and a strugglin stranger. wouldnt u give ur best friend more than half? answer honsetly. we looking at natural biases here, and why we were taught to put judgemental attitudes aside. basically instructed to be neutral and fair in all our dealings not just with humans, but also animals.

Let's just assume your entire argument is true, as unlikely as it is. What bearing does my actions have on what should be considered "kind" or "right"? I am not perfect and just like anyone else I am open to temptation.

we all are, i dont understand how u could fall into temptation when u dont believe in the God that warned about it. God doesnt exist but the temptation he warned about does? maybe i dont understand ur question?

i mean. what is primary? isnt yourself the primary? and everyone else comes after? until u include them into your self. meaning they will be privy to special treatment because of xyz. a friend could ask u for a cig u wont flinch. but a stranger on the street u might say go and pick up bottle u will get a cigarette. as far as i see humans are selective like that.

ugly girl vs pretty girl job application. ur male, ur the boss... who gets the job?

the truth is. atheist understanding and belief of what is right and what is wrong is selectively based on their philosophy and outlook on life. basically thats what everyone's philosophy does. it tries to act as a universal application to all the problems met in day to day life.

the thing with atheists is that, THEY HAVE NO ORGANISATION. one atheist can find one thing right while another finds it wrong. they have no standardisation. basically, each atheist's life philosophy is different. why? because he is trying to invent the perfect philosophy himself. there is no doubt that atheist philosophies can clash between 2 atheist individuals. at the end of the day though, a man's philosophy can only be beginner in the face of thousands of years of thinkers and evolution. trying to invent the wheel.

it is sure though, that the instruction set by jesus would create a perfect world... IF EVERYONE LISTENED. the problem is just not everyone listening. and that is what brings backlash.

when they say, dont commit adultery. they didnt say that just for so. they know man does get enraged by betrayal and the pain does leave ppl wanting to dead and do, drink lanate, or take it out on the woman and beat she to a frazzle(it works for keeping our children in line right?). sometimes chop she up etc. the philosophy born is neutral. do not commit adultery because it upsets people. and literally thats what we're about here.

man has to learn to do everything he wants to do without affecting another person in a negative way against their will. that is literally the first half of religious instruction. the next half is a total capsizing by learning the opposite and practicing it. affecting people in a positive way without their knowledge.

what is wrong with that philosophy? dont we all know kindness when we see it? just ask yourself, is what im about to do considered kindness? and if the answer is not a resounding YES then it most likely not kind. how hard is that. what is right was measured by one of the most profound statements which pointed us to find the answer through our empathetic conscience.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. "

before u do anything for/to somebody be sure that you wouldnt mind them or anyone do the same to u. so if u go pushing ppl off swings and laughing when they fall. that is part of ur life philosophy. and if it is wrong application. u will face a backlash. eventually someone big brother will come and stuff ur head in a toilet. action and reaction.

there are lots more profound universal application statements u can find in the bible like that. meaning all those centuries did spawn from an avalanching snowball of wisdom. why try to re-invent the wheel? read d ting and take every good u could find out of it and try to apply it to your life. the reason why it matters is because ppl do what they see others doing. ppl can change their own psychology and in so doing change others behaviour as well.

so if u have applied already acclaimed universal philosophical behaviours that assist peace on earth then ur one step closer to making a difference and one step further from making a mistake.

that is all the difference between religion and atheism. atheist cant even agree what is atheism because many of them have different views of atheism as well. but they dont congregate to iron out those views. their philosophy in part is to leave each man his philosophy be. but it just cannot work. when a serial killer defines his philosophy as 'all women are different images of my abusive mother, thus for ever woman i kill i exact vengeance and retribution on my abusive mother's soul"

really, now, try to talk him out of it. lol

religion simply took the time and care to put forward standardisation, so there would be order, expectations, and of course equality in how we deal with and view eachother. i mean, compared to any organised religion. atheists are just a bunch of wild bandits running through the forest robbing eachother day by day and calling it an economy. so tim have to go by the river on wednesdays, rob he but then when u have to go by the river friday tim come and rob u back. utter disorganisation.

u call them religions because they group and forward one ideaology. and that is exactly what shaped society and its laws. can u imagine every man having his own law of what he believe is right or wrong? society in itself being a religion of sorts where ppl came together to agree on neutral philosophies geared towards creating and sustaining peace. we made them law. and law start with the bible and God's law.

[Slartibartfast]

Lol. Habit, that video makes some unwarranted leaps of faith and still doesn't get away from the circular reasoning of "God being the answer because God is the answer".

Now let's assume the 1st and 3rd premises are true. The universe exists and everything that exists must have an explanation. i.e. The universe must have an explanation. This seem both true and logical.

You will see that this proves the first part of the second premise

Second Premise
If the universe has an explanation of its existence [the other premises show that the universe must have an explanation]. That explanation is God <---- Why is this part of the premise. Why must it be God?

Therefore the conclusion "The explanation of the Universe is God" is only reached because of he premise "The explanation is God". See the Circular reasoning.


Now in addition to his circular logic he assumes the following two premises without any explanation why.
1. God exists necessarily
2. God is not abstract

Therefore, to prove his conclusion true he needs to prove those two premises.

Edit: He still never tackled why the existence of God doesn't need an explanation. And no "God existing necessarily" is not an explanation. Numbers exist necessarily but they exist as a means of quantification.

[Slartibartfast]

we all are, i dont understand how u could fall into temptation when u dont believe in the God that warned about it. God doesnt exist but the temptation he warned about does? maybe i dont understand ur question?

Temptation arises anytime it is easier/more pleasurable to do the morally wrong thing... because it is easier/more pleasurable. It is dependent on human behavior not on the word of God

i mean. what is primary? isnt yourself the primary? and everyone else comes after? until u include them into your self. meaning they will be privy to special treatment because of xyz. a friend could ask u for a cig u wont flinch. but a stranger on the street u might say go and pick up bottle u will get a cigarette. as far as i see humans are selective like that.

Ah, now this is a very good question with a multi faceted answer. I will make a separate post to answer this after we have dealt with everything else. This alone would side track us from all the other arguments.

ugly girl vs pretty girl job application. ur male, ur the boss... who gets the job?

Whoever is better qualified. If they are somehow just as fit for the job as eachother (very unlikely) then I would choose the prettier one cuz I don't want to deal with your ugly a$$ whole day. Where is this morally wrong?

the truth is. atheist understanding and belief of what is right and what is wrong is selectively based on their philosophy and outlook on life. basically thats what everyone's philosophy does. it tries to act as a universal application to all the problems met in day to day life.

I think you mean human understanding and belief. You and Habit read from the same book and believe different things. Muslims read from the same book and some flock to ISIS while some run away. The only difference with an atheist is that we take responsibility for ourselves, out beliefs and out actions instead of hiding behind old fairy tales for justification.

the thing with atheists is that, THEY HAVE NO ORGANISATION. one atheist can find one thing right while another finds it wrong. just like everyone that reads the quran or bible they have no standardisation.just like everyone that reads the quran or bible basically, each atheist's life philosophy is different.just like everyone that reads the quran or bible why? because he is trying to invent the perfect philosophy himself.just like everyone that reads the quran or bible there is no doubt that atheist philosophies can clash between 2 atheist individuals.just like everyone that reads the quran or bible at the end of the day though, a man's philosophy can only be beginner in the face of thousands of years of thinkers and evolution. trying to invent the wheel.Who said anything about trying to reinvent the wheel. It all comes down to what Confucius said 500 years before Jesus was born "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself."

it is sure though, that the instruction set by jesus would create a perfect world... IF EVERYONE LISTENED. the problem is just not everyone listening. and that is what brings backlash.That would also be true if everyone listened to me. Why don't you worship me?

when they say, dont commit adultery. they didnt say that just for so. they know man does get enraged by betrayal and the pain does leave ppl wanting to dead and do, drink lanate, or take it out on the woman and beat she to a frazzle(it works for keeping our children in line right?). sometimes chop she up etc. the philosophy born is neutral. do not commit adultery because it upsets people. and literally thats what we're about here.Hmmmm, sounds exactly the same as the outcome from my philosophy and what Confucius said 500 years before Jesus was born. Why do we need he bible again?

man has to learn to do everything he wants to do without affecting another person in a negative way against their will. that is literally the first half of religious instruction. the next half is a total capsizing by learning the opposite and practicing it. affecting people in a positive way without their knowledge. Hmmmm, sounds exactly the same as the outcome from my philosophy and what Confucius said 500 years before Jesus was born. Why do we need he bible again?

what is wrong with that philosophy? dont we all know kindness when we see it? just ask yourself, is what im about to do considered kindness? and if the answer is not a resounding YES then it most likely not kind. how hard is that. what is right was measured by one of the most profound statements which pointed us to find the answer through our empathetic conscience.Hmmmm, sounds exactly the same as the outcome from my philosophy and what Confucius said 500 years before Jesus was born. Why do we need he bible again?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. "Hmmmm, sounds exactly the same as the outcome from my philosophy and what Confucius said 500 years before Jesus was born. Why do we need he bible again?

before u do anything for/to somebody be sure that you wouldnt mind them or anyone do the same to u. so if u go pushing ppl off swings and laughing when they fall. that is part of ur life philosophy. and if it is wrong application. u will face a backlash. eventually someone big brother will come and stuff ur head in a toilet. action and reaction. Your grammar went to sh!t here, don't understand what you are saying. But negative action does not breed negative reaction. Just look at all the corruption our leaders get away with.

there are lots more profound universal application statements u can find in the bible like that. meaning all those centuries did spawn from an avalanching snowball of wisdom. why try to re-invent the wheel? read d ting and take every good u could find out of it and try to apply it to your life. the reason why it matters is because ppl do what they see others doing. ppl can change their own psychology and in so doing change others behaviour as well. Because the book teaches a lot of bad as well. Why force something that is half rotten onto the world. It's shooting yourself in your foot. We probably have more knowledge and wisdom at our fingertips today than all of out ancestors combined. Why not compile our own set or morals independent horrible things found in the Quran and the Bible?

so if u have applied already acclaimed universal philosophical behaviours that assist peace on earth then ur one step closer to making a difference and one step further from making a mistake.

that is all the difference between religion and atheism. atheist cant even agree what is atheism because many of them have different views of atheism as well. but they dont congregate to iron out those views. their philosophy in part is to leave each man his philosophy be. but it just cannot work. when a serial killer defines his philosophy as 'all women are different images of my abusive mother, thus for ever woman i kill i exact vengeance and retribution on my abusive mother's soul"Soul? Yeah that wouldn't happen if he knew souls didn't exist.

really, now, try to talk him out of it. lol

religion simply took the time and care to put forward standardisation, so there would be order, expectations, and of course equality in how we deal with and view eachother. i mean, compared to any organised religion. atheists are just a bunch of wild bandits running through the forest robbing eachother day by day and calling it an economy. so tim have to go by the river on wednesdays, rob he but then when u have to go by the river friday tim come and rob u back. utter disorganisation.Hahahahaha. And here I was thinking you were being serious. Brb, off to rob some people by a river to promote our economy. #justatheistthings

u call them religions because they group and forward one ideaology. and that is exactly what shaped society and its laws. can u imagine every man having his own law of what he believe is right or wrong? society in itself being a religion of sorts where ppl came together to agree on neutral philosophies geared towards creating and sustaining peace. we made them law. and law start with the bible and God's law.Again, as always, no real reason why we actually need religion. I have showed time and time again how all of the "good" you preach can be derived independent of any belief in God or religion.

I agree we need good morals and values. But, we need for these morals and values to remain uncontaminated. You know what contaminates it.... religion. Religious folk like to use the book as justification of the sh!t they do. We need to acknowledge ourselves as the highest power over ourselves (assuming we have our freedom) and take responsibility for what we do.

[bluesclues]

but u just asking me what is wrong and right? how u know what is morally wrong for pleasure and what is morally right for pleasure now? cuz obviously we dont do anything that displeases us by choice.


u see? with the ugly girl selection. she might face that repeatedly by employers until she just decide fk it and commit suicide since after all her studying noone will hire her and society does not accept her but in fact rejects her even with her talents, simply based on appearance. negative effects. may not be singlehandedly your fault but u added to it.

however if u werent materialistic physically driven person you might be able to see that and not hire the pretty girl because she can get a job anywhere, but the ugly girl might get thrown around. so u do a service to humanity by taking her in. and as the days go by and u working with her u find shee start to look prettier and prettier lel.

[Slartibartfast]

You are confusing displeasure with harm. If displeasure = bad then it would be bad to make your children eat their vegetables.

[bluesclues]

You are confusing displeasure with harm. If displeasure = bad then it would be bad to make your children eat their vegetables.

i wouldnt say that. harm is harm. it can be physical, emotional or psychological. but i know in trinidad we havent woken up to that fact yet. being harmed is generally displeasing to anyone in whichever form it comes. how do u make the child eat the vegetables? with a pinch on their arms? cram it down their throat. buss slap on them until they comply? shoutingat the top of ur lungs in a scary demonic apparition to scare them into submission? when the child start to cry isnt that a sign that it experienced harm? but children is too technical and side topic. lets keep it simple. adults. any adult being harmed is displeased about it no? so if u do something that directly harms ur neighbour then it is definitely wrong. our ancestors tuaght us that. why u hafta go and reinvent the wheel?

[bluesclues]

what we need to recognize.. is proper interpretation. thats the problem with universally applicable philosophies. they can be universally applied. and can have many different interpretations based on those applications.

its not all bad and all our fault i know. but the same way we had pagan ancestors stupid enough to believe the statue was God, because of interpretation, is the same way we have modern pursuants, with no prophet's guidance, believing a whole set of things, including taking the bible literally where there may be no literal application but a metaphorical one meant to address aand spread a philosophy.

it evolution, we grow, we make mistakes, we learn from those mistakes, we document those mistakes and our children learn from our documented mistakes. why hide our mistakes, to put ourselves off as having been perfect? what kind of philosophy hides from the world what it truly is? not deception?

[Slartibartfast]

Again, harm and displeasure are mutually exclusive. Ever heard of BSDM. Harm can be very pleasurable to adults. However, as long as both adults are consenting (i.e. one isn't imposing harm on another) then there is nothing wrong with it.

Right now I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to argue. Why don't you state the conclusion to your argument so that you can argue to prove that conclusion and I can argue to disprove it.



Example
Like my previous conclusion was
"Morality is independent of religion and God (i.e. you do not need God or religion to derive morality)"
- I reached this conclusion by showing how you can derive morality independent of religion and God (see the "absolute vs subjective morality" thread for more details) as well as pointing out instances where large groups of people acted immorally while following the teachings of their religion and God.

- You responded by saying "don't reinvent the wheel" and used teachings that your holy book based upon teachings that were evident in China 500 years earlier. I replied that your response was inadequate at disproving my argument.

[bluesclues]

Again, harm and displeasure are mutually exclusive. Ever heard of BSDM. Harm can be very pleasurable to adults. However, as long as both adults are consenting (i.e. one isn't imposing harm on another) then there is nothing wrong with it.

Right now I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to argue. Why don't you state the conclusion to your argument so that you can argue to prove that conclusion and I can argue to disprove it.



Example
Like my previous conclusion was
"Morality is independent of religion and God (i.e. you do not need God or religion to derive morality)"
- I reached this conclusion by showing how you can derive morality independent of religion and God (see the "absolute vs subjective morality" thread for more details) as well as pointing out instances where large groups of people acted immorally while following the teachings of their religion and God.

- You responded by saying "don't reinvent the wheel" and used teachings that your holy book based upon teachings that were evident in China 500 years earlier. I replied that your response was inadequate at disproving my argument.

and still this was already addressed. and even in the example with the child and his vegetables. bdsm occurs with both participants CONSENT. bdsm is not done to an unwilling individual against their will. thus no harm is done.

i can give u an even more technical example. marriage.

if 2 people married and made oaths to eachother to be faithful, loyal, honorable etc. one day the man comes to his wife and says, are u interested in becoming a swinger? the wife says yes. the man has no ill feelings nor does she. they both decide after marriage to have that experience. they maintaint their marriage till death. u know... that was an honourable marriage? because noone was harmed, emotionally, physically, or psychologically and both parties were in agreement. added to which they never separated. they loved eachother deeply to where they bond was more significant than sex or even sexual partners. this is an issue of interpretation. and knowing what the symbol of marriage really is. unification to a bond that cannot be broken is paramount in marriage for those who would like to carry the symbol. it is a religious symbol. so even atheists who get married are complying and furthering the religious teachings by proclaiming and demonstrating that symbol to the world where 2 became one. there is no higher message in religious teachings of spirituality.

china... ur arguement is nonsequitr. of course china has ancient philosophies that go as far back as we can track man. right there in the bible it was said God revered the chines over both the black and white man. right there it said, Noah gave shem(chinee) the lands to the east(asia) and the teachings of that prophet were not only extensive but pure and noble. u cant pull any culture out of this. all of them fall under noah's tree coming down from the sumerian's kings list.

anyway, u say u dont need God to derive morality. which apparently means u think man can identify all morality for himself. but in the case of ugly girl job application, u failed to achieve the higher moral objective. lifting up the disadvantaged with your strength to even the playing field. if u have that strength to spare.

my point is, religion overrides and is more powerful BECAUSE of their organisation. BECAUSE of the many minds that have contributed to its philosophies. you however would cast aside centuries of schools of thought for ur own, single life experience and whatever wisdom u gleaned out of it and hoist your own personal philosophy above that of great minds dating and thinking since the beginning of mankind? and each atheist is doing the same. eventually u would all clash if the world was full of atheists. and if u wanted peace, ud have to sit down and get organised and agree on philosophies that will maintain it. but u cant do that because of the parameters set by what atheism is. the minute u do organise, u cast urselves into the category of organised religion. but hey, its not my fault u guys want to set urself at a disadvantage by crying down organisation, meaning, surely, u could not organise for urselves or ud be made hypocrits. so instead, u choose to scurry around among the brushes thinking u bad because u living among vegetarians. lol. the same vegetarians that made the choice not to eat meat so u could have peace too.

[Slartibartfast]

They are following societal customs and norms. Are you telling me that Christians invented marriage now? Just because marriage is a religious symbol in Christianity doesn't mean that all marriages are religious symbols. Marriage is a symbol of commitment. If you are going to build your life with someone, wouldn't you like some indication that they are just as committed to it as you?

Again... just because religion is normally there does not mean it is NEEDED.


Also, there are legal benefits to being married.

But again... what conclusion are you working towards? You seem to just be shooting off a bunch of logically flawed arguments with no real aim in mind.

Pick an argument and let's stick to it to it's conclusion instead of just throwing in another side argument everytime you lose.

[bluesclues]

They are following societal customs and norms. Are you telling me that Christians invented marriage now? Just because marriage is a religious symbol in Christianity doesn't mean that all marriages are religious symbols. Marriage is a symbol of commitment. If you are going to build your life with someone, wouldn't you like some indication that they are just as committed to it as you?

Again... just because religion is normally there does not mean it is NEEDED.


Also, there are legal benefits to being married.

But again... what conclusion are you working towards? You seem to just be shooting off a bunch of logically flawed arguments with no real aim in mind.

Pick an argument and let's stick to it to it's conclusion instead of just throwing in another side argument everytime you lose.

oh my. of course marriage was invented by the church. where do u think it comes from? iwhat uve just described is what marriage is TO YOU AND YOUR PHILOSOPHY. but marriage was never designed to give u special benefits. it was mainly to create that symbol which the ancients learned of the universe's objectives. they observed and learned that the universe in all its areas seeks unification and balance. and so man sought to immitate this with symbols and ritual designs. one of which is in the unification of 2 opposites, male and female, in peace and harmony.

isnt that the most difficult thing? to agree with the one u have disagreement? compromise? to coexist peacefully among differences of opinion. so how we gonna solve that? believe me. marriage is nothing in the eyes of God if it is only a means of legal or other social benefit. had atheists invented marriage it wouldve been documented. so as much as the relationship of marriage and what it was meant to be has deteriorated to a business contract for many. that is not what marriage is. marriage is unification with God. flesh and spirit. opposites attracting, completeness via man uniting with the female that owns one of his ribs. these are paramount to marriage my friend. hence a man isnt complete until he is married(symbolic metaphor) meaning a man isnt complete until he achieves spiritual unification with God.

[Slartibartfast]

So you are telling me that before the church people did not enter into committed lifelong monogamous relationships. Also, remember that there are also arranged marriages, polygamous marriages and child marriages. Did the church invent all of these as well? If may have invented the Christian ceremony, it may have even invented the word for all I know but the practice definitely predates the church.

Also, how can you describe what it is meant to "me and my philosophy" when I just described what it means to me and my philosophy. I don't understand how you are a better source of interpretation of what I think. I would think that by being the thinker that thinks my thoughts I think I know best about what I think about them. What do you think?

Now, again, I never argued that atheists invented marriage. My only argument is that, once again, it does not need religion or God. I don't know what to argue with in that second paragraph. It just seems like the ramblings of a mad man.

Again... I still have no idea what point you are trying to make. My point is that we don't need religion or God or a belief in either of those works of fiction.

Please start your next post with your desired conclusion and state your premises.

[Slartibartfast]

You are in luck. Work is slow today and I'm bored so I'll show you what I mean by "ramblings of a madman"

isnt that the most difficult thing? to agree with the one u have disagreement? compromise? to coexist peacefully among differences of opinion.Quantum physics, finding the cure for cancer and aids, making sure the entire world's population is fed, landing a remote control aircraft on a moving asteroid all seem more difficult than "coming to an agreement" so how we gonna solve that?Science, Science, Not Jesus, NASA... in that order believe me. marriage is nothing in the eyes of God if it is only a means of legal or other social benefit.This only matters if God exists. It being nothing is the eyes of Thor is of no consequence to me either. Why do you assume I give a sh!t about your "god" had atheists invented marriage it wouldve been documented.Never said they did. so as much as the relationship of marriage and what it was meant to be has deteriorated to a business contract for many.Including Christians, but they probably don't believe in God anyway. that is not what marriage is. marriage is unification with God.I thought marriage could only be between a man and a woman flesh and spirit. opposites attracting, completeness via man uniting with the femaleSo women are God now? that owns one of his ribs.One of my ribs you say? How does that part of the wedding go down? Do they just lie you on the alter and cut it out then and there or do they give her a coupon for one rib free of defects guaranteed until death or divorce do you part? these are paramount to marriage my friend. hence a man isnt complete until he is married(symbolic metaphor) meaning a man isnt complete until he achieves spiritual unification with God.Sounds like a kinky wedding night but whatever floats your boat I guess.

[York]

Faith is belief in the unseen. For muslims - belief in 1. GOD 2. Angels 3. Revealed Books (revelations) 4. Prophets 5. Day of Judgment 6. Divine Pre-decree (its good and its bad).

No one can prove explicitly that any of these exist, not even habit ...it's a matter of belief.

However, we have legislative evidence in our revealed book and narrations of our prophet which have been preserved.

From our perspective, this is what differentiates and gives validity to our claim. Preservation of the book, chains of narrations that can be verified.

Believe it or not....

[Slartibartfast]

Again... back to the original question York...

How do you know that the "book and narrations" from your prophet are true?

[bluesclues]

So you are telling me that before the church people did not enter into committed lifelong monogamous relationships. Also, remember that there are also arranged marriages, polygamous marriages and child marriages. Did the church invent all of these as well? If may have invented the Christian ceremony, it may have even invented the word for all I know but the practice definitely predates the church.

Also, how can you describe what it is meant to "me and my philosophy" when I just described what it means to me and my philosophy. I don't understand how you are a better source of interpretation of what I think. I would think that by being the thinker that thinks my thoughts I think I know best about what I think about them. What do you think?

Now, again, I never argued that atheists invented marriage. My only argument is that, once again, it does not need religion or God. I don't know what to argue with in that second paragraph. It just seems like the ramblings of a mad man.

Again... I still have no idea what point you are trying to make. My point is that we don't need religion or God or a belief in either of those works of fiction.

Please start your next post with your desired conclusion and state your premises.

what you think is not much different from what alot of ppl think. why dont you google 'where does marriage come from'. or 'who performed the first marriage'. theres a reason for everything.

my point is to state definitively that marriage is a creation of the church, was performed by the church and is still performed by the church. u asked me if that is what i was stating and to that i say. yes. that is what i am stating. even down to the ring, is a symbol so much i can tell u. the ring u place on ur wife's ring finger is no ordinary ring, it is circular, without beginning or end, it is complete. see the drift? furthermore, the ringfinger. do u know why the ring is placed on THAT finger and no other? because, in that particular finger of the left hand, runs an vein called vena amoris(latin for vein of love) which runs and connects directly to the heart. that is why the ring finger was chosen so they placed a symbol of completeness on a finger that connects to the symbol of love on 2 people to symbolize the unification that is found in achieving oneness with God. i tell u the things i say not even the pope will refute.

the practice may predate the church but not with such detail of explanation and reason. previously, unions were formed for the primary purpose of propogation of species. u cannot expect polygamy to remain moral in an overpopulated world. but it can be moral in an underpopulated one.

u say, we didnt need God to figure all these things out. then why is it our ancestors say God told them so, and you trying to test it thousands of years later still find it to be right. tell me which of man's philosophies have been so attributed without the contributor giving glory to God? all of man's contributions change with time. because their philosophies are prone to error and imperfection and mostly, the inability to adapt and evolve. i see a stark difference in the things that come from God and the things that come from man. and quite frankly, any one man's philosophy can never be complete or perfect. which is why i say, atheists are philosophers with disjoint philosophies. theres really nothing respectable about that if u cant even agree on the sensible parts of your philosophical contribution. how then do u expect the world to find peace if everyone were to adopt an atheist way of life? i guess, just let the serial killer roam free and pick u off like lions pick off which deer in the herd to attack. and do nothing.

so there i hope u can see my point now. u say man can do it allll by himself. i say, everytime man does it by himself it gets him in trouble because marx/stalin. only guidance that truly came from a spiritual source is pure and perfect in interpretation. man keeps trying to immitate prophets but i tell u it just cannot be done. the wisdom of the spirit far supercedes the singular thoughts of man. for ever action in the spirit is seen the full butterfly effect in completeness. a man, a normal man, just cannot measure.

and so, today a man's philosophy may seem to work, but tomorrow he's killing millions because they dont agree with his philosophy. and something inside everyone tells them, his philosophy must be wrong if so much of us disagree and failed to achieve the promise set by his philosophy.

but the things of God, and of law, beginning with the 10 commandments. they are timelessly beneficial and benevolent to the development of the human race.

now, which man invented the 10 commandments? is at least one of us father did. and if he did why would he say God told him so? just to confuse us??

[York]

Again... back to the original question York...

How do you know that the "book and narrations" from your prophet are true?

faith is belief in the unseen but you can test the book and narrations.

i asked habit to say which prophesies of muhammad were not fulfilled, that's the one thing he did not respond to. Now i'm not silly or gullible like most christians (whatever the pastor say the verse means well dais it)...

I encourage u to read the Quran and a sample of the tafsir / explanation as well as the hadith / narrations with detailed explanations. If u do this, you will see the extent of detail and precision that is contained in the religion of Islam. It's nothing like the loose, vague interpretations according to whims and fancies of others. I'll just leave it at that.