If I was a wealthy christian, then according to Heretics expectancy/belief, I would have to give away my wealth to the needy?  Okay.  How much of it should I give away in order to show my true belief in a God?

So, Stjohnny, the only thing keeping you from raping and pillaging is a belief in the Almighty? I'm sure St. Peter will be impressed when he hears that  :D  !

As for spreading disbelief, Tony, atheism is not a religion any more than health is a disease (sorry if you have heard that one as many times as I have!). Atheists don't give a crap what others believe - unless you try to force it down our throats, of course  :(  .

Actually Harry, Jesus didn't tell his disciples to sell everything and give to the poor.  He told ONE SPECIFIC PERSON to do this.  Context, my boy, context.

It is not the belief in the almighty that prevents me from becoming the heir of Genghis Kahn.  Its my belief that morality is objective which compels me to look for a reasonable basis for such an objective morality that provides one component to my belief in the almighty.

I don't particularly care what you guys think of the reasoning.  Just because YOU wouldn't rape and pillage only tells me that you are hypocrites in your own right.  You want morality to be relative but wish to condemn someone operating on such notions as true.  Indeed, I think it is worse than hypocrisy.  Its cowardice.  Harry has gone on the record explicitly verifying where his interests lie in regards to women (below the waist).   Is he going to tell me that, if he could get away with it, he wouldn't try to have sex with every woman he thought was attractive?

Or shall he tell me that he'd be afraid of someone coming along and forcefully resisting:  throwing him in jail, beating him up, or possibly killing him.

If so, that's just fear once again.  Justifiable fear, but fear nonetheless.  Fear itself is not a validator or falsifier of a moral position.  I may be afraid to sell everything and give it to the poor, but that doesn't mean there is a moral reason to do so- nor that there is a moral reason not to.  Just because you are afraid to rape and pillage doesn't mean you have a 'moral' reason not to.  At least, you don't have a reason to extend your views to me.

Oh- and St. Peter?  He wouldn't be surprised.  People living in the real world know full well what the heart of man is like.  Who will rescue me from this body of death?

hehheh, and while you're at it geegee, when did you stop beating your wife?  

hehheh, and while you're at it geegee, when did you stop beating your wife?

I plead the fifth.

"Surely, at its core, Christian belief is centered on life as an entrance exam for heaven. I'm quite sure no Christian would ever say they believed that, but they are supposed to, which is my point I guess  ... "

Nope.  :)  Not even 'they are supposed to.'  It might help to dig into the view as Christians themselves present it.

"Thank you for referring to me as "friend", Geegee, but since you must believe that I am failing the test and will be tortured for all time by some evil dudes with horns  and hooves we'd better not get too close  ... "

Oh, this is classic.  :)  Stathei, standby to have your worldview doused.  :)  Geegee, I'll try to just keep myself out of it.  Try not to get blood on the floor, ok?

"And since we are also discussing morality, I don't personally need an imaginary reward/punishment system to guide my behavior. I simply don't wish to cause harm to others, and if by doing that I happen to follow the ten commandments, well, Hallelujah  !"

That's interesting, because I don't need an imaginary reward/punishement system to guide my behavior, either.  I don't even need an ACTUAL reward/punishment system to guide my behavior.  I intuitively recognize the reality of an objective moral system but I simultaneously recognize that my passions war against this same system.   That moral system, contrary to skeptical perspectives on it, is not based on 'rewards' and 'punishments.'

This would be a great opportunity for you to explore the actual positions of some theists rather than imposing your secular POV on it.  See, this is different then me running with YOUR assumptions however I see fit.  My view requires me to take a position, and therefore it has to be taken on its own terms.  YOUR view requires that ALL positions are valid from a moral POV, so I can certainly do whatever I please within it.  No objective morality, no God, I'm Mr. Kahn.  Just obeying my passions is all.  :)

I guess another wealthy christian would have to share his goods with him...

Christianity promotes communism!  :D

No to both questions

Somebody ain't reading his bible.

I'll take my chances with "christianity".

Good for you. Maybe you don't have the "winning ticket" either. Funny how all members of all the different religions feel the same as you. I bet it's because that's how you (not you personally, just folks in general)  were raised to believe.

They actually said that these "extremists" did not understand the(ir) true religion...

*shrugs*  Or maybe the extremists do and that fella doesn't.

He told ONE SPECIFIC PERSON to do this.

And I believe that was what christ expected of all his followers. When Moses came down with the 10 commandments he gave them to the group of folks he was hanging with. I could just as easily claim they were meant for them only.

Its my belief that morality is objective which compels me to look for a reasonable basis for such an objective morality that provides one component to my belief in the almighty.


????    Explain please.

Just because YOU wouldn't rape and pillage only tells me that you are hypocrites in your own right.

???

You want morality to be relative but wish to condemn someone operating on such notions as true.

No, I don't condemn you for operating on relative morality. I condemn you for having such shallow, detrimental and destructive morals.
Raping and pillaging are not accepted in our society. So you can't fall on a relative stance.  If they were accepted in our society then maybe you would have a point.

Harry has gone on the record explicitly verifying where his interests lie in regards to women (below the waist).

NOT TRUE!!!  I like breasts too!

Is he going to tell me that, if he could get away with it, he wouldn't try to have sex with every woman he thought was attractive?


???   Uhhh.... I do try to have sex with every woman I find attractive. I don't rape them though. If they tell me "No" then that means "No". My morality prevents me from violating their choice.

Or shall he tell me that he'd be afraid of someone coming along and forcefully resisting: throwing him in jail, beating him up, or possibly killing him.


For what? I ask, they either say Yes or they say No. Raping them never crosses my mind. I would find it personally repugnant.  Just for the record though, I did get "beat-up" once when I asked a chick if she would like to have sex with me. She decked me.  **POW** right in the kisser!  :(

If so, that's just fear once again. Justifiable.........blah blah blah blah...

Irrelevant. That's not my case. This applies to your case as you need the fear of God to keep you in line.  

...you don't have a reason to extend your views to me.


Sure I do. You were the one who said you'd rape. I wouldn't, I have the  moral fortitude not to.  

People living in the real world know full well what the heart of man is like.

No just crazy folks like you who think atheistic folks have no reason  to be moral. Just because you have no underlying fortitude without your jesus crutch doesn't mean nobody else does.  This man's heart is no where near what your crazy post leads folks to believe it is. Yours seems to be. Like I said, you need Jesus.

Who will rescue me from this body of death?

Lot's of us seem to have done very well on our own thank you very much. No reason to get upset just because you can't johnny. Everyone can't be as morally strong as me. 8)  Keep your jesus belief, seems to be working for you.  :D

Interesting story I read a few months ago. It was a true story shared by someone who really, deeeeep down, with ALL his heart, truely believed in a place called "hell". He never thought that this life was some sort of perverse test and then nothing more. This person actually did the most interesting things to warn people of this bad place and called them to repent. He would eventually cry and preach in the lunch rooms (and elsewhere) and eventually got worse. He would find himself running out of his church in tears because he could not understand why the rest of his church didn't have the same passion and behave according to it. He eventually could not sleep at nights and his mind and soul was overtaken by grief. He almost went crazy, and probably would have if not for his talks with a preacher who was "universalist".


Now that's what I'm talking about! That fella fits into the "very few" catagory. He truely had a belief in an underlying reality of his religion.  Why should you care if you have some anxiety and unrest in this relatively spit of time in the grandness of eternity?

Surely, at its core, Christian belief is centered on life as an entrance exam for heaven. I'm quite sure no Christian would ever say they believed that, but they are supposed to,

**clap clap clap clap clap clap** (We need that clapping emoticon back again)

It might help to dig into the view as Christians themselves present it.


LOL! And just how do you decide which of all the different views you will get as the 'correct' one?! The one that matches yours the closest?!?  

I don't even need an ACTUAL reward/punishment system to guide my behavior.

You said you'd rape without it. Stop yer backpedaling. You already put yourself on the record as one who requires it.  

This would be a great opportunity for you to explore the actual positions of some theists ...

Well he's seen yours already.  

YOUR view requires that ALL positions are valid from a moral POV, so I can certainly do whatever I please within it. No objective morality, no God, I'm Mr. Kahn. Just obeying my passions is all.

No objective morality does not automatically equate to no morality at all. Only in your twisted head my friend.

lol, Stathei.  You don't know what you're stepping in.  :)

As soon as geegee get's here, you'll find out.  I look forward to watching the exchange.

Still, even now you don't get it.  You're a ball of yarn.  You've got a hundred pieces of different colors all rolled into a single ball and you think you've got a coherent view.

I will make my own effort to set you straight, because after all, I won't be agreeing with large parts of what geegee says.

This started with geegee calling you 'friend' and you responding with a comment about how it is not wise to be friends with someone 'failing the test.'   (Its the funniest thing in the world that you applied this point to geegee rather than me) Of course, 'failing the test' is your own propoganda.  Despite saying, "I know how Christians present their own beliefs" you have pretty much completely mischaracterized those beliefs.

You're beating up on a strawman of your own making.

You have here an opportunity to actually ask and receive a straight-up answer.  If you want to retreat behind your own settled view of the world, that's your perogative.  I can certainly say that if you had any hope of persuading people to see your POV you have to go beyond what you've said so far.

Now, you've cited a Bible passage, but I don't know what it is supposed to support.  I highly doubt that in any case you will have applied it correctly, but I might be wrong.  Is this passage meant to support your notion that geegee shouldn't be your friend?  Are you trying to make the point that a Christian obeying the Scriptures will have to accept the reality of eternal (everlasting is the word here, Tony N) fire as part of that package?  

Those are the two main options that I see but neither of them fly very well.

This smacks quite a bit of Harry's citation of the reference "go and sell everything..."  This statement of Jesus' was not a blanket statement at all, but was applied by Jesus to a very specific instance.  You'd better go back and look at the passage you gave and see whether or not that passage should instill fear in the atheist or someone else.... someone who might be completely OUT of the category you think is being described as including you.

I guess another wealthy christian would have to share his goods with him...

Christianity promotes communism!

Of course.  What do you think happened in 1st century A.D.  Not to be confused with Soviet-style communism, however, which was very different.  

He told ONE SPECIFIC PERSON to do this.

And I believe that was what christ expected of all his followers. When Moses came down with the 10 commandments he gave them to the group of folks he was hanging with. I could just as easily claim they were meant for them only.

Context, Harry.  Context.  The commandments were a set of general guidelines to apply to everyone.  Jesus' command was directed at this person's heart.

Its my belief that morality is objective which compels me to look for a reasonable basis for such an objective morality that provides one component to my belief in the almighty.


????  Explain please.

The fact that you don't get this pretty much unravels the rest of your critique.  Objective morality convinces SJ that certain things are right and wrong.  So he conforms his behavior, not because he's afraid God will punish him, but because he is convinced that doing so is the right thing to do.  It would be wrong to rape and pillage, so he does not.

Just because YOU wouldn't rape and pillage only tells me that you are hypocrites in your own right.

???  

Actually, I don't believe I would rape and pillage if I were atheist.  But it would just be a matter of preference, and I would be hard pressed to condemn that kind of conduct in others, except to say that it might end up being inconvenient to me, which really is just a whine.  

You want morality to be relative but wish to condemn someone operating on such notions as true.

No, I don't condemn you for operating on relative morality. I condemn you for having such shallow, detrimental and destructive morals.

You're sounding like an objective moralist.
 

Raping and pillaging are not accepted in our society. So you can't fall on a relative stance. If they were accepted in our society then maybe you would have a point.

So was african slavery ok?  Was it ok when blacks and whites had separate water fountains?  

???  Uhhh.... I do try to have sex with every woman I find attractive. I don't rape them though. If they tell me "No" then that means "No". My morality prevents me from violating their choice.

I can accept that rape would be no fun for you; that your enjoyment would require a willing partner.  But that's just a matter of preference.  For you to say it's a moral choice is to allude to an objective morality.  And that's to your credit.  But what that means is that you really are abiding by an objective morality in making that choice.

If so, that's just fear once again. Justifiable.........blah blah blah blah...

Not fear.  Conviction that certain things are right and certain things are wrong.

No just crazy folks like you who think atheistic folks have no reason to be moral. Just because you have no underlying fortitude without your jesus crutch doesn't mean nobody else does. This man's heart is no where near what your crazy post leads folks to believe it is. Yours seems to be. Like I said, you need Jesus.

The question isn't are you acting morally.  The question is whether you have any basis for acting morally and making the moral judgments that you do.  I would say you do have a basis, but you refuse to recognize it.

No objective morality does not automatically equate to no morality at all. Only in your twisted head my friend.

Says you.  The question is how you get morality if it's not objective.  You cannot get there because objectiveness is inherent in the whole notion of morality.  A relative morality is really a foundation of quicksand.

Ahh....SJ slipped in a post as I was responding on his behalf!

You know what, they line up pretty well.  :)