Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Here is one to ruffle feathers - Atheism Video
croxis
I am the walrus
in Zocalo v2.0
[url]http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/07/25/atheists-arent-that-bad/[/url]
Comments
Others I fear will turn this thread into something it shouldnt be.
I am quite surprised though that it didnt touch one of my biggest issues with god and religion, the Holy War. The "I'm going to kill you because God Says so" bullshit.
I just so happen to be spending the night in a hotel, again, so I have a bible on hand, (what is a gideon anyway?) Its actually quite interesting what it says in some parts, the old testimate is quite strict, and I would be willing to bet that 99% of people are sinners in the eyes of the old testimate. Afterall, who among us hasnt eaten pork? (Leviticus 11-7) Or masturbated (Leviticus 15 is all about bodily discharges and how unclean it is to even touch something the masturbater has touched).
Im sure Ive turned this thread into flamenbait so flame on.
[B](what is a gideon anyway?)[/B][/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideons_International[/url]
The Old Testament is very strict relative to the New Testament. The contrast is quite interesting, and probably an illustration of the different values of the different times they were written.
There is a very drastic difference.
and frankly, ones belife of God, or lack thereof has nothing to do with ones intelligence.
I've known incredibly brilliant people that are Christains in the fields of Biology, Chemistry, Math, Physics...
and I've known incredibly brilliant people that are aetheist in some of those same feilds.
(Of course, I tend to thoughtfully dismiss certain things said by the latter...my thinking they are wrong when they start throwing around "10,000,000 year" dates doesn't relate to their personal knowledge of the subject, mearly my insistance that those dates are way, WAY off. )
[B]and frankly, ones belife of God, or lack thereof has nothing to do with ones intelligence.[/B][/QUOTE]
Got to agree with that.
The minister's general position is part of the reason that I believe many people are turned away from religion in the first place, especially those with the who may have some critical thinking skills.
My position on people like the minister above: Anyone who claims to have all the answers rarely have any of the answers.
Jake
It should be Belive what the BIBLE says and in CHRIST, and you are a beliver.
Everything else...minor stuff.
Actually, my Church has a really good saying "Major in the majors, and Minor in the minors".
Meaning the big stuff, such as Christ dieing for our sins is of major importance, and everyone in the congregation should agree with that. But things like Baptism, worship music, pre/post apopcolyse rapture...those are minor points, and have no signifigance on if one is a Christain or not...so don't make an issue out of them. :)
[B]There was an interesting debate on the radio yesterday between Micheal Schermer, who is the editor of Skeptic magizine and a locla Baptist minister. As I consider myself a christian, it really irked me was the attitude of the minister was basicly if you do not believe 100% what I believe, then you are wrong. As a counter point, Schermer's position was basicly "I don't know and I can't know it all."
The minister's general position is part of the reason that I believe many people are turned away from religion in the first place, especially those with the who may have some critical thinking skills.
My position on people like the minister above: Anyone who claims to have all the answers rarely have any of the answers.
Jake [/B][/QUOTE]
What show was that on? Glover?
Jake
[B]I am quite surprised though that it didnt touch one of my biggest issues with god and religion, the Holy War. The "I'm going to kill you because God Says so" bullshit.[/B][/QUOTE]
Don't confuse God with the (often misguided) people who follow God.
The one thing people tend to misunderstand is that the Bible is not the unedited, perfectly translated word of God. It's a flawed text; it's the interpretation of the word of God that has been translated from translations of translations.
Sometimes, people take the Bible too literally, which often results in things like Holy Wars and Southern Baptists. :)
Starting at the beginning is a nice big list: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translation[/url].
Since English is probably one of the most widespread versions: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_translations_of_the_Bible[/url].
A couple of examples of how hard translating the Bible has been (and why taking it completely literally may not be wise):
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_1:1[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_3:16[/url]
As well as language bias, there is also cultural and religious bias in any translation. Any translation of the Bible is by nature an interpretation of it by the translator.
My preferred translation is, of course, the [i]Buggre All This Bible[/i].
"Be excellent to each other."
[B]Don't confuse God with the (often misguided) people who follow God.
The one thing people tend to misunderstand is that the Bible is not the unedited, perfectly translated word of God. It's a flawed text; it's the interpretation of the word of God that has been translated from translations of translations.
Sometimes, people take the Bible too literally, which often results in things like Holy Wars and Southern Baptists. :) [/B][/QUOTE]
I'll agree there can be slight flaws in translations, which is why I'm happy I took latin. We have the books of the new testement from as little as 40 years after Christ death for most of them, and Roman Empire = Latin text for the most part, so I find reading it IN latin helps...
I've yet to find any true "errors" though, but there is no way to make a 100% dead on translation becase words don't mean the same things.
I do NOT belive it is a flawed text, and there is nothing in the new testement to start a war..actually, quite the oppocite. The thing that causes holy wars is a man with too much power (eg. The Pope) and an illiterate following that take what he says as the word of God.
Thus, we get things like the Crusades "Go reclaime the Holy Land! By killing your sins are forgivin! God Wills it!"
When in reality, of those people COULD READ, they would have seen that the ONLY way for hte redemption of sins in the bible is Christ. Thats it. Nothing else.
Thus, we get people like Martin Luther to bring about the protestent reformation. :D
From a truly logical standpoint, actual athiests would have very little ground for establishing a coherent and cohesive moral theory with strict imparitives.
If you doubt this claim, try to justify natural rights without resorting to 1, the supernatural or 2, some undefinable unknown.
While saying "god/nature/flying spegetti monster said and gave these rights" may be a cop out, its one that does provide a basis for socities to operate.
The fact that the existentialist dilemma (deciding what's right and wrong for oneself) also exists with us theologically inclined people (deciding what God says is right and wrong, eg. by choosing which religion to follow) is, by and large, cheerfully ignored. We all just say that our inalienable rights come from God, and that anyone who lists more or less God-given rights than we do is just deluded.
[B]I for one, am more suspicious of atheists then others.
From a truly logical standpoint, actual athiests would have very little ground for establishing a coherent and cohesive moral theory with strict imparitives.
If you doubt this claim, try to justify natural rights without resorting to 1, the supernatural or 2, some undefinable unknown.
While saying "god/nature/flying spegetti monster said and gave these rights" may be a cop out, its one that does provide a basis for socities to operate. [/B][/QUOTE]How about "If I don't want something done to me, I shouldn't do that same thing to other people"?
[B]How about "If I don't want something done to me, I shouldn't do that same thing to other people"? [/B][/QUOTE]
I'll bite: "WHY?" That is, why should you not do it to someone else? How are the two thoughts related?
[B]Why, because society could [i]change its mind.[/i][/B][/QUOTE]
And religions can't? :p
The big problem is just that, changing minds and shifting of rights, if 50% +1 of the population says X is cool, lets do X, then thats what happens.
So far in the Western world, particularly in the United States, is that "moral crusaders" typically religious, have argued for the universiality of those rights, and to apply them to all.
So far thus it seems most of our social changes have been positive. However if we remove that notion of universal rights, doesnt it become more plausable that changes can shift more acording to benefit of various groups?
One of my proffesors, Craig Carr was the champion of governance via modus vivendi, that various cultures and groups gather around an admittedly arbitrary set of standards that govern that polity, but the dangerous caviat here was that the only true enforcement of that standard was those individuals or groups who broke that compact, DID place themselves outside its protection, IE the offenders were [I]purged[/I], with all that entails.
Now from a personal standpoint I do like it cause it fits in with my gut reaction, but on a distanced evaluation of the system, something suggests to me that such a harsh form of societal justice might have its own drawbacks.
And the last reason Im suspicious of atheism, is that its a fundamental requirement for nihilism, I hate nihilists. Those guys I just shoot in the face! ;)
I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy -- you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word "elephant" includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?
So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power. All the people I write e-mails to often are still stuck at this searching stage. The atheism part is easy.
But, this "This I Believe" thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life's big picture, some rules to live by. So, I'm saying, "This I believe: I believe there is no God."
Having taken that step, it informs every moment of my life. I'm not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, but it's everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more. Just the love of my family that raised me and the family I'm raising now is enough that I don't need heaven. I won the huge genetic lottery and I get joy every day.
Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.
Believing there's no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate. I don't travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith." That's just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up," or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, "How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do." So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something.
Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future.
Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-O and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have.[/quote]
[B]I'll bite: "WHY?" That is, why should you not do it to someone else? How are the two thoughts related? [/B][/QUOTE]
Eh? Because being nice to someone helps them to be nice to you, unless they are psychopaths. This doesnt have anything to do with religion..
[B]I for one, am more suspicious of atheists then others.
From a truly logical standpoint, actual athiests would have very little ground for establishing a coherent and cohesive moral theory with strict imparitives.
If you doubt this claim, try to justify natural rights without resorting to 1, the supernatural or 2, some undefinable unknown.
While saying "god/nature/flying spegetti monster said and gave these rights" may be a cop out, its one that does provide a basis for socities to operate. [/B][/QUOTE]
Tyvar, while I agree that Religion is imperative to initially establishing culture (and due to how cultures work, inherently moral values), it do not believe it is necessary for relivion to exist once these cultural values are entrenched. Further, I do not believe it is necessary for religion to exist (and may even be detrimental) for these moral values to [I]evolve[/I] into a more refined and advanced moral system.
For instance, western religion has long dictated that those of other religions are the enemy; they are a very selfish mentality. Even the most 'textually' tolerating of western religions (Islam) historically has unleashed some of the worst religions intolerence.
If we based our morality solely on religion, then how did freedom of religion ever enter our present moral psyche?
In a simialar vein, look at the moral attocities comitted under the name of religion: Salem Witch Trials; Inquisition; Holocost; etc. Clearly religion has a lot to be desired if we were to consider it the moral compass.
Some might argue that these atrocities were comitted in spite of religion, but in every case I mentioned the perpatrators had the backing of the church, and based on the religion intolerance spouted in the various religious texts, they did not violate any sacrosanct religious idealism.
NM, updated link in OP
[B]
In a simialar vein, look at the moral attocities comitted under the name of religion: Salem Witch Trials; Inquisition; Holocost; etc. Clearly religion has a lot to be desired if we were to consider it the moral compass.
[/B][/QUOTE]
OK, lets stop perpetuating this 'common knowledge'. The holocost was not about religion, it was about power-building and racism (not even specifically anti-semitism, but pro-arianism, since other religious and ethic groups were targetted (polish, gyspises, etc.).
And looking at the great wars of the world, far fewer were religious in nature than 'common knowledge' presents.
[list]
[*]Babylonian conquest of the world - empire building, econmic
[*]Subsequent Persian conquest of the ancient world - empire building, econmic
[*]Chinese/Mongolian wars - ethnic, cultural
[*]Japanese/Chinese - ethnic, cultural
[*]World War I and II - political, economic, imperialist
[/list]
These are just some of the major military campaigns throughout our history, [i]and they were not religious in nature.[/i]
Clearly, religion has proved a greater moderator of impulsive personal behavior than people left to their own moral compass.
And to fully address the compass analogy further, a compass only works because there is a[i]fundamental[/i] underlying force at work that is independent and external to the individual viewer. If the definition of North is left to committee/society, that definition can change.