Quote:

This forum can be likewise viewed as a creation. It is only by allowing evil that it is capable of great good. Forum owners who try to disallow what they see as evil run into the same problems. They don't know where to draw the line. They blur the line between good and evil. Their actions often end up looking more like evil than good.

Off topic taunts that contribute nothing to debate are not allowed in this forum Aussie. So I've removed your taunt. People must play by the rules here, including myself Aussie. Curiously, you are the first on my subforum who has trolled a member, without also contributing to debate. As a Mod., you should know better.

Don't repeat the behaviour and do not respond to this message.

You really are very naughty, Sappho.  Why are you so insecure of your position that you delete posts (thrice) which highlight your hypocrisy?  Am I not evil?  Did God not direct these posts of mine....which you have been busy deleting?  Were you also a robot, from birth, programmed to meet me here this night to delete my posts?

:)

Concerning that ^^^^ post of mine.....I received this via PM from Sappho:


Quote:

Aussie. You have been given a link to the rules and I strongly advise that you read them and abide by them, not for my sake, but for the sake of the forum members who engage debate in my sub forum and who do abide by those rules. Taunting the members and moderator in off topic nonsense will not be tolerated and never has been. The topic, 'The Problem of Evil', is not the same thing as 'Determinism vs. Free Will' which your post above is tauntingly addressing. If you want to discuss 'Determinism vs. Free Will' from a theist or atheist perspective, and according to the rules, then you are encouraged to do so by starting a new topic on the subject and not by interfering with the topic in which you posted that comment. I should also point out that the topic you are seeking to disrupt has been on topic for the whole of the five pages and I want to keep it that way. If you must seek to taunt and tease people and play nonsense games such as you are doing here, then I suggest you find another sub forum which allows such things. I will not. I have removed that post above also. Again, if you want to discuss this I am available now to do so in private messages.

I do not do debate via PM.

My post is right on the number.  It seems Sappho does not like it.....tough.

Deal with my point in open, Sappho.

:)

Where are my posts?  The ones you deleted?  Or is this a one way street?

:)

Aussie wrote on Jul 10^th, 2011 at 10:03pm:

Where are my posts?  The ones you deleted?  Or is this a one way street? :)

Why are you suppressing a view (of mine) which differs from yours?

 :)

Aussie wrote on Jul 10^th, 2011 at 10:03pm:

Where are my posts?  The ones you deleted?  Or is this a one way street? :)

Aussie wrote on Jul 10^th, 2011 at 10:02pm:

Sappho wrote on Jul 10th, 2011 at 9:55pm: Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic. They are "Off Topic" because they do not agree with your opinion..?? :) Silly.

Aussie wrote on Jul 12^th, 2011 at 9:22pm:

Yadda, what has any of that got to do with the Topic? :D

You didn't explain what it was that you felt had nothing to do with the topic. Moreover, you are expecting from people what you yourself are yet to provide. There is a question in 'The Problem of Evil' thread for you to address before your questions stand any chance of remaining. That question to you is the same as your question to Yadda, except that, the question to you is clearly explained and not a 'naughty' and childish one liner.

Bottom line: If you want your question returned to the forum to be addressed, you must first respond to the same question that has been asked of you.

I think I'll just stay away from a crappy Religious Education Thread that you have allowed it to become.

:)

Yadda wrote on Jul 18^th, 2011 at 9:40am:

Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. Matthew 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness;... Jeremiah 9:23 Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: 24  But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD. Psalms 4:5 Offer the sacrifices of righteousness, and put your trust in the LORD.

Yadda,

I value you debate which uses religious text, but I do not value you preaching with religious text. I hope you can appreciate the difference. I've removed this post from debate and discussion.

Sappho wrote on Jul 24^th, 2011 at 11:38am:

Yadda wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 9:40am: Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. Matthew 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness;... Jeremiah 9:23 Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: 24  But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD. Psalms 4:5 Offer the sacrifices of righteousness, and put your trust in the LORD. Yadda, I value you debate which uses religious text, but I do not value you preaching with religious text. I hope you can appreciate the difference. I've removed this post from debate and discussion.

Sappho,

I was responding to the title of the thread....

'The meaning of God'

with those bible verses, as an expression of what God represents, imo.


But 'Atheism' is your board Sappho.

Do as you wish.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 24^th, 2011 at 12:32pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 24th, 2011 at 12:13pm: Yadda wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 9:40am: Yadda's post is removed because it is preaching and no debating or discussing. Refer to complaints thread to see the original post and my comments. FFS, he is a Christian, this is a thread about the meaning of god. If a Chritian can't cite Christian texts on a dicussion about the meaning of god, where can he? Get a grip. Or rather, loosen that grip. It's choking the discussion. Gotta agree with that, Sappho... Or are you more than an atheist? Are you a closet anti-Theist?

Rule 9. Religious preaching is not welcome. Religious preaching is not the same thing as debating matters found in religious texts.

There was no discussion or debate attached to the religious text, therefore it was preaching and only preaching. Yadda has since explained what he meant by putting those religious quotes into the thread. It is a pity he did not do that when he was creating the post. Moreover, Yadda is an articulate and valued member who is expected to use his own voice, which is a sound and reasonable voice, and not merely that of the bible to express his views.

Sappho... You are testing my faith in my fellow atheists  ;)

Ironic that the most strident of moderators are you, Sappho, and Abu...

Absolutes stand at the ends of an arc... Leaning towards each other.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 24^th, 2011 at 12:49pm:

Sappho... You are testing my faith in my fellow atheists  ;)

I'm not stopping Yadda from using religious text, I'm saying that it must come with discussion to explain it being there, or that it must be used as a justification of claims being made. But stand alone religious text which speaks more to righteousness than it does to the meaning of God, which surely is more encompassing than that, looks like and feels like preaching.

Moreover, just because we can assume it's purpose does not mean it was put there for that assumed purpose. Clarity gentlemen. That's what I'm after and Yadda is an articulate and reasonable person who is more than capable of clarity.

Sappho wrote on Jul 24^th, 2011 at 1:00pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 24th, 2011 at 12:49pm: Sappho... You are testing my faith in my fellow atheists  ;) I'm not stopping Yadda from using religious text, I'm saying that it must come with discussion to explain it being there, or that it must be used as a justification of claims being made. But stand alone religious text which speaks more to righteousness than it does to the meaning of God, which surely is more encompassing than that, looks like and feels like preaching.

Such things you say, madame!


Sappho wrote on Jul 24^th, 2011 at 1:00pm:

Yadda is an articulate and reasonable person who is more than capable of clarity.

Patronising conceals contempt.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 24^th, 2011 at 12:49pm:

Sappho... You are testing my faith in my fellow atheists  ;)

Ditto!

That said, I'm not across the history - and it may be that many warnings were issued against Psalm-Bot antics...

Sappho wrote on Jul 24^th, 2011 at 1:00pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 24th, 2011 at 12:49pm: Sappho... You are testing my faith in my fellow atheists  ;) I'm not stopping Yadda from using religious text, I'm saying that it must come with discussion to explain it being there, or that it must be used as a justification of claims being made. But stand alone religious text which speaks more to righteousness than it does to the meaning of God, which surely is more encompassing than that, looks like and feels like preaching. Moreover, just because we can assume it's purpose does not mean it was put there for that assumed purpose. Clarity gentlemen. That's what I'm after and Yadda is an articulate and reasonable person who is more than capable of clarity.

Sappho,

Thank you for giving that clarification.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 24^th, 2011 at 12:54pm:

Ironic that the most strident of moderators are you, Sappho, and Abu... Absolutes stand at the ends of an arc... Leaning towards each other.

So you would prefer that the religious be allowed speak with biblical text rather than their own voice or a mix of the two? You would rather that such matters, so deeply held, rely on assumptions which can be well intended or not? You would like to see the religious who use only text suffer sacrilege at the hands of those with ill intended assumptions because the former failed to clarify their intent to the latter?  

This is as much for his benefit as it is for the boards benefit. If you haven't noticed, when people jump to ill conceived conclusions, they start shooting off at the mouth about things irrelevant to the real intent of the original poster. And that is disheartening for the original poster and the board in general.  

The more clarity we give to our intent, the less trolling and flaming that will result on what is a topic for all concerned held with great meaning and feeling.

Sappho wrote on Jul 24^th, 2011 at 1:11pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 24th, 2011 at 12:54pm: Ironic that the most strident of moderators are you, Sappho, and Abu... Absolutes stand at the ends of an arc... Leaning towards each other. So you would prefer that the religious be allowed speak with biblical text rather than their own voice or a mix of the two?

No, I'm just not bothered by it any more. I never read them anyway.


Sappho wrote on Jul 24^th, 2011 at 1:11pm:

You would rather that such matters, so deeply held, rely on assumptions which can be well intended or not? You would like to see the religious who use only text suffer sacrilege at the hands of those with ill intended assumptions because the former failed to clarify their intent to the latter?

I cannot save people from themselves... And neither can you.

And I no longer presume to think that I can.



Sappho wrote on Jul 24^th, 2011 at 1:11pm:

This is as much for his benefit as it is for the boards benefit.

So... You're "only making plans for Nigel" ?  ;)

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 24^th, 2011 at 1:15pm:

Sappho wrote on Jul 24th, 2011 at 1:11pm: You would rather that such matters, so deeply held, rely on assumptions which can be well intended or not? You would like to see the religious who use only text suffer sacrilege at the hands of those with ill intended assumptions because the former failed to clarify their intent to the latter?   I cannot save people from themselves... And neither can you. And I no longer presume to think that I can.

We are not talking about saving people from themselves. We are talking about protecting people in general from those who are the lowest form of forumite. That means acting in accordance with the rules. No point stirring up a bitch storm because flaming has been introduced, if the person I am defending does not abide by the rules and ensure their intent is known.

Moreover, if we want for a flame free, troll free space in which to discuss these heart felt things, then I have to follow those rules and I depend of others doing likewise.  

Sappho wrote on Jul 24^th, 2011 at 1:55pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 24th, 2011 at 1:15pm: Sappho wrote on Jul 24th, 2011 at 1:11pm: You would rather that such matters, so deeply held, rely on assumptions which can be well intended or not? You would like to see the religious who use only text suffer sacrilege at the hands of those with ill intended assumptions because the former failed to clarify their intent to the latter?   I cannot save people from themselves... And neither can you. And I no longer presume to think that I can. We are not talking about saving people from themselves. We are talking about protecting people in general from those who are the lowest form of forumite.

Are you saying Yadda has gone, within an hour from being, in your mind, (quote) an articulate and reasonable person (unquote) to (quote) the lowest form of forumite (unquote) ?

Did your previous patronising conceal your contempt for Yadda?

Quote:

Moreover, if we want for a flame free, troll free space in which to discuss these heart felt things, then I have to follow those rules and I depend of others doing likewise.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with aggressive moderating as long as the rules are plainly defined and available to everybody.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 24^th, 2011 at 2:06pm:

Sappho wrote on Jul 24th, 2011 at 1:55pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 24th, 2011 at 1:15pm: Sappho wrote on Jul 24th, 2011 at 1:11pm: You would rather that such matters, so deeply held, rely on assumptions which can be well intended or not? You would like to see the religious who use only text suffer sacrilege at the hands of those with ill intended assumptions because the former failed to clarify their intent to the latter?   I cannot save people from themselves... And neither can you. And I no longer presume to think that I can. We are not talking about saving people from themselves. We are talking about protecting people in general from those who are the lowest form of forumite. Are you saying Yadda has gone, within an hour from being, in your mind, (quote) an articulate and reasonable person (unquote) to (quote) the lowest form of forumite (unquote) ? Did your previous patronising conceal your contempt for Yadda?

No. I'm not saying that at all and quite frankly, I think that is pretty obvious. You cannot be reasonable on the one hand and the lowest form of forumite on the other. It doesn't make sense. Also, there were two classes of people identified in that sentence; people in general and the lowest form of forumite. So if it is that Yadda has already been tagged as reasonable, then he cannot be the lowest form of forumite and therefore must belong to that other class which was people in general. Moreover, if you read my response in context with the previous responses instead of reading it as a stand alone statement, there is no way that Yadda can be confused with the lowest forum of forumite.  

Sappho wrote on Jul 24^th, 2011 at 9:12pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 24th, 2011 at 2:06pm: Sappho wrote on Jul 24th, 2011 at 1:55pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 24th, 2011 at 1:15pm: Sappho wrote on Jul 24th, 2011 at 1:11pm: You would rather that such matters, so deeply held, rely on assumptions which can be well intended or not? You would like to see the religious who use only text suffer sacrilege at the hands of those with ill intended assumptions because the former failed to clarify their intent to the latter?   I cannot save people from themselves... And neither can you. And I no longer presume to think that I can. We are not talking about saving people from themselves. We are talking about protecting people in general from those who are the lowest form of forumite. Are you saying Yadda has gone, within an hour from being, in your mind, (quote) an articulate and reasonable person (unquote) to (quote) the lowest form of forumite (unquote) ? Did your previous patronising conceal your contempt for Yadda? No. I'm not saying that at all and quite frankly, I think that is pretty obvious. You cannot be reasonable on the one hand and the lowest form of forumite on the other. It doesn't make sense. Also, there were two classes of people identified in that sentence; people in general and the lowest form of forumite. So if it is that Yadda has already been tagged as reasonable, then he cannot be the lowest form of forumite and therefore must belong to that other class which was people in general. Moreover, if you read my response in context with the previous responses instead of reading it as a stand alone statement, there is no way that Yadda can be confused with the lowest forum of forumite.

Jawohl Meine Dame ;D

Life_goes_on wrote on Jul 24^th, 2011 at 2:48pm:

Quote: Moreover, if we want for a flame free, troll free space in which to discuss these heart felt things, then I have to follow those rules and I depend of others doing likewise. There's absolutely nothing wrong with aggressive moderating as long as the rules are plainly defined and available to everybody.

Ah... The Nazis.

http://www.clipartguide.com/_small/0512-0709-1217-2411.jpg

good sh*t

Complaints about the mod in the Atheism Sub Forum

No surprise that he dosn't believe in you.

"If god doesn't exist, everything is permitted - Dostoyevsky" - so how can you have complaints on an atheist forum??

Soren wrote on May 6^th, 2013 at 10:16pm:

"If god doesn't exist, everything is permitted - Dostoyevsky" - so how can you have complaints on an atheist forum??

If a moral code doesn't exist, everything is permitted.  - Not Dostoyevsky, but still true.

You gotta love those lightning strikes when people do what is not permitted though.


Quote:

We dont know if every person perceives colors in the same way. Big Deal.

muso 2013

I love the sleight of hand. Atheism doesn't include a moral code, so no Atheists have a moral code.

It's about as logical as saying that coffee itself doesn't contain sugar, so coffee drinkers must drink coffee without sugar.  If you add a moral system to Atheism, it's no longer Atheism. It's Humanism - meh!

If you add sugar to coffee, it becomes a mixture of coffee and sugar. It's no longer coffee.

Pssst - Dostoyevsky exaggerated, and I'll tell you something else -  He knew that he was exaggerating.  ;)

muso wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 7:01pm:

Soren wrote on May 6th, 2013 at 10:16pm: "If god doesn't exist, everything is permitted - Dostoyevsky" - so how can you have complaints on an atheist forum?? If a moral code doesn't exist, everything is permitted.  - Not Dostoyevsky, but still true. You gotta love those lightning strikes when people do what is not permitted though. Quote: We dont know if every person perceives colors in the same way. Big Deal. muso 2013 I love the sleight of hand. Atheism doesn't include a moral code, so no Atheists have a moral code. It's about as logical as saying that coffee itself doesn't contain sugar, so coffee drinkers must drink coffee without sugar.  If you add a moral system to Atheism, it's no longer Atheism. It's Humanism - meh! If you add sugar to coffee, it becomes a mixture of coffee and sugar. It's no longer coffee. Pssst - Dostoyevsky exaggerated, and I'll tell you something else -  He knew that he was exaggerating.  ;)

I think we'd all know or know of overtly devoutly religious people (i.e. regular church / temple attendees) who live their lives by a considerably less moral code than they preach. And, of course, there'd be many atheists who'd subscribe to the same hypocrisy...

A prescriptive moral code is a feature common to all religions - its really a sine qua non.

It does not follow from that, however that atheists must necessarily therefore not subscribe to any moral code... Being that its also true that it is possible to live life as a Jew / Christian / Muslim etc (including lip-syncing at all the right times - and many do - 'Milli Vanilli Theists' if you would) and not entertain any belief that god exists...

As the it goes...

Quote:

Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.

Walt Whitman

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 15^th, 2013 at 7:10am:

muso wrote on May 9th, 2013 at 7:01pm: Soren wrote on May 6th, 2013 at 10:16pm: "If god doesn't exist, everything is permitted - Dostoyevsky" - so how can you have complaints on an atheist forum?? If a moral code doesn't exist, everything is permitted.  - Not Dostoyevsky, but still true. You gotta love those lightning strikes when people do what is not permitted though. Quote: We dont know if every person perceives colors in the same way. Big Deal. muso 2013 I love the sleight of hand. Atheism doesn't include a moral code, so no Atheists have a moral code. It's about as logical as saying that coffee itself doesn't contain sugar, so coffee drinkers must drink coffee without sugar.  If you add a moral system to Atheism, it's no longer Atheism. It's Humanism - meh! If you add sugar to coffee, it becomes a mixture of coffee and sugar. It's no longer coffee. Pssst - Dostoyevsky exaggerated, and I'll tell you something else -  He knew that he was exaggerating.  ;) I think we'd all know or know of overtly devoutly religious people (i.e. regular church / temple attendees) who live their lives by a considerably less moral code than they preach. And, of course, there'd be many atheists who'd subscribe to the same hypocrisy... A prescriptive moral code is a feature common to all religions - its really a sine qua non.

No argument.

I am not overtly religious in RL [but a number of my neighbours and friends know that i have a faith and they know that i read teh bible, because i do not hide it].

But i must still live in this world.

And, like everyone else, i am still seduced by the pleasures in this world.

There is no escaping this present reality.

But i [actively] try not to focus on the desires i may have in the world.iQuote:

It does not follow from that, however that atheists must necessarily therefore not subscribe to any moral code... Being that its also true that it is possible to live life as a Jew / Christian / Muslim etc (including lip-syncing at all the right times - and many do - 'Milli Vanilli Theists' if you would) and not entertain any belief that god exists...

I certainly do not count [all] atheists as immoral people.

I just see people without faith as mistaken.

And i think that [personally, formally] having a 'religious' faith like Christianity or Judaism,etc. simply brings the focus of that the 'moral code' [that comes with the philosophy that we have chosen to embrace] to our attention more frequently.

e.g.
Being a Christian, i am encouraged by my faith to frequently read the bible scripture.
And reading the bible, will often bring into mental focus the moral issues that i am reading about.

Whereas an atheist may have less mental 'cause' to focus upon moral issues [than a person of 'faith'] ?

Yadda wrote on May 16^th, 2013 at 7:38pm:

Quote: I think we'd all know or know of overtly devoutly religious people (i.e. regular church / temple attendees) who live their lives by a considerably less moral code than they preach. And, of course, there'd be many atheists who'd subscribe to the same hypocrisy... A prescriptive moral code is a feature common to all religions - its really a sine qua non. No argument. I am not overtly religious in RL [but a number of my neighbours and friends know that i have a faith and they know that i read teh bible, because i do not hide it]. But i must still live in this world. And, like everyone else, i am still seduced by the pleasures in this world. There is no escaping this present reality. But i [actively] try not to focus on the desires i may have in the world.

Good for you, Yadda... Nice to read you acknowledge your own humanity.


Yadda wrote on May 16^th, 2013 at 7:38pm:

Quote: It does not follow from that, however that atheists must necessarily therefore not subscribe to any moral code... Being that its also true that it is possible to live life as a Jew / Christian / Muslim etc (including lip-syncing at all the right times - and many do - 'Milli Vanilli Theists' if you would) and not entertain any belief that god exists... I certainly do not count [all] atheists as immoral people. I just see people without faith as mistaken. And i think that [personally, formally] having a 'religious' faith like Christianity or Judaism,etc. simply brings the focus of that the 'moral code' [that comes with the philosophy that we have chosen to embrace] to our attention more frequently. e.g. Being a Christian, i am encouraged by my faith to frequently read the bible scripture. And reading the bible, will often bring into mental focus the moral issues that i am reading about. Whereas an atheist may have less mental 'cause' to focus upon moral issues [than a person of 'faith'] ?

Atheists have the same reasons to subscribe to a moral code as you do.

And they seek and find it from the same sources that you do... From their experiences, from their humanity, from their cultural roots, from their cultural religious roots... And (like you) they draw from those learnings the things that inform them via their search for the answer to the great ethical question "How should we live?"... That is not a religious question... Its a human question.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 16^th, 2013 at 9:11pm:

Yadda wrote on May 16th, 2013 at 7:38pm: Quote: I think we'd all know or know of overtly devoutly religious people (i.e. regular church / temple attendees) who live their lives by a considerably less moral code than they preach. And, of course, there'd be many atheists who'd subscribe to the same hypocrisy... A prescriptive moral code is a feature common to all religions - its really a sine qua non. No argument. I am not overtly religious in RL [but a number of my neighbours and friends know that i have a faith and they know that i read teh bible, because i do not hide it]. But i must still live in this world. And, like everyone else, i am still seduced by the pleasures in this world. There is no escaping this present reality. But i [actively] try not to focus on the desires i may have in the world. Good for you, Yadda... Nice to read you acknowledge your own humanity.

I am challenged by it every day.

muso wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 7:01pm:

Soren wrote on May 6th, 2013 at 10:16pm: "If god doesn't exist, everything is permitted - Dostoyevsky" - so how can you have complaints on an atheist forum?? If a moral code doesn't exist, everything is permitted.  - Not Dostoyevsky, but still true. You gotta love those lightning strikes when people do what is not permitted though. Quote: We dont know if every person perceives colors in the same way. Big Deal. muso 2013 I love the sleight of hand. Atheism doesn't include a moral code, so no Atheists have a moral code. It's about as logical as saying that coffee itself doesn't contain sugar, so coffee drinkers must drink coffee without sugar.  If you add a moral system to Atheism, it's no longer Atheism. It's Humanism - meh! If you add sugar to coffee, it becomes a mixture of coffee and sugar. It's no longer coffee. Pssst - Dostoyevsky exaggerated, and I'll tell you something else -  He knew that he was exaggerating.  ;)

LOVE the analogy. So you.

Pssst - the point is that atheism has no moral dimension. Whatever morality it does have is imported from outside atheism, from sources that are based on anything but not atheism.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 16^th, 2013 at 9:11pm:

Yadda wrote on May 16th, 2013 at 7:38pm: Quote: It does not follow from that, however that atheists must necessarily therefore not subscribe to any moral code... Being that its also true that it is possible to live life as a Jew / Christian / Muslim etc (including lip-syncing at all the right times - and many do - 'Milli Vanilli Theists' if you would) and not entertain any belief that god exists... I certainly do not count [all] atheists as immoral people. I just see people without faith as mistaken. And i think that [personally, formally] having a 'religious' faith like Christianity or Judaism,etc. simply brings the focus of that the 'moral code' [that comes with the philosophy that we have chosen to embrace] to our attention more frequently. e.g. Being a Christian, i am encouraged by my faith to frequently read the bible scripture. And reading the bible, will often bring into mental focus the moral issues that i am reading about. Whereas an atheist may have less mental 'cause' to focus upon moral issues [than a person of 'faith'] ? Atheists have the same reasons to subscribe to a moral code as you do. And they seek and find it from the same sources that you do...

North,

I do not see this.

IMO, many most ppl are 'lost in the world'.

i.e.
From my own perspective, i can see that many ppl are focused [almost?] solely upon seeking the pleasures that this world offers to them.

They are distracted away from the righteousness of God.

It is a mistake, imo.iQuote:

From their experiences, from their humanity, from their cultural roots, from their cultural religious roots... And (like you) they draw from those learnings the things that inform them via their search for the answer to the great ethical question "How should we live?"... That is not a religious question... Its a human question.

It is a human question.

But.....

what is that quote that comes to mind ???

"We had thought that we were human beings making a spiritual journey; it may be truer to say that we are spiritual beings making a human journey."
Teilhard de Chardin





Are atheists, spiritually safe ???

My philosophy [my religion] says that a moral person not 'in fath', will not be condemned by my God.


Acts 10:34
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35  But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Romans 2:11
For there is no respect of persons with God.
12  For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13  (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14  For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15  Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16  In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.







TO BELIEVE GOD'S TESTIMONY

But in choosing to believe God, we testify that we acknowledge our own human error, and accept God's righteousness.



Unfortunately, imo many atheists do this....

1 John 1:8
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10  If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.


Many atheists see no error, in their knowledge.

Or, is it, that in their knowledge, many atheists can see no error [to repent of] ?

After all [they could reason], if i am in error, i have no need to apologise to anyone [else] - i am the arbiter of my choices/values.

wow

That is what 'the powers that be' in this world are want to teach us;

That i have no need to apologise to anyone [else] - i am the arbiter of my choices/values.




Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Maybe.

capitosinora wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 6:23pm:

Maybe.

How's China at this time of year?  Does every post really earn you 5 fen?

This Topic was moved here from Atheism by freediver.