Atheists/Agnostics

1171819202123»

Comments

  • zzombie
    zzombie Members Posts: 11,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    There is a gray area things are much more complex than you want to make them seem
  • And_So_It_Burns
    And_So_It_Burns Members Posts: 921 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zzombie wrote: »
    Bringing up all those eastern religions proves nothing because none of them are really atheistic they are actually either theistic or agnostic in the true sense.

    If you don't believe in a deity, you are an atheist. That is the one and only qualifier.

  • zzombie
    zzombie Members Posts: 11,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2016
    zzombie wrote: »
    Bringing up all those eastern religions proves nothing because none of them are really atheistic they are actually either theistic or agnostic in the true sense.

    If you don't believe in a deity, you are an atheist. That is the one and only qualifier.

    Wrong. IT CANNOT be wrapped up so sweetly there are difference between so called hard and soft atheist and the so called soft atheist are really just agnostic.

    a lot of the groups you just tried to rope into atheism upon further analysis of what the believe are actually just agnostic.
  • And_So_It_Burns
    And_So_It_Burns Members Posts: 921 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zzombie wrote: »
    zzombie wrote: »
    Bringing up all those eastern religions proves nothing because none of them are really atheistic they are actually either theistic or agnostic in the true sense.

    If you don't believe in a deity, you are an atheist. That is the one and only qualifier.

    Wrong. IT CANNOT be wrapped up so sweetly there are difference between so called hard and soft atheist and the so called soft atheist are really just agnostic.


    a lot of the groups you just tried to rope into atheism upon further analysis of what the believe are actually just agnostic.

    Agnostics and atheists are not mutually exclusive terms...seems you don't know the basic definitions of the words you use. Atheist and agnostic aren't mutually exclusive because they're non-contradicting statements and they answer two different questions. Agnosticism says nothing about if you believe in a ? but rather if the status of ? is knowable by humans. If some one asks you if you believe in ? , saying you're agnostic does not answer the question.


    There are only two possible positions to the following question: Do you believe ? exist? Yes or No Theist or atheist. Quick question, do the religions I mention earlier believe in ? ...
  • zzombie
    zzombie Members Posts: 11,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zzombie wrote: »
    zzombie wrote: »
    Bringing up all those eastern religions proves nothing because none of them are really atheistic they are actually either theistic or agnostic in the true sense.

    If you don't believe in a deity, you are an atheist. That is the one and only qualifier.

    Wrong. IT CANNOT be wrapped up so sweetly there are difference between so called hard and soft atheist and the so called soft atheist are really just agnostic.


    a lot of the groups you just tried to rope into atheism upon further analysis of what the believe are actually just agnostic.

    Agnostics and atheists are not mutually exclusive terms...seems you don't know the basic definitions of the words you use. Atheist and agnostic aren't mutually exclusive because they're non-contradicting statements and they answer two different questions. Agnosticism says nothing about if you believe in a ? but rather if the status of ? is knowable by humans. If some one asks you if you believe in ? , saying you're agnostic does not answer the question.


    There are only two possible positions to the following question: Do you believe ? exist? Yes or No Theist or atheist. Quick question, do the religions I mention earlier believe in ? ...

    no i understand the terms i just reject them because how they are used makes no sense.
    you cannot be an atheist and be an agnostic about ? at the same time.

    there are 3 answers to the question do you believe in ? yes no or refusal to answer

    The religions you mentioned earlier were not atheistic religions, the closest one to being atheistic was buddhism
  • NeighborhoodNomad.
    NeighborhoodNomad. Members Posts: 2,731 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zzombie wrote: »

    I don't consider any of those groups of people atheist i was under the assumption that your knew i was talking about western modern day styled atheist not people who follow a religious doctrine that lacks a ? but still affirms the existence of the supernatural . ANOTHER thing that irks me about some atheist you like to claim people as being atheist when they really are not.

    Pay attention i was talking about nations not individuals when i said they were not really atheist and only atheist on paper, with the actual population being religious why do you think i talked about china??? come on man pay attention what i am saying is not rocket science.

    .......this isn't a gray issue and I can't believe I have to explain this again to someone I considered to be one of the smarter posters. It's not ambiguous. The people I described earlier are atheists by definition. There aren't varying degrees. Either you are or you are not. If you don't consider these people to be atheist, then you obviously don't know the meaning of the word. If it lacks ? it is atheist....for GODSFUCKINGSAKE!!!!!!!!!

    Let me help you articulate your own damn argument since you're not getting. You have a problem or fundamental disagreement with materialist/naturalist/secular humanist who ascribe to empirical rationalism and skepticism. Unless you don't know the definition of atheist, you're going to have to concede your earlier point about moral system and atheism.


    Again, religion and atheism are compatible

    ....I'm not sure why I have to repeat myself so much, I usually enjoy our back and forth..

    I don't really understand. Are you saying that a moral code that doesn't mention a ? is atheism? We can all take an oath to something that doesn't have a ? in it and be very much theist. For example "A Black Oath" by Dr. Frances Wess Welsing is a moral code that doesn't mention any ? but it also can't be classified as an atheist oath.

    How are religion and atheism compatible?

    Maybe atheism and ritual can have moments of compatibility because we are creatures of habit and superstitious, but how can religion and atheism be compatible?
  • And_So_It_Burns
    And_So_It_Burns Members Posts: 921 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zzombie wrote: »

    I don't consider any of those groups of people atheist i was under the assumption that your knew i was talking about western modern day styled atheist not people who follow a religious doctrine that lacks a ? but still affirms the existence of the supernatural . ANOTHER thing that irks me about some atheist you like to claim people as being atheist when they really are not.

    Pay attention i was talking about nations not individuals when i said they were not really atheist and only atheist on paper, with the actual population being religious why do you think i talked about china??? come on man pay attention what i am saying is not rocket science.

    .......this isn't a gray issue and I can't believe I have to explain this again to someone I considered to be one of the smarter posters. It's not ambiguous. The people I described earlier are atheists by definition. There aren't varying degrees. Either you are or you are not. If you don't consider these people to be atheist, then you obviously don't know the meaning of the word. If it lacks ? it is atheist....for GODSFUCKINGSAKE!!!!!!!!!

    Let me help you articulate your own damn argument since you're not getting. You have a problem or fundamental disagreement with materialist/naturalist/secular humanist who ascribe to empirical rationalism and skepticism. Unless you don't know the definition of atheist, you're going to have to concede your earlier point about moral system and atheism.


    Again, religion and atheism are compatible

    ....I'm not sure why I have to repeat myself so much, I usually enjoy our back and forth..

    I don't really understand. Are you saying that a moral code that doesn't mention a ? is atheism? We can all take an oath to something that doesn't have a ? in it and be very much theist. For example "A Black Oath" by Dr. Frances Wess Welsing is a moral code that doesn't mention any ? but it also can't be classified as an atheist oath.

    How are religion and atheism compatible?

    Maybe atheism and ritual can have moments of compatibility because we are creatures of habit and superstitious, but how can religion and atheism be compatible?

    What I mean is the non-belief in ? (atheists) and religion are not mutually exclusive. Meaning you can be a religious person who doesn't believe in ? . There are many examples of it in the religions I listed earlier.
  • zzombie
    zzombie Members Posts: 11,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    so called weak atheism which is the "ATHEISM" found in eastern religions is really agnostic it's not actually atheism those religions are not atheistic.
  • And_So_It_Burns
    And_So_It_Burns Members Posts: 921 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2016
    zzombie wrote: »

    no i understand the terms i just reject them

    Sorry I was under the impression we were using the actual definition of words and not your subjective interpretation of them
    zzombie wrote: »
    you cannot be an atheist and be an agnostic about ? at the same time.

    Like i said, the term "agnostic" doesn't ask or answer if you believe in a ? or not. Simply rather it's knowable. Again, assuming you accept the actual definition of a word.

    "Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact."

    "Agnostic Theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable."

    Agnostic theism is if the belief in ? can be asserted as a provable fact or must be believed in faith alone
    zzombie wrote: »

    there are 3 answers to the question do you believe in ? yes no or refusal to answer

    The religions you mentioned earlier were not atheistic religions, the closest one to being atheistic was buddhism


    You just say things that aren't grounded in any basis what so ever. You already conceded to not using the actual definition of "atheist" so arguing further about this is senseless.

    My question to you is, where do the theistic religious people get their morals from if secular atheists don't have any

  • zzombie
    zzombie Members Posts: 11,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zzombie wrote: »

    no i understand the terms i just reject them

    Sorry I was under the impression we were using the actual definition of words and not your subjective interpretation of them
    zzombie wrote: »
    you cannot be an atheist and be an agnostic about ? at the same time.

    Like i said, the term "agnostic" doesn't ask or answer if you believe in a ? or not. Simply rather it's knowable. Again, assuming you accept the actual definition of a word.

    "Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact."

    "Agnostic Theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable."
    zzombie wrote: »

    there are 3 answers to the question do you believe in ? yes no or refusal to answer

    The religions you mentioned earlier were not atheistic religions, the closest one to being atheistic was buddhism


    You just say things that aren't grounded in any basis what so ever. You already conceded to not using the actual definition of "atheist" so arguing further about this is senseless.

    My question to you is, where do the theistic religious people get there morals from if secular atheists don't have any

    YOU are trying to make the us of the word "atheist" more simple than it really is when you say atheist and don't quality what kind of atheist you are talking about you will naturally run into problems because unlike you wrongly said earlier there are gray areas and simple "lack of belief" is not enough to define what an atheist is.

    agnostic theism, agnostic atheism these concepts don't make any sense all all but modern "atheist" continue to use them to explain there logically inconsistent viewpoints
  • And_So_It_Burns
    And_So_It_Burns Members Posts: 921 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zzombie wrote: »
    zzombie wrote: »

    no i understand the terms i just reject them

    Sorry I was under the impression we were using the actual definition of words and not your subjective interpretation of them
    zzombie wrote: »
    you cannot be an atheist and be an agnostic about ? at the same time.

    Like i said, the term "agnostic" doesn't ask or answer if you believe in a ? or not. Simply rather it's knowable. Again, assuming you accept the actual definition of a word.

    "Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact."

    "Agnostic Theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable."
    zzombie wrote: »

    there are 3 answers to the question do you believe in ? yes no or refusal to answer

    The religions you mentioned earlier were not atheistic religions, the closest one to being atheistic was buddhism


    You just say things that aren't grounded in any basis what so ever. You already conceded to not using the actual definition of "atheist" so arguing further about this is senseless.

    My question to you is, where do the theistic religious people get there morals from if secular atheists don't have any

    YOU are trying to make the us of the word "atheist" more simple than it really is when you say atheist and don't quality what kind of atheist you are talking about you will naturally run into problems because unlike you wrongly said earlier there are gray areas and simple "lack of belief" is not enough to define what an atheist is.

    agnostic theism, agnostic atheism these concepts don't make any sense all all but modern "atheist" continue to use them to explain there logically inconsistent viewpoints

    Like I said, arguing about it it senseless at this point.


    My question to you is, where do the theistic religious people get there morals from if secular atheists don't have any
  • zzombie
    zzombie Members Posts: 11,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zzombie wrote: »
    zzombie wrote: »

    no i understand the terms i just reject them

    Sorry I was under the impression we were using the actual definition of words and not your subjective interpretation of them
    zzombie wrote: »
    you cannot be an atheist and be an agnostic about ? at the same time.

    Like i said, the term "agnostic" doesn't ask or answer if you believe in a ? or not. Simply rather it's knowable. Again, assuming you accept the actual definition of a word.

    "Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact."

    "Agnostic Theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable."
    zzombie wrote: »

    there are 3 answers to the question do you believe in ? yes no or refusal to answer

    The religions you mentioned earlier were not atheistic religions, the closest one to being atheistic was buddhism


    You just say things that aren't grounded in any basis what so ever. You already conceded to not using the actual definition of "atheist" so arguing further about this is senseless.

    My question to you is, where do the theistic religious people get there morals from if secular atheists don't have any

    YOU are trying to make the us of the word "atheist" more simple than it really is when you say atheist and don't quality what kind of atheist you are talking about you will naturally run into problems because unlike you wrongly said earlier there are gray areas and simple "lack of belief" is not enough to define what an atheist is.

    agnostic theism, agnostic atheism these concepts don't make any sense all all but modern "atheist" continue to use them to explain there logically inconsistent viewpoints

    Like I said, arguing about it it senseless at this point.


    My question to you is, where do the theistic religious people get there morals from if secular atheists don't have any

    theistic religious get there morals from their religious doctrines

    secular atheist don't have any morals like i already said each atheist is his own law giver you just make it up as you go along or you cut and paste the moral sentiments of religious doctrines to fit your needs.

    which means so called secular atheist morals are situational morals and situational morals are not morals at all.
  • Ajackson17
    Ajackson17 Members Posts: 22,501 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Atheists get their morality from the cultural mechanisms of their culture like anyone does.
  • zzombie
    zzombie Members Posts: 11,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2016
    Ajackson17 wrote: »
    Atheists get their morality from the cultural mechanisms of their culture like anyone does.

    They don't have any morals they just pick and choose whatever is convenient for them because nothing is truly fundamentally scared to them.

    Because after all mankind is nothing more than intelligent meatbags and the universe just snapped into existence with no meaning
  • Ajackson17
    Ajackson17 Members Posts: 22,501 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zzombie wrote: »
    Ajackson17 wrote: »
    Atheists get their morality from the cultural mechanisms of their culture like anyone does.

    They don't have any morals they just pick and choose whatever is convenient for them because nothing is truly fundamentally scared to them.

    Because after all mankind is nothing more than intelligent meatbags and the universe just snapped into existence with no meaning

    That's kinda of psychopathic thinking. The law was for man who was lawless in his heart and the moral man needs no laws to govern over him cause it's in his heart. I have nothing needing to scare me to do the right thing because I understand cause and effect if I rob people this will create a chain of event to causing more reason for people to protect themselves and could inspired others to do the same. I want a ecosystem as peaceful as it can and respecting the natural world that I live on so it can be passed down for the next generations to have something to build instead of being born into chaos and corrupted world.

    It's all about knowing the science of things and the laws governing the universe. Ma'at.
  • NeighborhoodNomad.
    NeighborhoodNomad. Members Posts: 2,731 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zzombie wrote: »

    I don't consider any of those groups of people atheist i was under the assumption that your knew i was talking about western modern day styled atheist not people who follow a religious doctrine that lacks a ? but still affirms the existence of the supernatural . ANOTHER thing that irks me about some atheist you like to claim people as being atheist when they really are not.

    Pay attention i was talking about nations not individuals when i said they were not really atheist and only atheist on paper, with the actual population being religious why do you think i talked about china??? come on man pay attention what i am saying is not rocket science.

    .......this isn't a gray issue and I can't believe I have to explain this again to someone I considered to be one of the smarter posters. It's not ambiguous. The people I described earlier are atheists by definition. There aren't varying degrees. Either you are or you are not. If you don't consider these people to be atheist, then you obviously don't know the meaning of the word. If it lacks ? it is atheist....for GODSFUCKINGSAKE!!!!!!!!!

    Let me help you articulate your own damn argument since you're not getting. You have a problem or fundamental disagreement with materialist/naturalist/secular humanist who ascribe to empirical rationalism and skepticism. Unless you don't know the definition of atheist, you're going to have to concede your earlier point about moral system and atheism.


    Again, religion and atheism are compatible

    ....I'm not sure why I have to repeat myself so much, I usually enjoy our back and forth..

    I don't really understand. Are you saying that a moral code that doesn't mention a ? is atheism? We can all take an oath to something that doesn't have a ? in it and be very much theist. For example "A Black Oath" by Dr. Frances Wess Welsing is a moral code that doesn't mention any ? but it also can't be classified as an atheist oath.

    How are religion and atheism compatible?

    Maybe atheism and ritual can have moments of compatibility because we are creatures of habit and superstitious, but how can religion and atheism be compatible?

    What I mean is the non-belief in ? (atheists) and religion are not mutually exclusive. Meaning you can be a religious person who doesn't believe in ? . There are many examples of it in the religions I listed earlier.

    Ok I see what you're saying. Do you believe there's a difference between code of conduct and religion? If yes, when does code of conduct become religion?

    Religion is about the man/spirit relationship.
  • NeighborhoodNomad.
    NeighborhoodNomad. Members Posts: 2,731 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ajackson17 wrote: »
    zzombie wrote: »
    Ajackson17 wrote: »
    Atheists get their morality from the cultural mechanisms of their culture like anyone does.

    They don't have any morals they just pick and choose whatever is convenient for them because nothing is truly fundamentally scared to them.

    Because after all mankind is nothing more than intelligent meatbags and the universe just snapped into existence with no meaning

    That's kinda of psychopathic thinking. The law was for man who was lawless in his heart and the moral man needs no laws to govern over him cause it's in his heart. I have nothing needing to scare me to do the right thing because I understand cause and effect if I rob people this will create a chain of event to causing more reason for people to protect themselves and could inspired others to do the same. I want a ecosystem as peaceful as it can and respecting the natural world that I live on so it can be passed down for the next generations to have something to build instead of being born into chaos and corrupted world.

    It's all about knowing the science of things and the laws governing the universe. Ma'at.

    What you're saying is the way I understand "sin" and "righteousness". "Sin" and "Righteousness" are not limited to morality and emotion.

    Everything is LAW, meaning ___+___ = ____ EVERYTIME. Everything is cause and effect as well.

    "Sin" literally means transgression of LAW.

    "Righteousness is the applying of LAW.

    When I say LAW I mean, gravity, photosynthesis, the elements, morality, emotion, temperature, etc. There is a LAW/order/purpose for all things

    It's my understanding that "Sin" and "Righteousness" describe the totality of cause and effect for ALL things. It's not limited to morality.
  • Ajackson17
    Ajackson17 Members Posts: 22,501 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ajackson17 wrote: »
    zzombie wrote: »
    Ajackson17 wrote: »
    Atheists get their morality from the cultural mechanisms of their culture like anyone does.

    They don't have any morals they just pick and choose whatever is convenient for them because nothing is truly fundamentally scared to them.

    Because after all mankind is nothing more than intelligent meatbags and the universe just snapped into existence with no meaning

    That's kinda of psychopathic thinking. The law was for man who was lawless in his heart and the moral man needs no laws to govern over him cause it's in his heart. I have nothing needing to scare me to do the right thing because I understand cause and effect if I rob people this will create a chain of event to causing more reason for people to protect themselves and could inspired others to do the same. I want a ecosystem as peaceful as it can and respecting the natural world that I live on so it can be passed down for the next generations to have something to build instead of being born into chaos and corrupted world.

    It's all about knowing the science of things and the laws governing the universe. Ma'at.

    What you're saying is the way I understand "sin" and "righteousness". "Sin" and "Righteousness" are not limited to morality and emotion.

    Everything is LAW, meaning ___+___ = ____ EVERYTIME. Everything is cause and effect as well.

    "Sin" literally means transgression of LAW.

    "Righteousness is the applying of LAW.

    When I say LAW I mean, gravity, photosynthesis, the elements, morality, emotion, temperature, etc. There is a LAW/order/purpose for all things

    It's my understanding that "Sin" and "Righteousness" describe the totality of cause and effect for ALL things. It's not limited to morality.

    Dope! I like how you break it down. Nature is always self-aware and constantly changing while still remaining connected to the laws. The ancestors always refer to nature being self changing and never walking on it's laws. I don't use the word ? cause I know it's connected with death and never meant for conscious existence that gives existence to everything. So that lets me know they are playing games and know they are playing games. Nature comes from the word Neteru.
  • NeighborhoodNomad.
    NeighborhoodNomad. Members Posts: 2,731 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ajackson17 wrote: »
    Ajackson17 wrote: »
    zzombie wrote: »
    Ajackson17 wrote: »
    Atheists get their morality from the cultural mechanisms of their culture like anyone does.

    They don't have any morals they just pick and choose whatever is convenient for them because nothing is truly fundamentally scared to them.

    Because after all mankind is nothing more than intelligent meatbags and the universe just snapped into existence with no meaning

    That's kinda of psychopathic thinking. The law was for man who was lawless in his heart and the moral man needs no laws to govern over him cause it's in his heart. I have nothing needing to scare me to do the right thing because I understand cause and effect if I rob people this will create a chain of event to causing more reason for people to protect themselves and could inspired others to do the same. I want a ecosystem as peaceful as it can and respecting the natural world that I live on so it can be passed down for the next generations to have something to build instead of being born into chaos and corrupted world.

    It's all about knowing the science of things and the laws governing the universe. Ma'at.

    What you're saying is the way I understand "sin" and "righteousness". "Sin" and "Righteousness" are not limited to morality and emotion.

    Everything is LAW, meaning ___+___ = ____ EVERYTIME. Everything is cause and effect as well.

    "Sin" literally means transgression of LAW.

    "Righteousness is the applying of LAW.

    When I say LAW I mean, gravity, photosynthesis, the elements, morality, emotion, temperature, etc. There is a LAW/order/purpose for all things

    It's my understanding that "Sin" and "Righteousness" describe the totality of cause and effect for ALL things. It's not limited to morality.

    Dope! I like how you break it down. Nature is always self-aware and constantly changing while still remaining connected to the laws. The ancestors always refer to nature being self changing and never walking on it's laws. I don't use the word ? cause I know it's connected with death and never meant for conscious existence that gives existence to everything. So that lets me know they are playing games and know they are playing games. Nature comes from the word Neteru.

    Goated the first half, but what do you mean by the last 4 sentences? (I couldn't bold it) I'm unfamiliar with all of it...
  • Ajackson17
    Ajackson17 Members Posts: 22,501 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ajackson17 wrote: »
    Ajackson17 wrote: »
    zzombie wrote: »
    Ajackson17 wrote: »
    Atheists get their morality from the cultural mechanisms of their culture like anyone does.

    They don't have any morals they just pick and choose whatever is convenient for them because nothing is truly fundamentally scared to them.

    Because after all mankind is nothing more than intelligent meatbags and the universe just snapped into existence with no meaning

    That's kinda of psychopathic thinking. The law was for man who was lawless in his heart and the moral man needs no laws to govern over him cause it's in his heart. I have nothing needing to scare me to do the right thing because I understand cause and effect if I rob people this will create a chain of event to causing more reason for people to protect themselves and could inspired others to do the same. I want a ecosystem as peaceful as it can and respecting the natural world that I live on so it can be passed down for the next generations to have something to build instead of being born into chaos and corrupted world.

    It's all about knowing the science of things and the laws governing the universe. Ma'at.

    What you're saying is the way I understand "sin" and "righteousness". "Sin" and "Righteousness" are not limited to morality and emotion.

    Everything is LAW, meaning ___+___ = ____ EVERYTIME. Everything is cause and effect as well.

    "Sin" literally means transgression of LAW.

    "Righteousness is the applying of LAW.

    When I say LAW I mean, gravity, photosynthesis, the elements, morality, emotion, temperature, etc. There is a LAW/order/purpose for all things

    It's my understanding that "Sin" and "Righteousness" describe the totality of cause and effect for ALL things. It's not limited to morality.

    Dope! I like how you break it down. Nature is always self-aware and constantly changing while still remaining connected to the laws. The ancestors always refer to nature being self changing and never walking on it's laws. I don't use the word ? cause I know it's connected with death and never meant for conscious existence that gives existence to everything. So that lets me know they are playing games and know they are playing games. Nature comes from the word Neteru.

    Goated the first half, but what do you mean by the last 4 sentences? (I couldn't bold it) I'm unfamiliar with all of it...

    The study of the origin of the word ?

    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=?

    ? (n.) Look up ? at Dictionary.com
    Old English ? "supreme being, deity; the Christian ? ; image of a ? ; godlike person," from Proto-Germanic *guthan (cognates: Old Saxon, Old Frisian, Dutch ? , Old High German got, German Gott, Old Norse guð, Gothic guþ), from PIE *ghut- "that which is invoked" (cognates: Old Church Slavonic zovo "to call," Sanskrit huta- "invoked," an epithet of Indra), from root *gheu(e)- "to call, invoke."

    But some trace it to PIE *ghu-to- "poured," from root *gheu- "to pour, pour a libation" (source of Greek khein "to pour," also in the phrase khute gaia "poured earth," referring to a burial mound; see found (v.2)). "Given the Greek facts, the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound" [Watkins]. See also Zeus. In either case, not related to good.
    Popular etymology has long derived ? from good; but a comparison of the forms ... shows this to be an error. Moreover, the notion of goodness is not conspicuous in the heathen conception of deity, and in good itself the ethical sense is comparatively late. [Century Dictionary, 1902]
    Originally a neuter noun in Germanic, the gender shifted to masculine after the coming of Christianity. Old English ? probably was closer in sense to Latin numen. A better word to translate deus might have been Proto-Germanic *ansuz, but this was used only of the highest deities in the Germanic religion, and not of foreign gods, and it was never used of the Christian ? . It survives in English mainly in the personal names beginning in Os-.
  • And_So_It_Burns
    And_So_It_Burns Members Posts: 921 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2016
    zzombie wrote: »

    theistic religious get there morals from their religious doctrines

    Which are all man made. You obviously don't believe any other religions outside of the Abrahamic ones to be true. For these religions, you believe the doctrines weren't divinely inspired. Which means the laws were written by man....where did these religious doctrines come from if not by ? ? How is that any different from a law abiding non-believer?

    Or do you believe that simply having a belief in ? , even if the ? isn't real, is a system for morality. If so, this isn't morality.
    zzombie wrote: »
    Secular atheist don't have any morals like i already said each atheist is his own law giver you just make it up as you go along or you cut and paste the moral sentiments of religious doctrines to fit your needs.

    which means so called secular atheist morals are situational morals and situational morals are not morals at all.

    Name me a real act of morality that a believer could do that an atheist couldn't...
  • And_So_It_Burns
    And_So_It_Burns Members Posts: 921 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ok I see what you're saying. Do you believe there's a difference between code of conduct and religion? If yes, when does code of conduct become religion?

    Religion is about the man/spirit relationship.

    Yes, in order to be a religion, it has to make some existential/metaphysical claim about life in the present and the afterlife that involves some sense of spirituality (only religion does this). There's a cultural and supernatural aspect to it, typically. Code of conduct in religion is sometimes revealed word from the respective religion's ? /Angel etc sometimes it's not.

    Code of conduct can be all those things but it doesn't have to be. It becomes a religion when it makes a claim about the after life, specifically. Or meets the requirements I listed above.