religion

[Zierro]

What? What the hell are you talking about. The point is that God is just as believeable as any of these things because none of them have any supporting evidence.

 

Physical supporting evidence of a god is a pretty pointless thing to ask. God, theology, the metaphysical, just does not come down to line-and-grid lab-testing experimenting. Even if there were a god, we wouldn't have evidence. It just does not apply to this field. It's like asking, "How many people did we prevent from overdosing by building a drug rehabilitation center in this city?". Obviously there is an objective answer, but just not one humans can accurately ascertain (unless we had a time machine). So since we physically cannot observe any evidence, does this mean it would be logical to assume no overdoses were prevented? Absolutely not - it would be a jump to assert anything other than ignorance. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

As for Santa, there's a little more to this entity's plausibility than an absence of evidence. I've explained how there are quite a few things that suggest Santa is not real. Every present given from "Santa Claus" can be traced back to either a family member, friend, or charitable stranger via a receipt, credit card history, camera, etc. There's also the fact that no one has yet to record or photograph him, despite him making no great attempts of hiding himself on the count of him flying across the world and going to your house through your chimney, year after year. If he really was the one giving us the presents, I'm pretty sure we would know by now.

 

As for the FSM, it was the most ridiculous example someone could think of in order to compare to something they deem as ridiculous - that has to say something about it's plausibility. It was created for a good purpose though: to propose the idea that we shouldn't have something so iffy and controversial, that lacks any evidence, as part of a school curriculum; now it has been perverted into a way of asserting that god is not real on an epistemological level. And this just sounds an awful lot like appeal to ridicule to me.

 

Appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument, rather than addressing the argument itself.

 

This is a rhetorical tactic which mocks an opponent's argument, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight the counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by demonstrating the argument's logic in an extremely absurd way or by presenting the argument in an overly simplified way, and often involves an appeal to consequences.

 

People who argue god is real are not arguing that Santa Claus is real. You are just avoiding debating the existence of god, and instead trying to debate the existence of Santa Claus and FSM by equating them.

 

Except I have never heard the "four sided triangle" comparison. I would disagree with that comparison because that is an impossibility, not a theory that lacks evidence.

 

You have made the claim that you don't fully reject any idea with 100% certainty (such as Santa Claus), yet you claim the concept of a four-sided triangle is an impossibility. So you do pick and choose what to believe with 100% certainty - you just didn't realize it.

 

Such as? I'd love to hear the claims that you hear other "atheists" make

 

"There is no god."

"The God Delusion."

"Religion is the source of every world problem."

"All thinking men are atheists."

"If god existed, then X wouldn't happen."

 

And my favorite:

 

"If you believe in a god, that must mean you also believe in Santa Claus."

 

The fact that you don't think atheists can make illogical claims driven by their atheism is amazing. Not that I have a problem with atheism in it's purest form - but from what I've seen, it's often a little more than "a mere lack of belief". Sometimes it really can be the [hypocritical] inverse of religion. And this is all I am arguing: People need to stop making baseless assertions about something they don't know.

 

Modest? Belief? Again, I'm lost as to what you are talking about and what your point is.

 

My point is that some atheists can act very religiously and that I find it funny how passionate some can get over a lack of belief.

 

CAN'T answer it? You mean...ever? Why wouldn't science be able to answer the question? I have never "admitted" that the question cannot be answered. I have said that we do not yet have the answer.

 

The burden of proof is on you. It would only be logical for us to not believe that the question is able to be answered with science until you can show us the evidence. If I were to propose to you the existence of an orbiting teapot so small that the world's most powerful telescopes could not see it... =P~

[obfuscator]

Don't bother CGF, the only athiest I've met on these forums who doesn't regularly break the rules of civilized debate is Meol. Why I've stopped replying ;)

[Perakp]

I'm incapable of believing a god exists. What's the point? There's no reason for me to believe.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

Don't bother CGF, the only athiest I've met on these forums who doesn't regularly break the rules of civilized debate is Meol. Why I've stopped replying ;)

 

Oi! I take exception to that.

[obfuscator]

Don't bother CGF, the only athiest I've met on these forums who doesn't regularly break the rules of civilized debate is Meol. Why I've stopped replying ;)

 

Oi! I take exception to that.

I didn't count you seeing as I've debated with you like once :P

[Nadril]

Don't bother CGF, the only athiest I've met on these forums who doesn't regularly break the rules of civilized debate is Meol. Why I've stopped replying ;)

 

Harsh.

 

 

I'm still waiting for a reply (unless I missed it) to what I posted a while back :(.

[obfuscator]

Don't bother CGF, the only athiest I've met on these forums who doesn't regularly break the rules of civilized debate is Meol. Why I've stopped replying ;)

 

Harsh.

 

 

I'm still waiting for a reply (unless I missed it) to what I posted a while back :(.

Which post was this? If you repost I'll reply (iirc you're an athiest, and you're reasonable enough :P).

[Myweponsg00d]

Physical supporting evidence of a god is a pretty pointless thing to ask. God, theology, the metaphysical, just does not come down to line-and-grid lab-testing experimenting.

 

Why not? We are talking about whether or not a god physically exists aren't we? Theres nothing metaphysical about what most people claim as their "god theory". They are making claims about the physical world.

 

Even if there were a god, we wouldn't have evidence. It just does not apply to this field.

If we are talking about the origins of the universe, evidence most certainly DOES apply to it.

It's like asking, "How many people did we prevent from overdosing by building a drug rehabilitation center in this city?". Obviously there is an objective answer, but just not one humans can accurately ascertain (unless we had a time machine). So since we physically cannot observe any evidence, does this mean it would be logical to assume no overdoses were prevented? Absolutely not - it would be a jump to assert anything other than ignorance. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

For the thousandth time, nobody is asserting that we have evidence for nonexistence of god.

 

As for Santa, there's a little more to this entity's plausibility than an absence of evidence. I've explained how there are quite a few things that suggest Santa is not real. Every present given from "Santa Claus" can be traced back to either a family member, friend, or charitable stranger via a receipt, credit card history, camera, etc.

None of these are evidence for nonexistence. All it is evidence for is that if Santa Claus does exist, we have his story wrong.

There's also the fact that no one has yet to record or photograph him, despite him making no great attempts of hiding himself on the count of him flying across the world and going to your house through your chimney, year after year. If he really was the one giving us the presents, I'm pretty sure we would know by now.

 

Maybe he stops giving families presents when they stop believing. Or if the family tries to tell other people that Santa is real.

 

As for the FSM, it was the most ridiculous example someone could think of in order to compare to something they deem as ridiculous - that has to say something about it's plausibility.

Actually, intent of the creation of the theory says nothing about the theory's plausibility. In fact many groundbreaking scientific theories started as random "crazy" thoughts that defied logic. Example: the origins of the heliocentric model as opposed to a geocentric model.

 

It was created for a good purpose though: to propose the idea that we shouldn't have something so iffy and controversial, that lacks any evidence, as part of a school curriculum; now it has been perverted into a way of asserting that god is not real on an epistemological level. And this just sounds an awful lot like appeal to ridicule to me.

 

Again, atheism is not assertion of nonexistence. Atheism is the rejection of a claim. Not assertion of the opposite.

 

People who argue god is real are not arguing that Santa Claus is real. You are just avoiding debating the existence of god, and instead trying to debate the existence of Santa Claus and FSM by equating them.

 

Theres no way to debate God's existence or nonexistence because the theory itself is completely illogical. Instead of debating the nonexistence of God, you have to debunk the logic.

 

Its like saying that if I claim "Theres definitely a giant invisible boat sailing around Jupiter" that you should try to refute my claim based on evidence. God existence is not debated with nonexistence because theres nothing to talk about. The theory is undebateable.

[Myweponsg00d]

I had to post this reply in two sections due to restriction on the number of quotes.

You have made the claim that you don't fully reject any idea with 100% certainty (such as Santa Claus), yet you claim the concept of a four-sided triangle is an impossibility. So you do pick and choose what to believe with 100% certainty - you just didn't realize it.

 

This is because a triangle is a mathematical idea. Its like saying "Do I think that 5 might equal 2?" No. I am 100% certain that 5 does not equal 2 because of how we define the concept. We can know things for certain about abstract ideas. For example: can anyone ever tell a true lie? No. It is impossible, and I know 100% for certain that a true lie does not exist. But this is only because this type of knowledge only exists in the abstract; we are talking about definitions. Claims about truth or reality in the physical world are much different than claims about abstract concepts.

 

"There is no god."

I don't say this, and it is not representative of the atheist stance.

"The God Delusion."

A delusion is by definition a belief held without evidence. If you define "delusion" to be something else, then perhaps God is not a delusion.

"Religion is the source of every world problem."

Anyone who says this is oversimplifying.

"All thinking men are atheists."

This is almost as bad as "All atheists assert that there is no god"

"If god existed, then X wouldn't happen."

This is a bogus claim and does nothing to disprove the God theory.

 

And my favorite:

"If you believe in a god, that must mean you also believe in Santa Claus."

 

I never said that if you believe one you must believe the other. It is merely a comparable argument because neither case has any supporting evidence.

 

The fact that you don't think atheists can make illogical claims driven by their atheism is amazing.

I never said atheists can't make illogical claims. In fact I said I'd love to hear what claims you hear "atheists" make, so that I can evaluate whether or not it is even representative of the atheist standpoint.

 

Not that I have a problem with atheism in it's purest form - but from what I've seen, it's often a little more than "a mere lack of belief".

And theism is often more than a belief that a god exists. So? It doesn't mean that I take into account gay-bashers and racists when I am evaluating the claim of a god's existence.

 

Sometimes it really can be the [hypocritical] inverse of religion. And this is all I am arguing: People need to stop making baseless assertions about something they don't know.

 

I don't think anyone even in this thread has made any assertions that god is nonexistent. It sounds like you have met some pretty dumb atheists.

 

Modest? Belief? Again, I'm lost as to what you are talking about and what your point is.

 

My point is that some atheists can act very religiously and that I find it funny how passionate some can get over a lack of belief.

 

The burden of proof is on you. It would only be logical for us to not believe that the question is able to be answered with science until you can show us the evidence.

 

I didn't say that science can and will answer the question. I asked why you claim (if that IS what you're claiming) that science will not be able to answer it? There certainly is no reason to believe that the question is unanswerable by science, but that doesn't mean that it will definitely be answered by science.

 

Also this question is not a scientific question. "Can science be used to determine the origins of the universe?" is not a scientific question and doesn't have any relationship to physical evidence. It is a philosophical question. If you don't think science can be used to answer the question then theres no point in trying to prove it or argue against atheists.

If I were to propose to you the existence of an orbiting teapot so small that the world's most powerful telescopes could not see it... =P~

Then the burden of proof would be on you to support your claim.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also @Y_Guy is there something I've done to convince you that I do not debate civilly?

[Nadril]

Don't bother CGF, the only athiest I've met on these forums who doesn't regularly break the rules of civilized debate is Meol. Why I've stopped replying ;)

 

Harsh.

 

 

I'm still waiting for a reply (unless I missed it) to what I posted a while back :(.

Which post was this? If you repost I'll reply (iirc you're an athiest, and you're reasonable enough :P).

 

Found it.

 

What I don't get is what makes Christianity a more "believable" means of explaining the world compared to the thousands of other religions that have been around? What I don't get is that you have people' date=' very smart people, trying to find all of these scientific reasonings behind the bible when it was written in a time when those things were not known. I just don't see what makes Christianity so different from any other religion as just like any other religion it was a means of explaining the unknown.

 

Yes, we don't know everything. I would wager we know very little in fact. However my first thought isn't to jump to one ancient explanation of why the world is how it is. I mean essentially I think a lot of these theologists are just trying to find scientific meaning where there isn't and, quite honestly, shouldn't be.

 

I'm an athiest mostly because I don't like this idea of trying to stand behind one religion in what seems like a 1 in a million chance. Any one of these religions "could" be right, and how could you prove them wrong? I would much prefer it if people stopped worshiping what they think is there and focus on what is here and on finding what is out there. I think that being so hard-fast on an answer that must be true (in this case: a Christian god) isn't the way to really go about things.

 

So yeah, I just think the idea of Religion is outdated.

 

 

Also I wanted to say that these debates on the forums (or should I say "debates") are ridiculous. It's nothing but two parties trying to come up with the most off-the-wall metaphor to explain why their side is correct. In the end you guys are arguing about some things that we don't know for certain. [/quote']

 

I guess I didn't really have any specific questions, just wanted to know what some of the religious folk thought.

[Myweponsg00d]

 

Also I wanted to say that these debates on the forums (or should I say "debates") are ridiculous. It's nothing but two parties trying to come up with the most off-the-wall metaphor to explain why their side is correct. In the end you guys are arguing about some things that we don't know for certain.

 

There aren't two sides. Its not like all atheists are trying to assert that we know there is no god. All you know about an atheist is that he doesn't believe the god story. It says nothing about what he does believe. Atheism is really just a label for the system of thought that rejects a claim. There are more than two sides to this argument.

[obfuscator]

What I don't get is what makes Christianity a more "believable" means of explaining the world compared to the thousands of other religions that have been around? What I don't get is that you have people, very smart people, trying to find all of these scientific reasonings behind the bible when it was written in a time when those things were not known. I just don't see what makes Christianity so different from any other religion as just like any other religion it was a means of explaining the unknown.

 

Yes, we don't know everything. I would wager we know very little in fact. However my first thought isn't to jump to one ancient explanation of why the world is how it is. I mean essentially I think a lot of these theologists are just trying to find scientific meaning where there isn't and, quite honestly, shouldn't be.

 

I'm an athiest mostly because I don't like this idea of trying to stand behind one religion in what seems like a 1 in a million chance. Any one of these religions "could" be right, and how could you prove them wrong? I would much prefer it if people stopped worshiping what they think is there and focus on what is here and on finding what is out there. I think that being so hard-fast on an answer that must be true (in this case: a Christian god) isn't the way to really go about things.

 

So yeah, I just think the idea of Religion is outdated.

 

Well, there are a couple good points you brought up.

 

I think that the intellectual who adheres to a religion (specifically) likely believes in the existence of a God, and chooses a specific religion based on whatever morality they can relate to best. For example, there are certain things about the bible that make a lot of sense - indeed I think almost everyone (atheists included) would agree that there are very many good lessons and morality imposed there.

 

You compare the morality imposed by the Koran, the old testament, and the new (Islam, Judaism and Christianity respectively) - I consider those the three major religions, since Hinduism and Buddhism are quite different.

 

To me, personally, no "holy book" is perfect - I don't believe I need to go into detail as I'm sure you're well aware of the flaws of each book, but I believe that out of the three, the new testament is the one which best sums up an ideal version of religion - with a loving, caring, and powerful God.

 

Now, it's easy to point out inconsistencies with all of these holy books, but the belief is, at least, that they were in fact written by men, with divine inspiration - many different men, in fact. Most criticisms of the bible tend to be leveled at the old testament, as the new testament is an enlightenment of the old. It stands to reason that there will be some minor discrepancies and contradictions throughout. However, there are also certain things about the new testament that make it seem odd it was the work of manipulators, exaggerators or liars.

 

My personal belief, as well, is that a religious (specifically Christan) society is a much more productive and moral one. A common example used is the minimal testing of atheist society and what it has thus far achieved, hence references to communist Russia. (It's interesting to note, however, that when this problem is brought up with atheists, they tend to me much more likely to sidestep the argument or present a straw man rather than actually debate it - see this gem.

 

A good read on this topic (if you're interested, as I'd expect someone hoping to obtain an objective view of the subject to be) is Peter Hitchen's The Rage Against God: http://www.amazon.com/Rage-Against-God-Atheism-Faith/dp/0310320313/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1297742667&sr=8-1

There's a very extensive chapter on the danger's wrought by godless states and the pseudo-religious cults often replacing religion.

 

 

Your definition of atheist appears to be that you aren't religious, but you don't necessarily believe there is no God. At the moment, personally, I'm not a practicing member of any religion - but I am a theist. I do believe God exists. There's a large difference between that and the specificity of a certain religion and the accompanying beliefs.

[Myweponsg00d]

What I don't get is what makes Christianity a more "believable" means of explaining the world compared to the thousands of other religions that have been around? What I don't get is that you have people, very smart people, trying to find all of these scientific reasonings behind the bible when it was written in a time when those things were not known. I just don't see what makes Christianity so different from any other religion as just like any other religion it was a means of explaining the unknown.

 

Yes, we don't know everything. I would wager we know very little in fact. However my first thought isn't to jump to one ancient explanation of why the world is how it is. I mean essentially I think a lot of these theologists are just trying to find scientific meaning where there isn't and, quite honestly, shouldn't be.

 

I'm an athiest mostly because I don't like this idea of trying to stand behind one religion in what seems like a 1 in a million chance. Any one of these religions "could" be right, and how could you prove them wrong? I would much prefer it if people stopped worshiping what they think is there and focus on what is here and on finding what is out there. I think that being so hard-fast on an answer that must be true (in this case: a Christian god) isn't the way to really go about things.

 

So yeah, I just think the idea of Religion is outdated.

 

Well, there are a couple good points you brought up.

 

I think that the intellectual who adheres to a religion (specifically) likely believes in the existence of a God, and chooses a specific religion based on whatever morality they can relate to best. For example, there are certain things about the bible that make a lot of sense - indeed I think almost everyone (atheists included) would agree that there are very many good lessons and morality imposed there.

 

You compare the morality imposed by the Koran, the old testament, and the new (Islam, Judaism and Christianity respectively) - I consider those the three major religions, since Hinduism and Buddhism are quite different.

 

To me, personally, no "holy book" is perfect - I don't believe I need to go into detail as I'm sure you're well aware of the flaws of each book, but I believe that out of the three, the new testament is the one which best sums up an ideal version of religion - with a loving, caring, and powerful God.

 

Now, it's easy to point out inconsistencies with all of these holy books, but the belief is, at least, that they were in fact written by men, with divine inspiration - many different men, in fact. Most criticisms of the bible tend to be leveled at the old testament, as the new testament is an enlightenment of the old. It stands to reason that there will be some minor discrepancies and contradictions throughout. However, there are also certain things about the new testament that make it seem odd it was the work of manipulators, exaggerators or liars.

 

My personal belief, as well, is that a religious (specifically Christan) society is a much more productive and moral one. A common example used is the minimal testing of atheist society and what it has thus far achieved, hence references to communist Russia. (It's interesting to note, however, that when this problem is brought up with atheists, they tend to me much more likely to sidestep the argument or present a straw man rather than actually debate it - see this gem.

 

The effects of religions on social behavior has nothing to do with the claim of physical existence of something. Even if the most prosperous society in the world was 100% atheist, I would not even attempt to justify my claims with this because it is completely irrelevant. Reality doesn't depend on whats good for society.

 

A good read on this topic (if you're interested, as I'd expect someone hoping to obtain an objective view of the subject to be) is Peter Hitchen's The Rage Against God: http://www.amazon.com/Rage-Against-God-Atheism-Faith/dp/0310320313/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1297742667&sr=8-1

There's a very extensive chapter on the danger's wrought by godless states and the pseudo-religious cults often replacing religion.

 

 

Your definition of atheist appears to be that you aren't religious, but you don't necessarily believe there is no God. At the moment, personally, I'm not a practicing member of any religion - but I am a theist. I do believe God exists. There's a large difference between that and the specificity of a certain religion and the accompanying beliefs.

 

Sure, there are differences. But there is not a difference in the strength of your claim. There are many philosophical differences but you still believe an explanation that has no evidence.

[Nadril]

Your definition of atheist appears to be that you aren't religious, but you don't necessarily believe there is no God. At the moment, personally, I'm not a practicing member of any religion - but I am a theist. I do believe God exists. There's a large difference between that and the specificity of a certain religion and the accompanying beliefs.

 

Thanks. I consider myself to not believe in a God (or at the very least I find the idea incredibly unlikely) so that's why I just stick with the term "Atheist". It's good to get some opinions from someone else though who is level headed about the whole thing.

 

 

My personal belief, as well, is that a religious (specifically Christan) society is a much more productive and moral one. A common example used is the minimal testing of atheist society and what it has thus far achieved, hence references to communist Russia. (It's interesting to note, however, that when this problem is brought up with atheists, they tend to me much more likely to sidestep the argument or present a straw man rather than actually debate it - see this gem.

 

I'm not totally sure how good of an example communist Russia is in terms of an atheist society. Of course it's kind of hard when it really is the only example, and it's also sort of difficult when there are a lot more people who adhere to some religion than who are atheist. Finding a good test sample without having a dictatorship-like level of censoring free religion (or lack of it) is difficult and impossible currently.

 

That being said I don't think that Religion should be totally gotten rid of more so than some societies need to place less of an emphasis on it. I don't think the US, for example, should place such an emphasis on Christianity. Yes, you can practice (or not practice) whatever religion you want here; but if you were to be running for president you damn well better be Christian. Of course this is more of a public view thing than anything else, I think that some of the more... outspoken members of religions need to understand that while good morals can come from religion it also is not the only place they come from.

 

 

At the moment, personally, I'm not a practicing member of any religion - but I am a theist. I do believe God exists. There's a large difference between that and the specificity of a certain religion and the accompanying beliefs.

 

This is kind of the thing I'd wish more people did. Honestly the thing I am against are the actual religious groups. You can believe in God if you want, after all we don't know one way or another. If you feel strongly about it (just as I feel strongly about there being no God) than it's totally fine, neither of us are wrong because neither of us know.

 

What I don't like are groups who use religion as a means to scare people into acting right or as a means to shun those who are different than them. (either by being homosexual or of a different religion). I just think that you should believe what you believe in and not be so fixated on one version or ideal of "God" or what your religion tells you is right or wrong. I firmly believe that people are good natured without being instinctively threatened by the ever-looming thought of a "hell". I just wish that people would follow their own moral compass rather than one laid out for them by a religion.

[Myweponsg00d]

This is kind of the thing I'd wish more people did. Honestly the thing I am against are the actual religious groups. You can believe in God if you want, after all we don't know one way or another. If you feel strongly about it (just as I feel strongly about there being no God) than it's totally fine, neither of us are wrong because neither of us know.

 

Do you also feel this way about other unknown information about the physical world?

 

What causes the force of gravity? Cause I'm going to claim that it is tiny tiny men who have telekinetic powers. Nobody knows so theres no problem with my claim.

[Zygimantas]

This is kind of the thing I'd wish more people did. Honestly the thing I am against are the actual religious groups. You can believe in God if you want, after all we don't know one way or another. If you feel strongly about it (just as I feel strongly about there being no God) than it's totally fine, neither of us are wrong because neither of us know.

 

Do you also feel this way about other unknown information about the physical world?

 

What causes the force of gravity? Cause I'm going to claim that it is tiny tiny men who have telekinetic powers. Nobody knows so theres no problem with my claim.

I might not think your claim is right, but I don't see a problem with it.

[Nadril]

This is kind of the thing I'd wish more people did. Honestly the thing I am against are the actual religious groups. You can believe in God if you want, after all we don't know one way or another. If you feel strongly about it (just as I feel strongly about there being no God) than it's totally fine, neither of us are wrong because neither of us know.

 

Do you also feel this way about other unknown information about the physical world?

 

What causes the force of gravity? Cause I'm going to claim that it is tiny tiny men who have telekinetic powers. Nobody knows so theres no problem with my claim.

 

All I'm saying is that I don't see a problem in believing in a God or higher power. I don't believe in one myself (I think it is a silly and outdated concept) but I can't prove anyone right or wrong.

 

I'm not going to answer the stupid question anymore because I don't know what a good answer is. I'm Atheist, I don't believe in any of this.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I think that the intellectual who adheres to a religion (specifically) likely believes in the existence of a God, and chooses a specific religion based on whatever morality they can relate to best. For example, there are certain things about the bible that make a lot of sense - indeed I think almost everyone (atheists included) would agree that there are very many good lessons and morality imposed there.

But how many of these lessons are also compatible with a simple, yet unreligious belief in humanity? What lessons are there in the Bible that humanity couldn't already have figured out on its own?

 

It's almost like those old logic charts we used to do at primary school, with lots of variously coloured vehicles which we were told to sort into 'Blue', 'Cars' and 'Both'. I realise the majority of religious people don't make this assertion, but sometimes when you talk to people, they don't accept that there's a 'Both' option between 'Religious morals' and 'Unreligious morals'; everything in the 'Both' section HAS to have been dictated by what is written in the Bible.

 

The classic one I hear is "Thou shalt not kill". Notwithstanding that murders continued to happen after the Roman Empire converted to Christianity, surely this known already? I'm not going to assert where such morality would come from, if not God, but to me there doesn't seem to be any correlation between the Church saying, "Oh yeah, that's a bad thing," and people suddenly developing a conscience that stopped them from doing it. They already regulated themselves, perhaps via a belief in a different religion, but also because they themselves had developed a personal conscience that believed it was the wrong thing to do.

 

Personally, I believe that people, no matter who they are or what they believe, like to think their morals are somehow better than someone else's, and if being religious is a good excuse for saying that, then some people will use it. Even so, as far as I'm concerned, being agnostically atheist doesn't mean I'm about to run into the street and kill people, nor does it stop me from appreciating the societal role that religious leaders have in our modern day lives.

 

As I implied in my first post on this topic, my morals are based on a belief in humanity, others are based on a belief in God. So long as we use those morals for good and not evil, I don't see how one is better than the other.

[obfuscator]

 

I'm not totally sure how good of an example communist Russia is in terms of an atheist society. Of course it's kind of hard when it really is the only example, and it's also sort of difficult when there are a lot more people who adhere to some religion than who are atheist. Finding a good test sample without having a dictatorship-like level of censoring free religion (or lack of it) is difficult and impossible currently.

 

Well, it's not the only example, merely the best one. I personally think it states volumes, however, that every atheist society we've ever know (however few there have been) has turned out terribly.

 

An interesting point that's been brought up is a rebuttal to Dawkin's and Hitchen's assertions that "Religion is child abuse". Child abuse, of course, is a terrible thing, and one that is illegal and punished appropriately. The implication of this comparison is that religious education to the young is something that is terrible and should be punished, which, oddly enough, is exactly what soviet Russia instituted under Stalin. In this way it's possible to argue that it's a logical conclusion that a truly atheist society cannot be free at all.

 

That being said I don't think that Religion should be totally gotten rid of more so than some societies need to place less of an emphasis on it. I don't think the US, for example, should place such an emphasis on Christianity. Yes, you can practice (or not practice) whatever religion you want here; but if you were to be running for president you damn well better be Christian. Of course this is more of a public view thing than anything else, I think that some of the more... outspoken members of religions need to understand that while good morals can come from religion it also is not the only place they come from.

 

Well, the public emphasis, of course, comes from the number of people who feel strongly about the issue.

 

The morality question is an interesting one - I don't think anyone will deny that morals can come from religion. The question to the contrary is: Where else and how else do morals come from?

 

This is kind of the thing I'd wish more people did. Honestly the thing I am against are the actual religious groups. You can believe in God if you want, after all we don't know one way or another. If you feel strongly about it (just as I feel strongly about there being no God) than it's totally fine, neither of us are wrong because neither of us know.

 

What I don't like are groups who use religion as a means to scare people into acting right or as a means to shun those who are different than them. (either by being homosexual or of a different religion). I just think that you should believe what you believe in and not be so fixated on one version or ideal of "God" or what your religion tells you is right or wrong. I firmly believe that people are good natured without being instinctively threatened by the ever-looming thought of a "hell". I just wish that people would follow their own moral compass rather than one laid out for them by a religion.

 

When you follow a religion, of course, you follow a certain morality. Belief in God has certain logical consequences, such as behaving a certain way. If God exists, and he put us on this earth in an (obviously) temporary form, it stands to reason that our existence here as intelligent beings must be some sort of test or preparation.

 

The "scare people into acting right or as a means to shun those who are different from them" is also interesting. You talk as if "scaring people into acting right" is such a terrible thing - yet society only functions by doing so. We scare people into not committing murder by punishing them with prison, or the death penalty. It is logical that immoral action (or illegal action) should have consequences, otherwise there is no desire to behave in a moral way.

 

Religion, like any other powerful force or entity, can be used for bad or god. Religion (now I speak only of Christianity, as I am largely unfamiliar with the intricacies of other religions) preaches honest, love, caring and acceptance, for we are all children of God, created equally in his image. Therefore, when religion is used to condone immoral action, the fault lies not with religion itself, but with the manipulators and corruptors of it who attempt to use it as an excuse for immorality.

 

Indeed, many of the typical atheist arguments against religion serve only to prove this point. Whenever immorality has occurred in the name of religion, it can quite clearly be shown that by the very moral doctrine of the religion used to commit immorality, eternal punishment would be rewarded. Of course, many of these arguments create a false representation of the actual events, but for example we could look at something often brought up: killing in the name of religion.

 

A quote from an famous atheist (whose name I do not recall) goes something along these lines: "Getting a bad person to do bad deeds is easy. Getting a good person to do good deeds is easy. Getting a bad person to do good deeds is easy. Getting a good person to do bad deeds takes religion." It's a bit of straw man, because, in fact, any good, religious person who somehow finds religion to be a justification for immoral action either does not have a proper understanding of religious doctrine or has chosen to ignore part of it. For example, to be considered a martyr in Christianity, dying for your faith must occur. However, the morality of this action is instantly nullified if immoral action has been undertaken to achieve it - such as the murder of innocents. In this way, Christian morality has been ignored and broken, so that the church's doctrine would say that a person who would be a martyr for their faith would in fact go to hell for their sin.

 

You speak also of the Christian stance towards homosexuality, which is commonly misunderstood. Christians do not preach hate, or the shunning, or murder, or anything else against homosexuals. Christians merely believe that homosexual activity is immoral.

 

I'll provide a parallel. I believe that drug abuse is immoral. Perhaps you do as well, or I'm sure you know many people (non-religious) who share my views. Does this instantly mean that I am discriminating against them? Would you call me a bigot, or call me hateful? It's entirely possible to find an action immoral without any sort of negative behavior towards those who participate in it. "Hate the sin, not the sinner".

 

At any rate, I apologize for the tangent.

[Kimberly]

You speak also of the Christian stance towards homosexuality, which is commonly misunderstood. Christians do not preach hate, or the shunning, or murder, or anything else against homosexuals. Christians merely believe that homosexual activity is immoral.

 

And in some cases shun them. I'll counter your example with my own: my relatives in Indiana work with their church, and their church works closely with the community. A gay couple recently moved in the area and wished to attend their church, but given the church community's views of the bible, have since been prevented from attending their church after an Elders meeting decided that it was an affront to the Lord to have them worship in their church. Are they exactly working within the Christian belief? That's debatable. All these misinterpretations are what we deserve by relying too heavily on the written Word exactly. But that couple was shunned all the same and last I heard they're actually considering moving again because of this.

 

Not all Christians are cut from the same cloth.

[obfuscator]

You speak also of the Christian stance towards homosexuality, which is commonly misunderstood. Christians do not preach hate, or the shunning, or murder, or anything else against homosexuals. Christians merely believe that homosexual activity is immoral.

 

And in some cases shun them. I'll counter your example with my own: my relatives in Indiana work with their church, and their church works closely with the community. A gay couple recently moved in the area and wished to attend their church, but given the church community's views of the bible, have since been prevented from attending their church after an Elders meeting decided that it was an affront to the Lord to have them worship in their church. Are they exactly working within the Christian belief? That's debatable. All these misinterpretations are what we deserve by relying too heavily on the written Word exactly. But that couple was shunned all the same and last I heard they're actually considering moving again because of this.

 

Not all Christians are cut from the same cloth.

 

Yet your example only furthers my point - these people clearly acted against the core beliefs of the church. Now, of course I can't speak for the various Christian religions, and really only for Catholicism specifically, but if we are all children of God then we must be accepted and treated as equals. This is a belief that is central to all Christian faiths per my understanding. In this way, that behavior is contrary to the very teachings of the church.

 

Of course not all christians are cut from the same cloth, but if the beliefs are followed properly it is very hard to see ill being done from such.

[Myweponsg00d]

I might not think your claim is right, but I don't see a problem with it.

 

So everyone is free to just think whatever the hell they want to think about reality. Okay, great.

 

 

All I'm saying is that I don't see a problem in believing in a God or higher power. I don't believe in one myself (I think it is a silly and outdated concept) but I can't prove anyone right or wrong.

 

I'm not going to answer the stupid question anymore because I don't know what a good answer is. I'm Atheist, I don't believe in any of this.

 

Same as above. People are allowed to just believe whatever the hell they want to believe about reality? If not, then why is "god" the exception?

 

I just see no reason to hold religion to any exception. If someone hears voices in their head they get committed, but if someone hears God in their head they've had a religious experience. I hate the fact that the god theory is a protected delusion just because it is god.

[obfuscator]

 

Funny you say this, with Animism (the belief that nature is filled with unseen spirits that should be worshiped) morality does not come through religion, as there is no reward or punishment for living a good or evil life. I would say that the Native Americans were mindlessly raping/stealing/killing from their own tribes.

 

Not sure why it's relevant - if morality does not come through this religion then the same questions still apply.

 

Morality from them comes from shame, if an action brings you shame or makes other people feel shame for you then it is wrong.

 

Stealing makes me feel shame so it is wrong

If I dont feel shame for stealing but the victim feels shame for that action it is wrong

If neither me nor the victim feel shame for the action of stealing it is not wrong.

 

Morality does not necessarily need to be from religion, plenty of cultures had morality without a reward or punishment religion (like christianity/judaism/Islam), it was enforced by people wanting to be accepted by their peers rather then the fear of an eternal hell.

 

Morality comes from shame? Does this mean that if I feel no shame something is not immoral?

Do you think every criminal feels shame for what they do? I highly doubt it.

 

 

I realize its just runescape but this works with everything, something Ive noticed, every religion has the same moralities - from buddhism to Christianity. They all say, dont over indulge in pleasures (sex, food, gambling, etc.) and dont be selfish (aka holding a door open for a girl cause it can get you laid instead of just doing it to be nice). Maybe just maybe this inclination isnt divinely driven but rather people have the natural potential for morality because they are a being who evolved in the wild and recognize an individuals over indulgence and selfishness are a direct threat to a groups longterm survival. My evidence for this is in the tribes of people who have no concept of life after death believing in morality because being immoral causes conflicts within the groups and could eventually lead their demise.

 

Another example is why doesnt an athiest go on a rampage and break every law ever made? Simple, we recognize that being selfish will have bad consequences (even if it doesnt involve hell) and even if we wanted to, the fear of Jail is worse then enjoying doing things that will send you ther.

 

Tribes of people having no concept of life after death? I'm curious to see your sourced example.

 

Why doesn't an atheist go on a rampage? Precisely because they're afraid of the consequences put in place by man (even if they don't believe in the consequences made by God. The only evidence we have of atheist society quickly becomes an every man for themselves, murderous dictatorship.

 

 

At any rate, follow the rules of debate you yourself posted on this very thread and I'll be glad to continue responding as long as I feel you're actually open to being persuaded and actually in search of objective opinions(which personally I've never really felt with you).

[Ginger_Warrior]

To be fair, delusion is defined by the Oxford Medical Dictionary (7th ed, 2007) as: "a belief that is held with unshakable conviction, cannot be altered by rational argument, and is outside the person's normal cultural or subcultural belief system [...] The abnormal pathology lies in the irration way in which the person comes to the belief."

 

For instance, it would be thinking I'm gonna get murdered because a blue car passed my house today. There's a difference between rational belief (the universe is so complex, someone of higher intelligence must have made it) and irrational conviction (the USSR was evil and godless, so God must exist).

 

There's also a difference between rational and truthful.

[Myweponsg00d]

To be fair, delusion is defined by the Oxford Medical Dictionary (7th ed, 2007) as: "a belief that is held with unshakable conviction, cannot be altered by rational argument, and is outside the person's normal cultural or subcultural belief system [...] The abnormal pathology lies in the irration way in which the person comes to the belief."

 

For instance, it would be thinking I'm gonna get murdered because a blue car passed my house today. There's a difference between rational belief (the universe is so complex, someone of higher intelligence must have made it) and irrational conviction (the USSR was evil and godless, so God must exist).

 

These two seem equally rational (equally irrational?) to me. The argument for God that you just listed is nothing but an argument from personal incredulity. It is a complete logical fallacy. Calling a theory that is based on logical fallacies "rational" doesn't seem to make sense.

 

Also, I'll go ahead and respond to each part of the definition you posted:

"a belief that is held with unshakable conviction," Okay- its probably true that not all theists are unshakably "certain" of God, but I hear this all the time. ("I know theres a god" and such statements..."I have complete FAITH that there is a god")

 

"cannot be altered by rational argument," Well. If it could, then they wouldn't be god believers unless they just haven't heard the arguments against it

 

"and is outside the person's normal cultural or subcultural belief system [...]" I would say that it is in most peoples' culture that we should answer questions about the physical world using scientific methods. Insisting upon making an exception for God seems that God-beleif agrees with this definition

 

 

"The abnormal pathology lies in the irration way in which the person comes to the belief." Again, belief in God is irrational. The only arguments that can be made for existence are logical fallacies. Unless someone has any arguments they would like to make that I haven't heard before...So I'll say that at least every argument for God that I'm aware of is irrational.

 

 

At any rate, follow the rules of debate you yourself posted on this very thread and I'll be glad to continue responding as long as I feel you're actually open to being persuaded and actually in search of objective opinions(which personally I've never really felt with you).

 

Are you saying that you have stopped responding to my questioning because I have done something wrong? Or that I am not open to persuasion? I would be perfectly willing to be persuaded if I hear a valid argument.