Mrs Brahmin Profile

https://www.youtub e.com/watch?v=RB3g 6mXLEKk Take the quiz yourself... (Tuesday May 14 | post #113)

I appreciate the compliment and I’m sorry about your folly. (Tuesday May 14 | post #112)

Exodus 35:2 God suggests (from his book) anyone caught working on the Sabbath (Saturdays) needs to be put to death. Shouldn't you be on a killing spree every weekend until those infidels get it right? (Monday May 13 | post #110)

Exodus 21:7 If you sell your daughter into slavery, make sure she doesn't act like a male slave. Who wants an 'uppity maid-servant" (Monday May 13 | post #109)

Exodus 21:20-21 You can own slaves, as long as you don't beat them to death. Or they can live for a couple of days before they die from the beating. God says "Well, their your property" (Monday May 13 | post #108)

I believe this is an interesting and relevant question for discussion. I was too young to remember when I believed in god, because it was taught at the same time I was learning English. I also learned about Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. I was “made to believe” because there was no alternative to belief. It was universally accepted within my family, community and culture. By 13 years old, I was able to rid of those fables not accepted as true. By age of 20 years, I started to think for myself. I found alternatives to my limited world and found diversity in life, society, and culture. When I started to question my own beliefs for their legitimacy is when I started to be free and grow. I was no longer bound to the slave’s chains of false doctrine and ideology. I started basing my trust in evidence and human rights, not in what one guy said that another guy told him that he had written down from another guy who heard it from someone else that said he talked to god, then that was later edited by a group of men who did the final polish on the message from people they never met and said it was definably true. “It is a blind goose that cometh to the fox's sermon.” John Lyly (Saturday May 11 | post #106)

I think those are the right questions. We often look at Judaism, Islam and Christianity because of the cultural influence and familiarity we have with those religious beliefs, but they are not the only ones that are myopic. If we look at most religious doctrines that dictate morality for thousands of years, we can see inconsistencies and a hesitancy to evolve as society’s moral behavior evolves. I would think the morals dictated by religion would be easily and obviously seen as archaic and irrelevant, but because of the “infinite infallible” nature of God it is clung onto stronger than a Remington rifle in the cold dead hands of Charlton Heston. I think morality is defined as judged behavior and intent. That judgment of behavior is relative and evolving, which makes it subjective. Now, this is where I think it gets sticker than Traci Lords’ face after the director says “cut”. We have long thought that there was an objective and universal morality, but history shows us differently. Civil Rights, Women’s Suffrage, Abolishment of Slavery were all accepted after being publicly ignored for thousands of years. We eventually evolved and matured as a society. The danger of seeing morality as evolving is that it is subject to opinion, changing judgment, cultural biases and can be found fallible. This makes people uncomfortable, yet this is how our morality has improved. So if we can agree that our morality has the ability to adjust to a consensus of ethics, and we see that it has to, then what is the “standard” we should use to define the acceptable parameters of our morals? For theists, this is an easy question to answer. They would refer to returning to the “infinite infallible” words of their ancient texts. Rational and reasonable people would see this as incomplete and arbitrary. For example, if you would hold onto the 10 Commandments as being the complete and all-encompassing, then you are grotesquely mistaken. Sure you can’t lie and disrespect your parents, but it says nothing about slavery and rape. So again I ask, what should be the standard? If we look at the study of biology and identify morality as our recognized behavior standards, then we could begin to define morality based on “individual respect” all the way up to “prosperity for the whole”. We would have to define the boundaries of etiquette (mostly culturally demarcated) as well as a global acceptance of moral justice. I think we are not too far from realizing it. We just lack the time and energy to define it while casting off our old pious prejudices of progress. This is not to say religion hindered us getting there during the dark ages (or helped depending on your point of view). This is to say religious antiquated laws are no longer accurate or necessary today. History used to judge our social ignorance, but we are living longer and change is happening faster. “Morality is not really the doctrine of how to make ourselves happy but of how we are to be worthy of happiness” Immanuel Kant (Apr 12, 2013 | post #36)

I think you misunderstand. I “attack” all religions under most topics. I’m not sure whose nerve you struck, but I hope it inspires lively conversation. If you read my posts, you should see that I am not a fan of religion in any form. So I don’t play favorites when it comes to stirring contempt for taboos. I guess the way to explain it best to understand theology from a non-believer’s point of view is to think of how ridiculous is sounds to have a group of people believing in a Flying Spaghetti Monster that lives in the sky and has sway on your eternal soul. This should sound ludicrous to any reasonable person. But if the group of people is large enough, then that becomes a religion. I think religion played its role in the Bronze Age of our social development (just after the Flintstones, but way before the Jetsons). It has long served its purpose. It is no longer needed to comfort or explain our universe. But here is the “kicker”; nothing I say will change the mind of any believer who truly believes. There is no amount of information, logic or reason that will influence a person of faith to accept it. Surprise! I have no problem with that. *Spoiler Alert* Most of all free-thinker’s arguments against the faithful are decorously common, but quite futile. There is little to gain by even debating the issue. How does one explain rationally that 1+1 does not equal 3 to someone that “deeply knows in their heart” that it does? For example, whether you agree or disagree, here are the most used “talking points” for skeptics and free-thinkers. 1)There is almost no evidence to support any religious claims, and all testable claims fail. 2)Science continues to “close the gaps” of the unknown and “supernatural”. 3)Religion has evolved just like any other biological trait. 4)Religion causes hatred and war. 5)Sacred books are characterized by errors & lies, internal & mutual contradictions, highly implausible origins, silly or cruel behavior by gods and religious heroes. 6)Religion is the product of human yearning for identity, belonging, sense of superiority, blame-worthy enemies and inspiring narrative. Just to name a few. If you have your own religion, it is likely you disbelieve in all other gods & religions. People like me just took it one god further than you. But again, this argument isn’t about you or me. It is about those who are discovering for themselves, to decide for themselves the truth. More than likely, the children born today will draw further away from organized religion and accept more reasonable evidence-based truths. I don’t believe in insulting each other personally to gain some modicum of repartee. I do however like mocking silly things in a silly way. “If there were no God, there would be no atheists.” Gilbert K. Chesterton (Apr 8, 2013 | post #33)

I’m sorry you feel that way, and I’m very proud of you learning new words. You should keep that up; you can find lots of those “words” in books. Having a truly open and reasonable mind you can find the differences between fact and fiction in those books. It's really cool!!! But if you were not making a point or bragging about your literacy, then I would have to say you were insulting me. I’m fair game, I won’t deny that. I’ve openly posted my point-of-view and my position should be open for criticism. But you are attacking me directly and personally, this is a bad idea. You see, when religious or ignorant people in a debate are without any reasonable recourse of argument, they will often just refer to circular logic or insults. This means they think they are losing the argument. I’m sure you’re not ignorant. (I’ve been wrong before, though) If you have something to say about my argument, then let’s hear it. I wanted to get feedback from reasonable people discussing reasonable topics. I was hoping for an academic discussion not a Jerry Springer/Dope Show Reunion. I'm sure you can understand. I think it is also fair game to make it fun. I previously equated praying in public (which Jesus thinks is narcissism) with masturbating in public. I think that comparison is funny. It makes me giggle. I didn’t say it to be mean to you, but rather critical of religious beliefs. But if you are still offended, then you really should come down off the cross. Nobody is trying to make you a martyr. Militant Christians uses guns. Militant Islamists use bombs. Militant Atheists use words. Words sound reasonable to me. “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.” Bertrand Russell (Apr 5, 2013 | post #26)

Consider this. Does the concept of God encourage and promote greed? If you feel that everything you have in excess of necessity a “gift from God”, then do you feel that you are entitled to that gift? If not entitled, do you feel God gave you that gift because of your faith? If so, would that lead you to believe that poor people are not in God’s favor, and because of their lack of faith or favor, God doesn’t grant them those same gifts? If the method of your revenue is morally questionable, but you receive that income anyway, does that mean that God favors your ill-conceived wealth? Hinduism believes in a caste system where you are born poor or rich based on a previous life. This means if you are born poor, you were meant to be poor because of a fault of your own. But if you were born in a wealthy family, then you were being rewarded for your good deeds in a previous life. The greatest safety net for this ideology is that 1) if God has a problem with your wealth He can take it away at any time, so He must want you to have that wealth or 2) God can always forgive you for your wrong-doings and you get to keep the wealth you “earned” off of the backs of the poor laborers. So, this dynamic allows greed to be rewarded, and charity to just be an outlet to justify your greed. If we have more than we need to live (and live modestly comfortable) then what would any loving God (or moral person) ask for us to do? In the light of starvation, homelessness, genocide, extreme poverty, curable illnesses, and human trafficking of innocent children and families, do you think it is their fault in this life or a previous one that they were subjected to these atrocities? If you feel that God has given you everything you have from your life to all of its luxuries then you have to assume one of 2 things logically. 1) God thinks you are better than other poor people (because they didn’t deserve it like you) or 2) God gave it to you to give to those less fortunate (after your NEEDS are met, not your WANTS). How can you truly believe in God, if you don’t do one of those two options? If you believe in #1, then you are a heartless greedy theological parasitical thug who believes in a hubris God with those same qualities. (God promotes greed) If you believe in #2 and don’t give to the poor everything you don’t need, then you really don’t believe or are hoping for forgiveness to exonerate your avarice. (God promotes greed) If however you do give all above what you need to survive to those less fortunate, then the path to heaven is surely a narrow one and will have very few “Christians” on that road. “If more of us valued food and cheer above hoarded gold, it would be a much merrier world.” J. R. R. TOLKIEN, The Hobbit (Apr 4, 2013 | post #25)

sermones vestros probare verba mea" Thank you Chelle, your words prove my point. We should NOT live like someone is always watching. We need to grow-up, put away childish fairy-tale notions and do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. NOT because you'll burn in Hell and torture for eternity if you do wrong. Practice empathy, not apathy. Theists don't need the "booster chair" of belief to sit at the grown-ups table anymore. Jump in with us in the wonders of reason, the water is fine. (Mar 31, 2013 | post #18)

I hope someday we will be a “godless” society. Eventually we will need to take the training wheels of this global civilization and take responsibility for our own mistakes. We will have to learn how to learn, and stop crediting God for what we don’t understand. Even if he (she, they, of it) does exist, then shouldn’t any good parent want their children to become self-sufficient? Being good to others because your god will punish/reward you for eternity is like being nice to some woman just because you want to sleep with her. That isn’t being moral, that is being selfish, small minded and dishonest. Is that how your god wants you to act? “No God, know morals. Know God, no morals.” Me (Mar 30, 2013 | post #14)

So, I believe this logic clearly shows there is no foundation for morality from religion, more than likely the other way around if any. The big question is can it come from reason? If there is no God, then we have to rely on a different standard. Philosophy, Sociology, Biology and Logic has shown us more toward understanding our relationships with ourselves, to each other, and even the planet. Although I will admit to cultural differences that may suggest social decorum , there are definitive moral paradigms that are universal in almost every region, culture, country and religion. Jesus’ entire story and message should have just been, “Be cool to each other, and don’t be a dick”. It would make studying the book a lot easier. I believe that a consensus of reason is a better template for morality, then the voices in your head coming from invisible people living in the sky and talking only to special people with no education. It is because of this, that I want to clearly state that ANY moral standards based on ANY religion is potentially the source of great malevolence. Instead, we need to recognize the respect, dignity and honesty that we share with each other as our standard. That applies to all people unconditionally. If I’ve offended you, then it is not my fault. I am being honest, and I’m attacking your ignorance not you. If you were hitting your head with a hammer, I would tell you. I would feel morally obligated to do so. Since those theological ideas of fairytales are destroying our social and intellectual progress, I’m telling you. STOP HITTING YOURSELF. It’s embarrassing. “Because morality is a social necessity, the moment faith in god is banished, man’s gaze turns from god to man and he becomes socially conscious. Religious belief prevented the growth of a sense of realism. But atheism at once makes man realistic and alive to the needs of morality.” Goparaju Ramachandra Rao Indian Atheist Activist (Mar 27, 2013 | post #6)

I saw a post on Facebook that had a son telling his mother a big secret. After he tells her he is gay, she says “Whew, I’m so glad. I was afraid you were telling me you wanted to be a priest. I can’t stand those perverts”. Morality has been a claimed monopoly by religion for thousands of years. Clear proof that this is a lie is every day we can see “godly” people doing immoral things (or horrific things done in the name of God). We can also see non-believers doing great and moral things. It is thought that God teaches us morality though his “teachings” or books. But those books (especially Christian, Islam, and Jew alike) are riddled with immoral and appalling acts by both God and his people. If these books, these “men of God” and those words are the template for human morality, then kill me now. There truly is no hope for us or God. It has been argued that people are only moral, if there is an authority to create the moral guidelines and one to enforce them. If a police officer was posted at every street corner, we as humans may be better stewards of our morality. But this begs the question, how do we define morality? Is morality a sense of empathy that allows us to treat others with dignity, respect and honesty? Isn’t morality more than “just do no harm”? Don’t we judge our morality on the basis of how we treat each other? Or do we judge our morality on the “commands & laws” given to us by God. If we live in an ultimate punishment/reward system for our actions, then are we not acting for our own selfish benefit, not as moral beings? If God “gives” you an order or calling, how do you know it is him that gave the order? If God told you to strap a bomb to your chest and blow-up a highly populated daycare center, don’t you have the moral obligation to do it? Wouldn’t you judge this message on its morality and decide if it is God’s calling or not? If this is true, then you are not following Gods commands, but rather your own. If so, you are judging the voices in your head with your own sense of morality. Do you think the wondering Jews in the desert were smacking their heads with amazement when Moses comes down the mountain with the commandments? “We had no idea, Moses. We all thought killing, lying and stealing were perfectly fine all these years until God put it in writing” Seriously? No, they already knew what was moral and ethical. (continued) (Mar 27, 2013 | post #5)