The Clockwork Mansion

Originally posted as a part of 'A tad sadistic...' (http://clockworkmansion.com/forum/index.php/topic,4806.0.html).
------------------------

Religion is a delicate and a complicated subject because people are fully convinced of and truly believe it. 

If you bought a new car and the next day someone criticized your purchase, you would jump in to defend your purchase.  This would especially be the case if they had a valid point or if they were totally off base you would likely feel the need to correct them.  If you didn't then you probably weren't really convinced it was a good purchase in the first place.

Now consider the degree of passion people put into the likes of twenty some people, whom they have never met and have no attachment with, motivating leather covered balls around courts and fields for no purpose other than to put numbers on a board which themselves mean and amount to nothing. 
It isn't really surprising then that people can get uppity about something that they entrust/base their life, existence, and eternity with/on.

By the way, Atheism is a religion as well, a religion where there is nothing bigger than man individually and ultimately an individual is only answerable to themselves. Everyone is a god to themselves and there is nothing beyond the here and now, really it is quiet a depressing religion.


And all this doesn't even cover religious pluralism, proselytization, or any of a cornucopia of differing but related subjects.

I understand and agree with Amber's choice to avoid religion for the purpose of the comic.

-----------------------------------

For on topic discussion....

I will miss Hannah. The reader in me wishes she had not been killed.  However, the critic in me knows she had to and appreciates Amber's ability to endear the reader with her characters regardless of their fate and have the guts to "end" their existence. 

I really liked her explanation for it.

Quote from: Amber Williams on July 19, 2008, 04:54:19 AM
...
For me, one of the things I try to always remember when telling a story is that every character should be an individual.  It's something I remind myself in real life when I drive down the street. Every person in every car? They have years of life behind them and a whole building block upon which has made them that very person who is driving that car.  As such, I don't really believe in making characters who's purpose it is to die.   Instead, I simply try to make characters who are characters...and it just happens to be their time.
...

EDIT(August 04, 2008, 12:12 PM ): Added a link to the original thread for reference and changed the name of this thread to be more accurate.

Quote from: PencilinHand on August 03, 2008, 11:45:52 AMBy the way, Atheism is a religion as well, a religion where there is nothing bigger than man individually and ultimately an individual is only answerable to themselves. Everyone is a god to themselves and there is nothing beyond the here and now, really it is quiet a depressing religion.

And you were doing so well... atheism is the absense of religeon, by definition (theism meaning belief in a god, and a- being a prefix indicating a negative, meaning without without belief in a god.  I find is disturbing that so many people are unable to grasp that it is possible to not believe in any god at all.) religeon, by definition, is a worship of something, and atheists, by not believing in any god, do NOT worship anything more significant than their morning cup of coffee... you could argue that Starbucks is a religeon, and that many proclaimed atheists were actually members of that religeon, but not that atheism itself was a religeon.

Quote from: Reese Tora on August 03, 2008, 12:53:05 PM

Quote from: PencilinHand on August 03, 2008, 11:45:52 AMBy the way, Atheism is a religion as well, a religion where there is nothing bigger than man individually and ultimately an individual is only answerable to themselves. Everyone is a god to themselves and there is nothing beyond the here and now, really it is quiet a depressing religion.

And you were doing so well... atheism is the absense of religeon, by definition (theism meaning belief in a god, and a- being a prefix indicating a negative, meaning without without belief in a god.  I find is disturbing that so many people are unable to grasp that it is possible to not believe in any god at all.) religeon, by definition, is a worship of something, and atheists, by not believing in any god, do NOT worship anything more significant than their morning cup of coffee... you could argue that Starbucks is a religeon, and that many proclaimed atheists were actually members of that religeon, but not that atheism itself was a religeon.

Yes, I was.  I knew that if I included that little bit someone would dispute it and any explanation was at least a post by itself.


I understand your objection but I think the reason for our difference of opinion lies in our understanding of the definition of religion.

Religion as defined by dictionary.com.
1.  a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.  a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of personsor sects
3.  the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices
4.  the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.  the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.  something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience

I believe that under these definitions calling atheism a religion is reasonable; though, very, very, unusual.

My comments about man being a god to himself are a little complicated to explain but I will try to explain them in brief.

Man is generally selfish in nature, and atheism implies that there is no real higher meaning or point in life beyond our own goals and aspirations.

The effect is to take the place of the typical and traditional motivations and promises of most religions and by extension gods.

That is, "if you do good, subscribe to these god inspired beliefs, and follow this path etc... then you can live forever in paradise," granted this is an oversimplified as religions differ HUGELY as the exact goals differ widely; however, it is an accurate generalization so the point is still valid.

In atheism man does what seems good to himself, subscribes to his own personal beliefs(white lies, half truths, it isn't stealing if you aren't caught), and follows his own personal path.  Man is his own moral authority and life is centered around an individual(rather than a god). 

Man is in effect his own god on an individual basis.

Man is always his own moral authority.

In a religion, man chooses to cede that authority to someone else; the local parish priest, and, by extension, the pope, bishops, and a book written by some other men. Sure, they might all be right, and there might be a god, in which case, sure.

It's still a choice, at the heart of it all. Man chooses to abide by the rules set down by his chosen religion.

In Atheism, man chooses to abide by his own ethics and moral fibre. Sure, there will be times when it fails. There are also times when the ethics and moral fibre of a parish priest fails, and he diddles some kids; it doesn't mean all parish priests are kiddy diddlers; and yet, various religious types assume that all atheists are murderers and drug dealers, because they have no ethics...


Personally, I think Atheists are just smart enough to figure out how to live without requiring anyone else providing them with direction.

Luke: "I don't believe it!"
Yoda: "And that is why you fail..."

PencilinHand, your highlighted definitions are the perfectly illustrate my point; Atheism is not having a set of beliefs.  An atheist does not believe god does not exist (well, some do... but they are not the majority) an atheist simply does not believe that any god does.

Becasue atheism is a specific lack of beliefs, rather than a belief in a deity or lack of a deity, it falls outside the definition of religeon by the definitions you posted.

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on August 03, 2008, 02:17:20 PM
Man is always his own moral authority.

In a religion, man chooses to cede that authority to someone else; the local parish priest, and, by extension, the pope, bishops, and a book written by some other men. Sure, they might all be right, and there might be a god, in which case, sure.

It's still a choice, at the heart of it all. Man chooses to abide by the rules set down by his chosen religion.

In Atheism, man chooses to abide by his own ethics and moral fibre. Sure, there will be times when it fails. There are also times when the ethics and moral fibre of a parish priest fails, and he diddles some kids; it doesn't mean all parish priests are kiddy diddlers; and yet, various religious types assume that all atheists are murderers and drug dealers, because they have no ethics...


Personally, I think Atheists are just smart enough to figure out how to live without requiring anyone else providing them with direction.

I should have put 'ultimate' in between  "his own..." and "...moral authority."

However, for your example, where someone to cede authority to someone or thing else and then differ from said authority on a matter, then did they really cede the authority in the first place?

Like playing a part in a play, where you agree to follow the script but ad lib over the parts you don't like or care for.  You aren't really following the script as given to you, but have rewritten it into your own heavily plagiarized "original" work.  
A lot of people do this.

---------------

To Reese: 

You say that Atheism is "not having a set of beliefs," that atheist "do not believe that any god exists," and that Atheism is "a lack of beliefs."

Logically, the first and last ones don't work, you have to believe something, as to adhere to "a lack of beliefs" is in fact a belief.

Similarly the statement that "atheists do not believe that any god exists" is a belief.

As the statement that Atheism is "a lack of beliefs"  doesn't quite fit, a rephrase is in order.
I would suggest that Atheism is "a lack of beliefs beyond what man individually decides on"(you may disagree).

Which would summarize to "Atheism is the belief that there is no god or gods and no external point or beliefs beyond oneself."

Please see my previous posts for details.

EDIT:  Really, guys, I am not expecting a "I find your ideas fascinating and wish to subscribe to your newsletter" response from any of this.  I do think what I have put down is reasonable, maybe far fetched, but reasonable.

"you have to believe something"

why? why do you think it is not possible for someone to simply not believe something?

To whatever moderator might be reading: I suggest that this conversation about atheism ought to be split off and placed in a more appropriate forum, as I'm sure that most of the other posters have no interest in this discussion.

Quote from: Reese Tora on August 03, 2008, 04:03:07 PM
"you have to believe something"

why? why do you think it is not possible for someone to simply not believe something?

To whatever moderator might be reading: I suggest that this conversation about atheism ought to be split off and placed in a more appropriate forum, as I'm sure that most of the other posters have no interest in this discussion.

I didn't say it was not possible for someone to not believe something and neither did you. 

What you said was, "An atheist does not believe god does not exist...an atheist simply does not believe that any god does," and "atheism is a lack of beliefs(essentially)."

What I said was, disbelief in something is exactly the same as a belief in something being a falsehood, that your argument for "a lack of beliefs" is a logical contradiction, and suggested an amendment to your argument.  Finally tying it in with my previous posts to support my statement that atheism is a religion where men are as gods to themselves.


Belief (a):
1.  something believed; an opinion or conviction:
2.  confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof:
3.  confidence; faith; trust:
4.  a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith:*

Belief (b):
1.  The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another:
2.  Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something:
3.  Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

Belief (c):
1.  any cognitive content held as true
2.  a vague idea in which some confidence is placed;


From my point of view, I don't know if I can make it much clearer.

You are putting words in my mouth; I never said an atheist beleives god does not exist.  Belief that god does not exist is not a logical position, and atheism, at core, is a lack of belief arrived at through a lack of evidence to support belief.

Of course, that's not an all inclusive definition of atheists, some arrive at atheism through other means or for other reasons, but it is accurate in general.

Quote from: Reese Tora on August 03, 2008, 04:03:07 PM
To whatever moderator might be reading: I suggest that this conversation about atheism ought to be split off and placed in a more appropriate forum, as I'm sure that most of the other posters have no interest in this discussion.

I'm watching. I'm not sure I agree, though. There isn't any other conversation, and everyone is being civil, polite, and conversational. Disagreeing, but civil.

As long as it remains so, I see no reason to go messing things up.

One of the other mods might disagree, of course, but since I'm in the conversation, I must admit to a little bias...

I just dont see why this is something that cant be taken to PMs since I dont think anyone else is interested. I know I could care less about Reese and Pencilinhands thoughts about religion nor them mashing their lil brick-wall dolls together in internet-debate style action.

Maybe it's just me interested, then. I'll split it all off and move it to the Fortress.

Watch that space.

Go go brick-wall rangers. *do da doo doo doo*
Go go brick-wall rangers! *do da doo doo doo*
Go go brick-wall rangers...you mighty debating brick-wall rangaaAaaAAaaAaars!


It's 'ligion time! :U

....

Ok, so everyone except Amber is being reasonably civil. :-P

They see me trollin....they hatin..... :B

Ok. Ok. I be good now...

It was pretty hard to miss, Miss A. ;-]

Religion is always a tricky subject, at it's best in can be a unifying force for good, at its worst its a convenient excuse to kill people that some disagrees with.


For my part I see myself as an agnostic atheist for several reasons

1) It annoys people who think that everybody must fit it one category
2) It allows me to explain my own personal beliefs - that there is something other than what we know though science but not the results of several thousand years of Chinese whispers (some religious literature)

Keep the good bits(peace, harmony, not killing people), throw out the bad bits (I'll let you decide those) and update the irrelevant bits (e.g we have fridges now so porks okay to eat)

Edit: Grammar/ Spelling error found, do you want to check your other posts?

Wait.. was Amber just postin' dirtay?

Btw, I'm interested in reading their thoughts.  I won't post mine just yet, but it's always interesting to know what others think. :)

Well it wasnt really their thoughts being posted that was agging me so much that they posted in the DMFA section of the forum. There I was expecting to talk comic stuff and possibly about religion in DMFA and instead I ran into walls of debate. :U

Now that its been moved, its not really an issue and my previous comments are kind of out of place now. :<


---
But as for what I think in regards to atheism being a religion.  Who am I to tell an atheist who wants to think what they believe is their religion that they are wrong?  Its their belief or lack theirof, if that is how they want to define it, then that is their game. I figure faith or beliefs are up to the individual to come to terms and personal definitions with.

Quote from: Amber Williams on August 03, 2008, 10:50:12 PM
Well it wasnt really their thoughts being posted that was agging me so much that they posted in the DMFA section of the forum. There I was expecting to talk comic stuff and possibly about religion in DMFA and instead I ran into walls of debate. :U

Now that its been moved, its not really an issue and my previous comments are kind of out of place now. :<

I know, but I just wanted the chance to continue your 'song'. ;-) 

Quote from: Amber Williams on August 03, 2008, 10:50:12 PM
---
But as for what I think in regards to atheism being a religion.  Who am I to tell an atheist who wants to think what they believe is their religion that they are wrong?  Its their belief or lack theirof, if that is how they want to define it, then that is their game. I figure faith or beliefs are up to the individual to come to terms and personal definitions with.

It's generally better that way.  It's why I'm very careful about who I discuss my beliefs with too, because to be quite frank it's a quick way to turn possible friends into enemies.  They either want to convince me I'm wrong, convince me to join them or convince themselves that I'm evil and that it's their duty to punish me.   However, it's nice to see it discussed peacefully if nothing else.

I am curious about the topic of various religions in your comic book, but that would be something best left to e-mail/pm's given your previous comments about not wanting to touch on it much.  Besides, I've already asked for a bit of information from you as is and I don't think it'd be polite of me to pry more time out of you. :P

On another note, rather than arguing over the semantics of the words belief/religion/atheism wouldn't it be more interesting to set up standard definitions for the purposes of this conversation and then go forward from there?  Those terms are incredibly vauge (oh thank you English language!) and really, religion is far more interesting for a late night topic than linguistics. :D

Quote from: Reese Tora on August 03, 2008, 02:34:39 PM
An atheist does not believe god does not exist  an atheist simply does not believe that any god does.

I snipped the brackets out of the quote there. Hope that's alright.

Wait, sorry, but by not believing that any god exists, aren't you consequentially believing that no god exists? They seem synonymous.

Quote from: MT Hazard on August 03, 2008, 08:09:18 PM
agnostic atheist

The fuck? That makes no sense, you can't be both an agnostic and an atheist. The atheist cancels out the agnostic (or vice versa).

I think that part of this debate seems to BE defining what those terms mean. Also though, "belief system(s)" are what my state (on its exams, anyway) insists on calling what I'd call religions, but if we're gonna be defining things, that -might- be different (or not).

I think that trying to define exactly what atheism is is kinda like trying to define what furry is. I could pull up a broad, all-encompassing definition now, but different people (who belong to the respective groups) would probably have as many different definitions.

Quote from: Eibbor_N on August 03, 2008, 11:07:10 PM

Quote from: Reese Tora on August 03, 2008, 02:34:39 PM
An atheist does not believe god does not exist  an atheist simply does not believe that any god does.

I snipped the brackets out of the quote there. Hope that's alright.

Wait, sorry, but by not believing that any god exists, aren't you consequentially believing that no god exists? They seem synonymous.

Lesse if I can say something that makes sense here...belief in not X =/= not belief in X. I guess, the former involves an active belief in something not being, whereas the latter merely means that's not something you think about. :/

Quote from: Darkmoon on August 03, 2008, 11:09:08 PM

Quote from: MT Hazard on August 03, 2008, 08:09:18 PM
agnostic atheist

The fuck? That makes no sense, you can't be both an agnostic and an atheist. The atheist cancels out the agnostic (or vice versa).

I faugely remember some study in which a great percent of atheist respondents said that they believe in God. I think they flat misunderstand the concept. As far as agnostic atheist, I don't really get that either, but maybe it has something to do with thinking it is unlikely but not impossible that a deity exists?

Quote from: Eibbor_N on August 03, 2008, 11:07:10 PM

Quote from: Reese Tora on August 03, 2008, 02:34:39 PM
An atheist does not believe god does not exist  an atheist simply does not believe that any god does.

I snipped the brackets out of the quote there. Hope that's alright.

Wait, sorry, but by not believing that any god exists, aren't you consequentially believing that no god exists? They seem synonymous.

There is a suble, but important, difference.  A lack of belief requires no effort, no thought, it's a lack of any state.  Forming a belief requires mental effor, it's taking a position, it is saying "I believe so, this is the way I say the world works"

essentially, by saying "I don't believe", It leaves the door open to the possibility that there is something that exists and has meerly not provided evidence (or enough evidence) to allow a conclusion.

It's like believing in aliens visiting earth; there's a difference between taking the time to say "I believe in aliens don't visit the earth." and telling someone else that you don't believe them when they claim the greys are cloning chickens to simultaneously meet the world's demand for chicken nuggets and sedate the world's population with mind control chemicals inherent in same.

In programming terms, you could say it's the difference between having a value of 0 on a 0-100 disbelief-belief scale and having a null value. Null and 0 may look the same at the surface, but they are functionally different.

Everyone, I am sorry my post was such that it needed to be peeled off the original topic and moved to a different forum.

That was not my intention and I apologize for it.

--------------------

Quote from: Reese Tora on August 03, 2008, 05:44:19 PM
You are putting words in my mouth; I never said an atheist beleives god does not exist.  Belief that god does not exist is not a logical position, and atheism, at core, is a lack of belief arrived at through a lack of evidence to support belief.

Of course, that's not an all inclusive definition of atheists, some arrive at atheism through other means or for other reasons, but it is accurate in general.

I thought I had quoted you and used what you said in context.  If I didn't then I am sorry; however, as I mentioned in my first response to you and as Mowser kind of mentioned our differences of opinion are most likely based on differences in definitions or semantics. 

This is the key flaw with internet discussions, not everyone is on the same page even though everyone is reading the same page.

Quote from: Reese Tora on August 03, 2008, 11:25:08 PM

Quote from: Eibbor_N on August 03, 2008, 11:07:10 PM

Quote from: Reese Tora on August 03, 2008, 02:34:39 PM
An atheist does not believe god does not exist  an atheist simply does not believe that any god does.

I snipped the brackets out of the quote there. Hope that's alright.

Wait, sorry, but by not believing that any god exists, aren't you consequentially believing that no god exists? They seem synonymous.

There is a suble, but important, difference.  A lack of belief requires no effort, no thought, it's a lack of any state.  Forming a belief requires mental effor, it's taking a position, it is saying "I believe so, this is the way I say the world works"

essentially, by saying "I don't believe", It leaves the door open to the possibility that there is something that exists and has meerly not provided evidence (or enough evidence) to allow a conclusion.

It's like believing in aliens visiting earth; there's a difference between taking the time to say "I believe in aliens don't visit the earth." and telling someone else that you don't believe them when they claim the greys are cloning chickens to simultaneously meet the world's demand for chicken nuggets and sedate the world's population with mind control chemicals inherent in same.

In programming terms, you could say it's the difference between having a value of 0 on a 0-100 disbelief-belief scale and having a null value. Null and 0 may look the same at the surface, but they are functionally different.

If I understand what you mean here, then by saying "Atheists don't believe in any god" what you are really trying to say is "Atheists(or those who subscribe to Atheism) are doubts of what seems uncertain."

Is this what you mean?

You are saying that there is a level of "neutrality" a quantum state being neither belief nor disbelief that is unresolved due to a lack of evidence either way.

If this is the case, then we aren't talking about Atheism, but something else entirely.

You are talking about fence sitters.  People who can't make up their mind because the perceived consequences are too great either way and they would rather pick their own path, believing that "All roads lead to Rome."

You are talking about Humanism(I think that is the right -ism) a whole other but similar and related topic, where everyone basically "bakes their own" religion from whatever ingredients they choose.

This is far more common than Atheism, and I kind of already covered this angle when I responded to llearch n'n'daCorna.  Where Humanists are authors of their own religion(their own personal prophets and gods) and the details of their beliefs are their own choosing.

To turn a phrase of what MT Hazard said:

Quote from: MT Hazard on August 03, 2008, 08:09:18 PM
...
Keep the good bits(peace, harmony, not killing people), throw out the bad bits (I'll let you decide those) ...

A common belief is, "If I do more good deeds than bad I will go to [insert name here]" with what is good and bad defined as conveniently or inconveniently as one chooses.
Of course, Humanism relies on the belief that a man can individually be his own compass or guiding rod without fault.

-----------

Bah, no one is going to read this long of a post....

"Atheists(or those who subscribe to Atheism) are doubts of what seems uncertain."

I am not quite sure what you are saying there; perhaps you mistyped something?

I am not talking about fence sitters or anyone who things that making up their mind holds a consequence too dire to think upon, I'm speaking of people who just don't see any point in wasting time thinking about invisible pink unicorns.

I think the major disagreement in this dialogue stems from the fact that you believe there is an important decision that must be made, or one is a fence sitter, and atheists don't see a decision to be made in the first place.

An atheist might say that there's very little chance that any god exists, there being no evidence better than hearsay for said existence, but it would be illogical to say that one believes with 100% certainty that there is no such entity.  It would be as much an act of faith to say that there is no such being, and the point of being atheist is that one has discarded such notions as faith in something that is incredibly unlikely to exist.

It's about looking at the evidence, saying "what am I wasting time here for, I could be doing something useful!" and leaving the faith building, not saying "ooh, I think I'll beleive there isn't a god, that'll get mom and dad's kickers in a twist." and just moving to the back of the building or saying, "I'm not sure what's going on, which end to be on, I'll stay in the middle here until one or the other looks inviting." (it can be assumed that everyone who is a theist is standing up at the front, doing worshipy things...)

I just don't like when people show off their beliefs with all the tact and class of an:

UK: Essex girl with a bottle of White Lightning in the back of a Fiesta

US: cheerleader at a frat party who just found out that the quarterback's parents have a water bed.

Check out my trans-Atlantic analogies. I'm awful considerate.

Atheism may not be a religion per se, but many atheists act and defend their believes like it is/could be. Many people are as zeal and selfrighteous in their belief that there is not god that they try to convert other people into believing so as well. I'm waiting when they'll start putting statues and buildings in the honor of atheism. My point is that even if some people don't like religions, they act the same way than they people they think fools.

I myself like religions. Both thumbs up. They are a wonderful way to explain something that we cannot comprehend. Anything that falls of your knowledge can be made make sense by saying that "a wizard did it!" It is the people, who take part of these religions that I loath. The more fanatical flagellant, the more distance I want to keep between him/her and me. A narrow view sees better and small mind is easily filled with faith. Close your eyes and ears and believe that you want the world to be. Personally I think that that's a cowards choice.

Perhaps I'm going too far. My advice is that a person can believe what ever he/she wants to, but should give a second thought how to express their believes. Again, there are not wrong or right choices, but.....


Noah. Not going to finish that sentence.

My only comment on this at this point is I intend to stay Agnostic.  Don't really know either way what the truth is and won't claim to.  I'm not some all knowing being.  I hope there is a life after death, but can only wait and see...  and hope that whatever god there is isn't an ass like some of the more zealous type make their god seem...  the webcomic Shades of Grey about sums up my reasoning for that.

Quote from: Darkmoon on August 03, 2008, 11:09:08 PM

Quote from: MT Hazard on August 03, 2008, 08:09:18 PM
agnostic atheist

The fuck? That makes no sense, you can't be both an agnostic and an atheist. The atheist cancels out the agnostic (or vice versa).

Did you read the rest of the post? If further explanation is needed after, post again

Quote from: PencilinHand on August 04, 2008, 01:09:45 AM
Everyone, I am sorry my post was such that it needed to be peeled off the original topic and moved to a different forum.

That was not my intention and I apologize for it.

As previously noted by PM, it wasn't you. It's where everyone else is taking it. Nothing personal, no problems, it's just the mods tidying up.

Quote from: PencilinHand on August 04, 2008, 01:09:45 AM
Bah, no one is going to read this long of a post....

Why not, I did. ;-]



I get the feeling not everyone looks at the world the same way I do (well, duh.) so...

I see Agnostic as meaning someone who doesn't know if God exists.
I see Atheistic as meaning someone who believes God doesn't exist.

There is a range of beliefs, obviously, because people are not binary, and you get people all the way across that spectrum. Zealots are a whole other bag of nuts.


Would someone care to dispute my meanings, or provide their own, differing values? It seems to me as if Agnostic and Atheistic have been confused, somehow - not purposefully on the part of the posters, but possibly deliberately by the Media, or other interested parties - vilification of people you want to destroy is always a first step...

Quote from: Mowser on August 03, 2008, 10:40:07 PMit's always interesting to know what others think. :)

I think this thread is a fucking trainwreck.

Quote from: Paul on August 04, 2008, 08:54:34 AM

Quote from: Mowser on August 03, 2008, 10:40:07 PMit's always interesting to know what others think. :)

I think this thread is a fucking trainwreck.

And we thank you for your scintillating, thought provoking input.

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on August 04, 2008, 06:41:16 AM
Would someone care to dispute my meanings, or provide their own, differing values? It seems to me as if Agnostic and Atheistic have been confused, somehow - not purposefully on the part of the posters, but possibly deliberately by the Media, or other interested parties - vilification of people you want to destroy is always a first step...

For me, I consider myself an atheist because ultimately I find the idea of a supreme being to be a little silly. It's hard to explain, but ultimately I just feel like I don't need the a god who has been handed to me from a book written over thousands of years to tell me how to live. I also know that my beliefs - or lack thereof - don't fit everyone, and so am quite willing and happy to let other people believe what they want, so long as they don't go around forcing their beliefs on other people and persecuting people who believe something different. I'm still friends with the minister couple I've known since I was born, and I still talk to people at my church, so it's not like I want everyone to become an atheist. The reasons for someone being atheistic are as varied as the reasons for someone being religious, and in my case I basically abandoned religion when I was about fourteen or so.

I would like to point out that if any of the various gods or supernatural entities were real, I would acknowledge their existence but I still wouldn't "believe" in them, if that makes sense. Considering that in Genesis, the Abrahamic God says something about how "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil," I think we can figure out what is right and wrong on our own.

I'm not trying to offend (and for once I'm not being PC), this is just what I personally feel.

And now for something completely different



Man: I wish those bloody bells would stop.

Wife: Oh, it's quite nice dear, it's Sunday, it's the church.

M: What about us atheists? Why should we 'ave to listen to that sectarian turmoil?

W: You're a lapsed atheist, dear.

M: The principle's the same. The Mohmedans don't come 'round here wavin' bells at us! We don't get Buddhists playing bagpipes in our bathroom! Or Hindus harmonizing in the hall! The Shintus don't come here shattering sheet glass in the shithouse, shouting slogans-

W: All right, don't practice your alliteration on me.

M: Anyway, when I membership card and blazer badge back from the League of Agnostics, I shall urge the executive to lodge a protest against that religious racket! Pass the butter knife!

W: WHAT??

M: PASS THE BUTTER KNIFE!! (pause) THANK YOU! IF ONLY WE HAD SOME KIND OF MISSILE!

W: 'OLD ON, I'LL CLOSE THE WINDOW.

M: WHAT?!

W: I SAID, I'LL CLOSE THE WINDOW!

(Sound: Window closing, bells get faint, but are still there)

M: If only we had some kind of missile, we could take the steam out of those bells.

W: Well, you could always use the number 14-St. Joseph-the-somewhat- divine-on-the-hill ballistic missile. It's in the attic.

M: What ballistic missile would this be, then?

(Sound: Bells begin to get increasingly louder)

W: I made it for you, it's your birthday present!

M: Just what I wanted, 'ow nice of you to remember, my pet. 'ERE!

W: WHAT?

M: THOSE BELLS ARE GETTING LOUDER!

W: WHAT?

M: THOSE BELLS ARE GETTING LOUDER!!

W: THE BELLS ARE GETTING LOUDER! OOOH, LOOK!

M: WHAT?

W: THE CHURCH, IT.. ITS COMING CLOSER! ITS COMING DOWN THE 'ILL!

M: WHAT A LIBERTY!

W: ITS TURNING INTO OUR LANE! WELL, YOU BETTER GO PUT IT OUT OF IT'S MISERY.

M: WHERE'S THIS MISSILE, THEN?

W: IT'S IN THE ATTIC. PRESS THE BUTTON MARKED CHURCH!

M: 'OW DO I AIM IT?

W: IT AUTOMATICALLY HOMES IN ON THE NEAREST PLACE OF WORSHIP!

M: BUT THAT'S ST. MARKS!

W: IT ISN'T NOW, LOOK!! OH, ITS OP'NING THE GATE.

M: WHAT? USE THE MEGAPHONE!

W: IT'S OP'NING THE GATE!! 'HURRY UP, ITS TRAMPLING OVER THE AZALIAS!

(Sound: Missle launch, explosion, bells diminish)

M: Did I 'it it?

W: Yes, right up the aisle.

M: Well I've always said, There's nothing an agnostic can't do if he really doesn't know whether he believes in anything or not.

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on August 03, 2008, 02:17:20 PM

Personally, I think Atheists are just smart enough to figure out how to live without requiring anyone else providing them with direction.

I suppose that's why such a huge percentage of neo-Nazi's and Communits are aetheists?  Plus, one of the founders of the modern aetheist movement was murdered by her own son for money.  And I personally knew a number of aetheists who couldn't even write a comprehenisble sentence.

They're no smarter than any other of the absurd hairless monkeys.  And too many use the lack of any afterlife or consequences as an excuse to do horrible things, just as the religious authorities use the perversion of the divine to justify horrible things.

Humans will always trend toward evil things.  Aetheism makes it much easier, as you don't really need to care about anything because no matter what you do you'll die and there's nothing else beyond.  Life is utterly pointless and futile.  That is the only ultimate truth of aetheism in it's absolute end to everything.

I disagree, Alondro, but that's ok - I'll also stand up for your right to disagree with me.

Sure, life is depressing and pointless and futile. I just don't feel the need for some fuzzy religion to help me face up to that.

Your decision may well vary. *shrug* Heck, you might well be right in believing that there really is a god. I could well be wrong, and you right. Who am I to tell you what to believe?

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on August 04, 2008, 10:02:09 AMAnd we thank you for your scintillating, thought provoking input.

Oh, I was being sincere. If people want to explain their beliefs, as some do here, that's all fine and dandy. However, when they insist on "explaining" what other people - with whom they don't agree - believe and why, as others do here, it's just prejudiced and obnoxious. You have no way of knowing - not assuming, but knowing - the inner workings of a whole bunch of individuals that just happen to fit some group definition. John's a Baptist, Jack's a Baptist, but their belief is not the exact same nor did they arrive at it in the same way or for the same reason. Same goes for everyone else, no matter their belief or lack thereof.

(edited for typo)

Quote from: PencilinHand on August 03, 2008, 11:45:52 AMBy the way, Atheism is a religion as well, a religion where there is nothing bigger than man individually and ultimately an individual is only answerable to themselves. Everyone is a god to themselves and there is nothing beyond the here and now, really it is quiet a depressing religion.

No I begin to wonder why I am not depressed.

I believe that I have any power I'll ever need and there isn't someone with completely unknown purposes who is the one ACTUALLY controlling things.

Besides, I don't see how having to beg pray to god every night so he doesn't run me over with a dump truck tomorrow would make me any happier

It really bothers me, PencilinHand, that the entire beginning of this debate is about defining a word, as opposed to trying to agree on what the heck reality is. This isn't a debate about definitions, it's about personal beliefs and faith. And by defining atheism as an all encompassing group, all you're doing is telling atheists that what they think of their faith is wrong, whatever it might be, and your definition is correct. Regardless of their own personal faith. And I really don't think that YOU would like it if I made generalizations about your faith that were incorrect.

Quote from: Jairus on August 04, 2008, 10:11:38 AM

I would like to point out that if any of the various gods or supernatural entities were real, I would acknowledge their existence but I still wouldn't "believe" in them, if that makes sense. Considering that in Genesis, the Abrahamic God says something about how "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil," I think we can figure out what is right and wrong on our own.

How can one know that something exists and not to believe in it? I think you mean worship instead of believe. I also think that this is a common mistake that many atheist make. I mean you probably believe in mathematics and physics, but you aren't likely to worship the, (unless you're really nerdy or a scientist). Perhaps the religion wouldn't be so far fetched idea if the idea of god would a bit more modern. After all, people have not changed enough not to repeat the same mistakes that we made in the dark ages. Did I say mistakes? I meant choices. There are no right or wrong choices in religion, only how you worship your chosen deity.

Quote from: Paul on August 04, 2008, 11:04:46 AM
Oh, I was being sincere.

When giving out criticism, try to make it constructive rather than destructive. Rather than pointing out how stupid people are, one should tell them to educate
themselves more and to give more thought on matters before speaking out.

Quote from: Jack McSlay on August 04, 2008, 11:11:12 AM
Besides, I don't see how having to beg pray to god every night so he doesn't run me over with a dump truck tomorrow would make me any happier

Perhaps you wouldn't be any happier, but some people might. Most people look for security from the prayers because they don't want to be afraid. It brings them comfort, I guess and if they are happy, who are you to question their power?
To be honest, I've been (trying to) speak with god. Well, that's a matter of definition, really. To religious person it would be praying, to atheist a honest self monologue, a Budhist would call it some sort of meditation and a voodoo shaman an afternoon chat with 'da spirits'. It is a moment when I calm down and ask myself the questions that have been bugging me. If I wait few minutes, the answers will come. Ask stupid questions, get stupid answers. Ask genuine questions, get genuine answers. Of course I am the one giving out the answers but that doesn't diminish the meaning of the answers one bit. They might as well be from the god, or from Allah or Buddha or my ancestors. Who cares? They are good answers and better than any other alternative that I've met so far.
There's an intresting story regarding this, but it's way too long for this post.

Quote from: Yugo on August 04, 2008, 01:18:45 PM
the entire beginning of this debate is about defining a word, as opposed to trying to agree on what the heck reality is.

Actually, almost every philosophical question one can make with words is just a matter of definition. The words are too flawed for us to completely tell other people what we think.

Quote from: Omega on August 04, 2008, 02:02:28 PM

Quote from: Jairus on August 04, 2008, 10:11:38 AM
I would like to point out that if any of the various gods or supernatural entities were real, I would acknowledge their existence but I still wouldn't "believe" in them, if that makes sense. Considering that in Genesis, the Abrahamic God says something about how "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil," I think we can figure out what is right and wrong on our own.

How can one know that something exists and not to believe in it? I think you mean worship instead of believe. I also think that this is a common mistake that many atheist make. I mean you probably believe in mathematics and physics, but you aren't likely to worship the, (unless you're really nerdy or a scientist). Perhaps the religion wouldn't be so far fetched idea if the idea of god would a bit more modern. After all, people have not changed enough not to repeat the same mistakes that we made in the dark ages. Did I say mistakes? I meant choices. There are no right or wrong choices in religion, only how you worship your chosen deity.

Okay, I'll give you that one. I did basically mean worship. I guess you could say that I might believe in them, but I wouldn't have any faith in them, if that helps. Urgh, headache coming on now.
      And you're right, Omega, that's the problem with any language: we define ourselves and our experiences and ideas through language, but if the word or term doesn't exist to describe something we can't do it. Matters of faith are just the kind of things where the terms overlap and get really really complicated.

I'm glad we agree with this.

The way I see things.  and I'm just wieghing in on the term belief here.

If something exists you don't need to believe in it.  

I certainly don't believe in my computer desk,  I know it's there. I can touch it and feel it and set things on it.   It doesn't require any belief, it's a table it's proven to exist.  If you know it's real you can't realy belive in it.

The only thing we can really believe in are intangibles.  Like when your a child you bel;ive in the tooth fairy, or the easter bunny.  those are intangible, they don't exist as we percive things so believing in them or not makes them real to that person anyway anyway.  As we grow up those intangibles are replaced with new ones that we believe in like Justice, Mercy and Honor,  these are the big ones.  Like with the smaller intangibles you can see evidence of these things Presents on christmass morning is seen as proof of santa,  The family of a murder victim asking a court not to seek the death penalty is seen as proof of mercy.  but on it's own these things don't exist unless you believe in them.

real things don't need belief a chair doesn't care if you believe in it or not it's just there,  but I'm sure most of use want to believe in justice and honor.  and that belief reflects in our actions and helps to bring about the instances of proof.

Course thats just one bunny's opinion

The funniest thing I ever remember on the topic of belief was an interview with Michel jackson's father... he was asked "Would you be happy if your son settled down with one person no matter if they were male or female"

The man's answer was
"My family don't believe in gays"

*chuckles*

So, what you're saying is that one can only believe in things that don't exists?

Thread... so... long...

bored...

zzzzzzz...

*slips a pillow under Darkmoon's head*

Ok, now everyone keep going. He hasn't had a decent night's sleep in months.... ;-]

I think Omega, that what TGH is saying is that it's things that can't be proven to exist that require belief.  Things that can be proven to exist don't require it.  Similar to what you said, but not exactly.

Oh? Then what can be proved then? I'm a sceptic (at least I think I am). In fact I'm so sceptic that I doubt everything and I mean everything (even that I doubt everything). There fore I live in constant hope that world around me isn't proved false at the next moment. This means that I don't separate things that I know and things that I believe in. Ergo, your argument is invalid to me, because those two things are one and same to me (or so I believe).

And a valid point, my skeptical friend, and one often expressed by many existentialists.  Is this all real?  How can we know?  Am I real?  Impossible questions to answer really.  I'll stick with the "Je pense donc je suis" or "Cogito, ergo sum" line of thought for now.  However the fun thing about the aforementioned argument is that it opens up all sorts of doors for interesting views on what *is* real then.  If none of this is real, does it matter what I do or say?  It's not real, so it doesn't matter if I walk up and kill that guy now right?  Dangerous line of thought there, but if it's really not real who cares right?  The fun thing about the path of eventually coming to believe that none of this is necessarily real is that it opens up whole new alley-ways into our own behavior.  Take for example the internet.  To many, being anonymous (and therefore not a real manifestation) on the internet opens them up to even their most base behaviors.  I jokingly refer you to this (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/), but it proves an interesting point.  Put someone in a situation where nothing is real and therefore there are no actual consequences to their actions and watch the mayhem ensue.  It's really interesting don't you think?  I think that if you want to find out if this is real or not, go and find out if there are any real consequences to your actions.

Just want to jump in here real quick, one doesn't need to have faith in something that is concrete, like a table or chair, but one does need to have faith in things for which evidence exists.

I have faith that my senses are reporting reality.
I have faith that the night sky isn't an illusion sitting like a spherical curtain surrounding the solar system.
I have faith that the airplane I am about to board has been serviced by a team of competent, though possibly overworked, mechanics.

I have faith in a lot of things for which I have evidence but no concrete proof.

It isn't required that something not exist or that no proof for something exist for you to have faith in it, just that you believe they exist despite not having 100% concrete evidence that they do.

for instance, I have no proof of extraterrestrial life, but the probability that it exists somewhere is high enough that I have faith that such exists. (It's just rather ludicrous to think that they are actually visiting earth, analy probing people, and mutilating our cattle, for the last 60 years, and no one but crackpots and some government agency capable of keeping a secret(which I also don't believe exists) have noticed.)

Quote from: Mowser on August 04, 2008, 03:50:53 PM
And a valid point, my skeptical friend, and one often expressed by many existentialists.  Is this all real?  How can we know?  Am I real?  Impossible questions to answer really.  I'll stick with the "Je pense donc je suis" or "Cogito, ergo sum" line of thought for now.  However the fun thing about the aforementioned argument is that it opens up all sorts of doors for interesting views on what *is* real then.  If none of this is real, does it matter what I do or say?  It's not real, so it doesn't matter if I walk up and kill that guy now right?  Dangerous line of thought there, but if it's really not real who cares right?  The fun thing about the path of eventually coming to believe that none of this is necessarily real is that it opens up whole new alley-ways into our own behavior.  Take for example the internet.  To many, being anonymous (and therefore not a real manifestation) on the internet opens them up to even their most base behaviors.  I jokingly refer you to this (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/), but it proves an interesting point.  Put someone in a situation where nothing is real and therefore there are no actual consequences to their actions and watch the mayhem ensue.  It's really interesting don't you think?  I think that if you want to find out if this is real or not, go and find out if there are any real consequences to your actions.

And down hat road one may find nihilism.  I hear it's an interesting place to visit, but not somewhere one would want to live.

Quote from: Mowser on August 04, 2008, 03:27:27 PM
I think Omega, that what TGH is saying is that it's things that can't be proven to exist that require belief.  Things that can be proven to exist don't require it.  Similar to what you said, but not exactly.

That's it exactly sir.
I don't need to believe in my floor for it to suport my weight, I don't need to believe in my umbrella for it to keep the rain off. 

I believe that people are for the most part good, I believe the police are generally honest,

these are things I can't prove but are items I take on faith.

My own beliefs in god and the universe are rather odd.  I don't follow any set religion though I have read up on a number of them for fun.  Personally I believe that any being capable of creating the whole universe would be essentially beyond our comprehension.  thus any attempt by us to pigeon hole the creator into our veiw of what the divine should be is inherently flawed because it's filtered through our own limited perceptions.

For me this boils down to basically live your life as best you can

Quote from: Alondro on August 04, 2008, 10:49:00 AM

And I personally knew a number of aetheists who couldn't even write a comprehenisble sentence.

The irony in the sentence amuses me Alondro. As for me, I've been an athiest for as long as I can remember; personaly choice more then anything else. I just find myself capable of believing in any supreme being or beings. Does that make me a bad person; no I prefer to think not. I have a good set of ethics and morals, not racist or sexist in the slightest, and I would be very hard pressed to commit any crime that would physically or emotionally hurt someone else. As far as Pencilinhand's opinion of athiesm being a religion, I consider really more of a philosophy then a religion. I feel a religion needs the present of some kind of spiritual aspect.

Quote from: Teroniss on August 05, 2008, 12:32:07 AM

Quote from: Alondro on August 04, 2008, 10:49:00 AM

And I personally knew a number of aetheists who couldn't even write a comprehenisble sentence.

The irony in the sentence amuses me Alondro. As for me, I've been an athiest for as long as I can remember; personaly choice more then anything else. I just find myself capable of believing in any supreme being or beings. Does that make me a bad person; no I prefer to think not. I have a good set of ethics and morals, not racist or sexist in the slightest, and I would be very hard pressed to commit any crime that would physically or emotionally hurt someone else. As far as Pencilinhand's opinion of athiesm being a religion, I consider really more of a philosophy then a religion. I feel a religion needs the present of some kind of spiritual aspect.

As ironis as the misspelling is, it doesn't change the fact that it's true.  I wasn't talking about you.  Of course there are going to be aetheists who can control themselves, just as there are a whole lot of religious people who don't go around burning heretics at the stake.  My point was, aetheism isn't going to solve anything about war or hatred.  People will always find a reason because some will always be filled with hate for other people and some will always desire power at any cost.  That is an unbendable truth of human nature.

I think the point of that argument is that, if everyone shared the same beliefs (be them atheism or any religion or philosophy you can name) there would be one less thing to fight about. So people would have to make do with fighting only about everything else.

On the other hand, if people could accept the differences and not make such a big deal out of them, the existence of different beliefs wouldn't cause any wars or similar conflicts.

Quote from: Gabi on August 05, 2008, 12:20:47 PM
I think the point of that argument is that, if everyone shared the same beliefs (be them atheism or any religion or philosophy you can name) there would be one less thing to fight about. So people would have to make do with fighting only about everything else.

On the other hand, if people could accept the differences and not make such a big deal out of them, the existence of different beliefs wouldn't cause any wars or similar conflicts.

I'd prefer the second one. To be honest, to me the thought of everyone in the world having the exact same beliefs is frightening. Even if then we would have to make up some new excuse to kill each other.

Quote from: thegayhare on August 04, 2008, 05:57:07 PM

Personally I believe that any being capable of creating the whole universe would be essentially beyond our comprehension.  thus any attempt by us to pigeon hole the creator into our veiw of what the divine should be is inherently flawed because it's filtered through our own limited perceptions.

Indeed!  That's exactly my way of looking at it.  Mortals would never be able to understand how the mind of a being untold eons old works.  Just think of how your own life and way of thinking would change if you could potentially live 1000 years instead of 100.

That's why I always roll my eyes when fiction goes on about how immortality would be boring and a god would want to die and so forth.  Every case of that involves the writer putting their own dissatisfaction into the equation, which you cannot do if you're trying to actually understand what an immortal might be like.  It's very difficult to do, since he only things we are familiar with are transient.

I think Tolkien was close to it with Tom Bombadil.  He kept to his own space and was simply engaged in the act of being.  The mind changes dramatically when there is truly nothing to fear and no limits on time.

Atheism is the religion of not having a religion. While oximoronic, this is the basic definition. Oxymoronic ideas like this turn up all the time, and it's really because the definition of it's category is rather narrow minded. Debate over whether a prion is alive is still on-going because we can't even settle on a definition of what LIFE is. Given that it is easy to understand why people can see not having a religion, as a religion in itself.

Quote from: shadowterm on August 08, 2008, 03:48:28 AM
Atheism is the religion of not having a religion. While oximoronic, this is the basic definition. Oxymoronic ideas like this turn up all the time, and it's really because the definition of it's category is rather narrow minded. Debate over whether a prion is alive is still on-going because we can't even settle on a definition of what LIFE is. Given that it is easy to understand why people can see not having a religion, as a religion in itself.

Eh, I will stick with the Atheism simply meaning : "Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism."

Theism.. being religion.

Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color. Atheists do not believe in a god. They don't have 'faith'. Most even see blind faith, as proposed by all religions, not as a virtue, but as something that has caused far too much suffering already. Just open up any history book on the dark ages.

All religions propose the existence and veneration of the supernatural, be it a god, or an afterlife where some essence, a spirit or a soul, will live on after we die. Atheists reject these claims for lack of evidence. Indeed, no known religion sufficiently explains the grandeur and subtlety of the universe. Carl Sagan makes this point abundantly clear in "the pale blue dot".

To say that in the atheistic world view there is nothing greater than man is to be misinformed at best.
You only have to look up at the night sky to realise that there is a whole universe out there far greater than any man, or even all of mankind put together.

As for atheists not being answerable to anyone but themselves: horsehockey! Atheists live under the law like anyone else, and atheists must answer to the social contract as much as everyone. Atheists can do this without the promise of heaven or the threat of hell.
Some atheists would even go so far as to say that every good deed an atheist does is marginally better that the good deeds of a religious person. The atheist does good, because it is the right thing to do, while the religious motives are tainted with the selfish desire to get into heaven, and stay out of hell.

Atheists don't believe in a god, because there is not enough evidence for one. All the arguments for the existence of a deity can be explained otherwise without the need for a supernatural entity. We call these explanations 'science'.

As for atheism being depressing, I find the doctrines of Christianity far more depressing. The idea that every moment of your life you are being scrutinised by the omnipotent creator of the universe, and if you don't end up with blind faith in his existence, and love him above all else, and fear him at the same time, he will throw you into hell, where you will burn and suffer for all eternity! And if you happen to have sufficient faith (and, according to some denominations, if you go to the right church), he will let you into heaven.
It doesn't matter how much good you have done, or how much evil you have wrought, as long as you have enough of the right faith, you will end up in heaven. The Christian god apparently calls this 'justice'.
Some Christians would argue that everyone is 'saved' because of Jesus. I can't speak for other people, but the idea that a human sacrifice was needed before god could forgive us the flaws he made us with in the first place, is not something I can morally subscribe to.

Quote from: Alondro on August 05, 2008, 09:52:56 AM

Quote from: Teroniss on August 05, 2008, 12:32:07 AM

Quote from: Alondro on August 04, 2008, 10:49:00 AM

And I personally knew a number of aetheists who couldn't even write a comprehensible sentence.

The irony in the sentence amuses me Alondro. As for me, I've been an athiest for as long as I can remember; personaly choice more then anything else. I just find myself capable of believing in any supreme being or beings. Does that make me a bad person; no I prefer to think not. I have a good set of ethics and morals, not racist or sexist in the slightest, and I would be very hard pressed to commit any crime that would physically or emotionally hurt someone else. As far as Pencilinhand's opinion of athiesm being a religion, I consider really more of a philosophy then a religion. I feel a religion needs the present of some kind of spiritual aspect.

As ironis as the misspelling is, it doesn't change the fact that it's true.  I wasn't talking about you.  Of course there are going to be aetheists who can control themselves, just as there are a whole lot of religious people who don't go around burning heretics at the stake.  My point was, aetheism isn't going to solve anything about war or hatred.  People will always find a reason because some will always be filled with hate for other people and some will always desire power at any cost.  That is an unbendable truth of human nature.

There are stupid people everywhere, no matter what their beliefs (or lack thereof), so it is quite possible that you have met atheists who couldn't spell their way out of kindergarden. I have even seen some quotes of fundamentalist atheists on fstdt.com, but those are very rare.

Quote from: Gabi on August 05, 2008, 12:20:47 PM
I think the point of that argument is that, if everyone shared the same beliefs (be them atheism or any religion or philosophy you can name) there would be one less thing to fight about. So people would have to make do with fighting only about everything else.

Not likely. Even if you start with only one religion, people interpret that religion differently. Some would be more forgiving in the following of the rules a religion proposes, and others more strict. People would attach different meaning to the various religious texts. This leads to arguments and schisms, and you would end up with multiple denominations within the same religion, which can violently conflict with each other. You only have to look at the rise of the protestant church from the catholic one in the history books to see how bloody religious infighting can get.

As for atheism being a doctrine that binds people in unison: you might as well herd cats. The only thing all atheists have in common is the lack of religious beliefs. in everything else, they are their own person with their own beliefs and convictions. Two atheists can get into a fight about something they disagree upon.
It is, however, much more difficult to tell a group a atheists that their non-god wants them to eradicate <insert religious group of people of choice>, that it is to tell people of devout religious convictions to do terrible things in the name of a god. Cases in point: the crusades, witch hunts, Muslim suicide bombers, and the World Trade Center. There are some atheists that have dome terrible things, but they didn't do these things because they were atheists, they did these things because they were evil men.
The saying "Good men do good, and evil men do evil, but to make a good man do evil, you need religion" has more truth to it than many of us would like to believe.

Quote from: Alondro on August 04, 2008, 10:49:00 AM

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on August 03, 2008, 02:17:20 PM

Personally, I think Atheists are just smart enough to figure out how to live without requiring anyone else providing them with direction.

I suppose that's why such a huge percentage of neo-Nazi's and Communits are aetheists?  Plus, one of the founders of the modern aetheist movement was murdered by her own son for money.  And I personally knew a number of aetheists who couldn't even write a comprehenisble sentence.

There are stupid evil bigots in all groups, but these are hardly representative of atheists as whole, just as suicide bombers are not representative of the Muslim faith, and the Westboro Baptist Church also does not represent all of Christianity.

Also, what is this "modern atheistic movement", what was the name of this founder, and when was she murdered? I haven't been able to find anything about this on google.

Quote from: Alondro on August 04, 2008, 10:49:00 AM
They're no smarter than any other of the absurd hairless monkeys.  And too many use the lack of any afterlife or consequences as an excuse to do horrible things, just as the religious authorities use the perversion of the divine to justify horrible things.

People who need the threat of hell to be good are beneath my contempt. They are evil people who are to cowardly to do what they want. Let them stay in their religion, and let them keep their delusions.
I, for one, will do good because it is the right thing to do, and I will not harm my fellow human beings because that would not be the right thing to do.

Quote from: Alondro on August 04, 2008, 10:49:00 AM
Humans will always trend toward evil things.  Aetheism makes it much easier, as you don't really need to care about anything because no matter what you do you'll die and there's nothing else beyond.  Life is utterly pointless and futile.  That is the only ultimate truth of aetheism in it's absolute end to everything.

Humans don't always trend towards evil, and they don't need religion to bully them into complacency. If they did, than countries like Sweden, the Netherlands, and Japan would have a very big anarchy problem. Yet these countries are doing very well for themselves, without rampant hordes of people raping, pillaging and murdering their way through the streets. In many ways they are ahead of the US, and other religious nations in terms of health, happiness, and standards of living.
Atheism is not as corrosive to morals and ethics as you might think, Alondro.

Last time I checked, not everyone in Sweden, the Netherlands, or Japan was aetheist.  As far as people not becoming anarchic, that's simply because most still desire order and it's what they're raised in.  Law becomes a habit.  Just give it another generation or two when more and more aetheists understand that social contracts are as much an illusion as to them is religion and a law is only as powerful as the human ability to catch you breaking it.  And then too, if you don't care if your caught, then the object becomes simply to cause as much damage as possible before they can kill you.

For instance, recall that the Columbine school shooters asked mockingly if some of their victims believed in God.

I just have to look at how bioethics is progressing bit by bit to show me the path along which the world is traveling.  I would like to note Peter Singer again.  Why is it that a man who feels it is acceptable to kill children up to two years old because they're 'not really people yet', and at the same time thinks it's wrong to experiment on mice which in most cases don't even live two years naturally, in a position to determine what is ethical?  People like him will find it much easier to weasel their way into positions of influence in situations where there is no absolute moral authority to place a brick wall in their path.  It's a slow progression, like all changes, taking decades to progress to the next stage.  Unless one takes to the time to look back and understand how its changing it cannot be seen.

Oh, and as for the burning forever in hell thing.  That depends on the distorted version of Christianity which took hold once Constantine began to form the Roman Catholic Church.  And that's one thing I can't understand about most versions of Protestantism.  They reject any notion of the Pope's religious authority, yet worship on Sunday, a change which was orchestrated by the Pope in the 4th century.  Again, force of habit. 

Habits of law are changing though.  Just ask most teenagers today what they think of law.  Teens today are willing to do things that never would have even entered the minds of youth several decades ago.  I speak to my parents and other older people I know about what they remember.  Hence, some of the evidence of the decay in society.  The world is becoming a larger version of Rome, breaking apart almost invisibly from within.  It seems to me that all these things are the same as what preceeded the collapse of every ancient civilization.  The only difference this time is that the civilization encompases the entire world and there's nowhere to run if comes crashing down. 

I honestly think that people who claim things were so much better way back when have merely forgotten all of the details.  Children and youth have always rebelled.  Wars have always been fought.  There has always been one group or another telling you how to live your life 'properly' and there will always be something that someone else considers 'evil'.  Yet for all of this... we're still here.  It's always coming up, in every generation, that this next generation is so bad that it wouldn't be a surprise if they were to end it all.  It'll all come crashing down now because of how far we have fallen as people.  Either morally, scientifically or by whatever other thing you hold important to you.

Sounds to me like everyone is just taking themselves way too darn seriously.  Not just in this thread, everywhere.

The Netherlands populace was 44% aetheist in 2004 (and is rising)
(CIA world fact book)

So we should be starting a war any day now.

Of course most of these supposed aetheist would be agnostic, like myself. For a moral compass I rather use my own then someone else's you never know when the so-many-hand thing breaks, it's sometimes better to get a new and shiny one with insurance and everything.

Of course the moral compass I posses was made together with my parents, my parents thought they did not need a book to teach me those.  They also let me make my own religion and let me watch tv and play violent games.

Quote from: Alondro on August 08, 2008, 08:31:36 AM
Last time I checked, not everyone in Sweden, the Netherlands, or Japan was aetheist.  As far as people not becoming anarchic, that's simply because most still desire order and it's what they're raised in.  Law becomes a habit.  Just give it another generation or two when more and more aetheists understand that social contracts are as much an illusion as to them is religion and a law is only as powerful as the human ability to catch you breaking it.  And then too, if you don't care if your caught, then the object becomes simply to cause as much damage as possible before they can kill you.

No, not everyone in Sweden, the Netherlands and Japan is atheistic, but there are more than enough atheists to consider the proposition of "atheism breeds anarchy" null and void. the very opposite seems to be true here: a proportional increase of atheists in a population has a positive correlation with the wellbeing of the entire population in a country.
Atheists following the law, because doing so is habit-forming is also null and void. Atheists want to earn respect from those around them as much as anyone following a religion, and going around breaking the law at any opportunity is not conductive to such ends.
The social contract is not an illusion. Following it will get you further than flagrantly disregarding other people. Being nice to people will result in other people being nice to you in return, which is good. Treating other people like they don't matter will result in other people avoiding you, and treating you like shit in return, which is bad.

Quote from: Alondro on August 08, 2008, 08:31:36 AM
For instance, recall that the Columbine school shooters asked mockingly if some of their victims believed in God.

The columbine school shooters did not what they did out of atheism, but out of a plethora of other reasons. It has also been suggested that video-games and Marylin Manson made them do their horrible deeds, but I don't believe that either.
Your argument of picking someone doing something bad and blaming it on atheism just doesn't work, unless you already assume that atheism is evil. This assumption is not based on fact, but on misinformation. I don't know where you learned that atheism is inherently evil, but I suggest that you ask your source for more than anecdotes.

For every "evil atheist" you some up with, I can counter with a positive example of an atheist. These are people who make a positive effort to improve the world around them, which is also counter to your argument that atheists only follow the law out of habit, and would do terrible things as soon as they shrug off this habit. Doing good because it is the right thing to do is above and beyond what the law expects from citizens.
Carl Sagan: Astronomer, populariser of science,  activist against nuclear weapons.
Douglas Adams : Author of "Hitchhiker's guide to the universe", environmental activist.
Richard Dawkins: Scientist, populariser of science, and activist to make atheism more accepted in America, in spite of him not being an American citizen.
there are scores more mentioned on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists

Quote from: Alondro on August 08, 2008, 08:31:36 AM
I just have to look at how bioethics is progressing bit by bit to show me the path along which the world is traveling.  I would like to note Peter Singer again.  Why is it that a man who feels it is acceptable to kill children up to two years old because they're 'not really people yet', and at the same time thinks it's wrong to experiment on mice which in most cases don't even live two years naturally, in a position to determine what is ethical?  People like him will find it much easier to weasel their way into positions of influence in situations where there is no absolute moral authority to place a brick wall in their path.  It's a slow progression, like all changes, taking decades to progress to the next stage.  Unless one takes to the time to look back and understand how its changing it cannot be seen.

I've read the wikipedia article about Peter Singer, but it never says Mr. Singer mentioned that the murder of anyone under 2 is morally acceptable. There is only the mention that abortion of a fetus up to 18 weeks after conception is morally acceptable, because during that time the fetus does not yet have the capacity to suffer.
What is your source for Mr. Singer's infanticide claim?
The argument around abortion is an interesting one, but it is separate from the atheist argument in this thread.

Quote from: Alondro on August 08, 2008, 08:31:36 AM
Oh, and as for the burning forever in hell thing.  That depends on the distorted version of Christianity which took hold once Constantine began to form the Roman Catholic Church.  And that's one thing I can't understand about most versions of Protestantism.  They reject any notion of the Pope's religious authority, yet worship on Sunday, a change which was orchestrated by the Pope in the 4th century.  Again, force of habit. 

Hell is part of the central doctrine of Christianity, no matter what denomination. The criteria of whether a person is going to hell differs from church to church, and even from person to person, but hell is still there. If you follow a Christian denomination without hell, you follow a very peculiar branch of Christianity indeed.
Hell, worship on sundays, the trinity, and scores of other notions aren't 'force of habit', they are doctrine.

Quote from: Alondro on August 08, 2008, 08:31:36 AM
Habits of law are changing though.  Just ask most teenagers today what they think of law.  Teens today are willing to do things that never would have even entered the minds of youth several decades ago.  I speak to my parents and other older people I know about what they remember.  Hence, some of the evidence of the decay in society.  The world is becoming a larger version of Rome, breaking apart almost invisibly from within.  It seems to me that all these things are the same as what preceeded the collapse of every ancient civilization.  The only difference this time is that the civilization encompases the entire world and there's nowhere to run if comes crashing down. 

I don't agree with your bleak assessment of the world in general. Crime rates per capita in America are lower than ever before, and life expectancy across the world is now at an all-time high, and climbing. Disabled people can now function better in society, and take better care for themselves than in grandmother's times. Technology empowers the common person to reach out to everyone in the world through the internet. We are the first civilisation that's capable of exploring the solar system. This is not a civilisation in decline, but a civilisation that's experiencing growing pains.
The 'better times' older people remember are just memories seen through a lot of nostalgia. History books have a better documented account of older times, and I must say I'm glad I didn't live in older times.

The world is not without it's problems, but I am confident that with some effort humanity will be able to surmount these problems, and create an even better world.
Values in the western world are changing, but this is not evidence of decay in society, but rather it's evolution into a better society. Not all changes are positive, but focusing only on the negative bits doesn't serve anyone well.

Very well said, in all posts, Vidar.

Quote from: Vidar on August 08, 2008, 08:02:13 AMAtheism is not as corrosive to morals and ethics as you might think, Alondro.

This wasn't adressed to me, but it still managed catch my eye.

Are you, then, implying that there is some sort of larger moral or ethical standard?

Quote from: Cogidubnus on August 08, 2008, 10:25:30 AM

Quote from: Vidar on August 08, 2008, 08:02:13 AMAtheism is not as corrosive to morals and ethics as you might think, Alondro.

This wasn't adressed to me, but it still managed catch my eye.

Are you, then, implying that there is some sort of larger moral or ethical standard?

Yes.
Even Christians who claim to get their ethics and morals from the bible pick and choose which parts of the bible they follow, and which parts they don't based on their own moral convictions.
For example, no Christian would take a disobedient child to the gates of the town to have him stoned by the entire village. It is just barbaric to do such a thing even if the bible says you must do such a thing.

Religion is a very poor place to get your morals from. The bible alone condones and promotes animal cruelty (Joshua 11:6, 2 Samuel 8:4), incest (Genesis 4; 9:1; 19:30-38; 20:11-12, 2 Samuel 13:1-15), slavery (Numbers 31:31-35; Leviticus 25:44-45; Exodus21:2-7; Ephesians 6:5; 1 Timothy 6:1-2), abuse of slaves (Exodus 21:7, 20-21; Luke 12:47-48), spousal abuse (Numbers 5:5-31; Deuteronomy 22:13-21, 28-29; 1 Peter 3:17), child abuse (Genesis 22; Deuteronomy 21:18-21, 23:2; Proverbs 13:10, 20:30, 22:15, 23:13-14, Psalm 137:9), child molestation (Numbers 31:17-18), abortion (Amos 1:13; 2 Kings 15:16; Hosea 9:11-16, 13:16 Numbers 5:5-31), pillage (Genesis 34:13-29; Deuteronomy 20:13-14; Numbers 31:7-12), murder (Exodus 2:12, Judges 9:5, 11:29-39, 14:19; 2 Samuel 18:15; 1 Kings 2:24-25, 29-34, 46, 9:27, 10:7; 2 Chronicles 21:4 Ezekiel 20:26), cannibalism ( Leviticus 26:29, Deuteronomy 28:53, Isaiah 49:26, Jeremiah 19:9, Ezekiel 5:8-10, 2 Kings 6:29), genocide (Genesis 6:11-17, 7:11-24; Exodus 17:13, 32:27, Numbers 21:3, 35, Deuteronomy 2:33-34, 3:6, 7:2, 20:16; Joshua 8:22-25, 10:27-40, 11:8-23; 1 Samuel 15:3, 7-8), and prejudice against race (Exodus 23:23, 28, Numbers 21:35, Deuteronomy 3:6, 7:1; Matthew 15:22-28), nationality (Leviticus 25:46, Joshua 6:21-27, Matthew 11:21-24), religion (The whole bible, really. In particular: 2 Kings 10:19-27), sex (Genesis 38:16-24, Judges 9:53-54, 19:22-29, 21:10-12, Deuteronomy 21:10-14; 22:23-24, 28-29, 25:11-12, Zechariah 14:1-2, Leviticus 12:1-8, 14, 14:19-30, 18:19, 19:20, 21:9, 27:3-7, Numbers 1:2, 20:13-15, 30:3-16, 31:14-18), and sexual orientation (Deuteronomy 22:5, Leviticus 18:22-23, 10:13). The Quran doesn't fare much better, if at all.
Buddhism seems to be something of an exception, and ironically, it doesn't have any gods to tell mankind what to do.

I find that the 'golden rule' (do unto others as they would do unto you) is a useful, though imperfect, guideline. This golden rule is much older than Christianity, and it permeates most well-meaning and well-thought out laws. Laws that do not follow this rule require an explanation, or expultion from the law.
For instance, the ban on gay marriage in America is a law that does not follow the golden rule by removing rights from people based on their sexual preference. I would not want to have my rights taken away from me because of any perceived sexual deviancy on my part (as long as it does not bring harm to anyone), and so, I would not like to see this happening to homosexuals either.

Morals come to us through out genes, our upbringing, and our culture.
I would say that the morals that permeate this civilisation can use some work here and there, but overall, we are doing a heck of a lot better than what the bible says. 

There are quite a few laws that most people find quite acceptable that have no other basis than in religion.

The illegality of bestiality and pedophilia come to mind.  Those are two things that have, in fact, been present in many other cultures, especially what we consider pedophilia. 

I'm digging for that quote of Singer's about the two-year olds.  I can find one about killing disabled infants being ethically acceptable, even if the disability is hemophilia (people who are capable of living full lives).   Ah yes, and his ALF-spawing book "Animal Liberation". 

Quote from Mice R peeple 2 (http://www.ithaca.edu/faculty/cduncan/110/singer1.doc):  "I am urging that we extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us recognize should be extended to all members of our own species."   The scary thing is that his logic matches what I came up with to let me know how horrific the ultimate state of a totally aetheist world culture will become.  The scarier thing is that he actually wants to act upon those logical conclusions.

From the ALF website itself: Singer argues that the ability of animals to feel pain and pleasure puts them on a plane of moral equivalence with us.

Insects react to harmful stimuli.  Worms pull away from a prodding fishhook.  By this reasoning, we cannot squish mosquitoes that bite us.  Killing swarms gypsey moth caterpillars with insecticide is equivalent to the Nazi gas chambers (Hitler killed Gypsies too!  We're all Nazis!)

Even the ALF has a problem with this view from him:  Suppose, for example, that parents knew in advance of a baby's birth that it would be born without arms and legs. In such cases, Singer supports the parents' right to terminate this life. His view becomes more controversial, however, when he argues that the same principle applies up to 28 days after birth. In the case of lives that would be irredeemably difficult and painful, Singer endorses not simply euthanasia of the unborn, but infanticide. What, asks Singer, is the difference between a seriously impaired fetus and a newborn? The mere fact that the latter is alive outside of the womb is trivial for him, since in either case this being has a painful life ahead of it that is not worth living.
But there is another case in which Singer supports infanticide that raises the blood pressure of his critics, one where he brings an impaired newborn into a cold calculation of pain and pleasure and concludes one life-form is exchangeable for another. "When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed ... killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all."

For Singer's critics, there are two disturbing assumptions here: the fact that for Singer a life can be sacrificed in an effort to bring about a greater good, and that he considers hemophilia, chronic urinary tract infections, and other conditions sufficiently debilitating so as to disqualify their victims from "personhood."

How many disabled people do you know who are simply glad to be alive?  How many do you think would be deeply offended by this?

I am going to have to search more deeply for the two-year-old euthanasia comment.  It was a recent one and it hasn't made the rounds completely on the Internet yet.  I stumbled across it several months ago.

Quote from: Alondro on August 08, 2008, 02:36:23 PM
There are quite a few laws that most people find quite acceptable that have no other basis than in religion.

The illegality of bestiality and pedophilia come to mind.  Those are two things that have, in fact, been present in many other cultures, especially what we consider pedophilia.

If we consider children to be human beings, with feelings, opinions, and personalities, then laws against pedophilia have benefits outside of religion as well. The Golden Rule would also support anti-pedophilia laws, since pedophilic acts would likely harm a human being. No religious background is needed for anti-pedophilic laws.
As for bestiality: animals are not capable of communicating with humans in any meaningful way, and the reverse is also true. This means that animals can not consent to sexual acts, and therefore it is difficult to establish whether an animal would want to engage in sexual relations with a human being. Beyond that is the possibility of diseases to be transmitted from animal to human, or vice versa. This makes bestiality something that is not desired in a civilisation as ours. Both are readily explained without the need for religion.

Quote from: Alondro on August 08, 2008, 02:36:23 PM
I'm digging for that quote of Singer's about the two-year olds.  I can find one about killing disabled infants being ethically acceptable, even if the disability is hemophilia (people who are capable of living full lives).   Ah yes, and his ALF-spawing book "Animal Liberation". 

There is something to be said for euthanasia of a disabled child, if said child would be unable to lead a fulfilling life. The question is, of course, who would be able to judge whether a disables individual would or would not be able to lead a fulfilling life. This in itself is an interesing issue to debate, and one of the many things in which modern civilisation could argue about, and maybe come to a consensus about what would be the correct course of action, and what criteria would be needed to have a fulfilling life. For now, no human being as far as I know, has the wisdom to make such decisions.

Members of ALF follow their own moral codes, and they might conflict with the moral codes of the mainstream. This does not mean that they are wrong. It simply means, that different people have different convictions about what is right and what is wrong. People can discuss this at length, and not come to any consensus, but these issues must be discussed if our civilisation is to improve it's moral and ethical standards. I am not about to state that everything ALF does is right or wrong. Somehings they do might be morally reprehensible, while others might be the way foreward in term of morality.

Quote from: Alondro on August 08, 2008, 02:36:23 PM
Quote from Mice R peeple 2 (http://www.ithaca.edu/faculty/cduncan/110/singer1.doc):  "I am urging that we extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us recognize should be extended to all members of our own species."   The scary thing is that his logic matches what I came up with to let me know how horrific the ultimate state of a totally aetheist world culture will become.  The scarier thing is that he actually wants to act upon those logical conclusions.

From the ALF website itself: Singer argues that the ability of animals to feel pain and pleasure puts them on a plane of moral equivalence with us.

I personally don't think that animals would ever reach the moral equivalent of human beings, however, anyone who has had e beloved pet knows that animals can feel pain and discomfort. This would mean, that the animals under our care, and there wellbeing would be our responsibility. If animals feel pain, we should take them to a veterinarian to find out what is the cause of this pain, and how to relieve it. Even though I do not believe that animals rank as high as humans on a moral scale, we do have a responsibility to the animals under our care to give them reasonably comfortable lives.
Richard Dawkins has argued that we grant a limited set of fundamental rights to our nearest cousins (species-wise) of freedom, and to be left to their own devices. I tend to agree with him on this subject, but to extend these rights to , say, chickens would be absurd. That said, I do think that putting 6 chickens an a cage the size of a square foot is needlesly cruel.

Quote from: Alondro on August 08, 2008, 02:36:23 PM
Insects react to harmful stimuli.  Worms pull away from a prodding fishhook.  By this reasoning, we cannot squish mosquitoes that bite us.  Killing swarms gypsey moth caterpillars with insecticide is equivalent to the Nazi gas chambers (Hitler killed Gypsies too!  We're all Nazis!)

Even though humans are animals, not all animals are human beings. If a species of animal is disruptive in the environment, I feel it is our responsibility to step in, and limit the impact of such a disruptive species. killing caterpillars is not the same thing as the Nazi gas-chambers.

Quote from: Alondro on August 08, 2008, 02:36:23 PM
Even the ALF has a problem with this view from him:  Suppose, for example, that parents knew in advance of a baby's birth that it would be born without arms and legs. In such cases, Singer supports the parents' right to terminate this life. His view becomes more controversial, however, when he argues that the same principle applies up to 28 days after birth. In the case of lives that would be irredeemably difficult and painful, Singer endorses not simply euthanasia of the unborn, but infanticide. What, asks Singer, is the difference between a seriously impaired fetus and a newborn? The mere fact that the latter is alive outside of the womb is trivial for him, since in either case this being has a painful life ahead of it that is not worth living.
But there is another case in which Singer supports infanticide that raises the blood pressure of his critics, one where he brings an impaired newborn into a cold calculation of pain and pleasure and concludes one life-form is exchangeable for another. "When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed ... killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all."

This is an interesting moral debate, but I doubt there would be many parent who would agree with Mr. Singer. Once again, there is the need for someone to judge how much fulfillment a person would get from a life with a handicap. No such person exists, so for now, when someone is borne with a handicap, it is our responsibility to make sure that such an individual has as much a full life as this civilisation allows.
If medical science can determint whether a fetus will have a disability before 18 weeks after conception, we go into the abortion issue again. as interesting as this issue may be, this is not the place for this debate. Many European countries allow for abortion up to a number of days after conception. For now, this may be the most viable option, morality-wise.

Quote from: Alondro on August 08, 2008, 02:36:23 PM
For Singer's critics, there are two disturbing assumptions here: the fact that for Singer a life can be sacrificed in an effort to bring about a greater good, and that he considers hemophilia, chronic urinary tract infections, and other conditions sufficiently debilitating so as to disqualify their victims from "personhood."

How many disabled people do you know who are simply glad to be alive?  How many do you think would be deeply offended by this?

At this point, Mr. singers opinions part with my own. I do not believe that a disability would disqualify someone from being a person. Most parent would be deeply offended by a verdict of "your son/daughter does not qualify as a person". No person alive has the wisdom needed to make such a distinction, and no person alive could bear the responsibility of expelling a human being from the human race. It reeks of crudely implemented eugenics, and I think we all know that that is something morally unacceptable.
That said, more subtle forms of eugenics have nearly eradicated certain hereditary diseases by giving advise to couples about whether or not they should have children. Damninteresting.com has an article on the subject. when implemented properly, these advises can be of great benefit to humankind. If implemented poorly, you get the American or Nazi-style eugenics that is morally unacceptable.

Quote from: Alondro on August 08, 2008, 02:36:23 PM
I am going to have to search more deeply for the two-year-old euthanasia comment.  It was a recent one and it hasn't made the rounds completely on the Internet yet.  I stumbled across it several months ago.

When I find it, I will cast my verdict when I read it. The comment sound reprehensible for now, and unless Mr Singer comes up with a damn good explanation for his comment, I will likely condemn it.

Quote from: Vidar on August 08, 2008, 11:49:27 AM
Yes.

etc etc

I find that the 'golden rule' (do unto others as they would do unto you) is a useful, though imperfect, guideline. This golden rule is much older than Christianity, and it permeates most well-meaning and well-thought out laws. Laws that do not follow this rule require an explanation, or expulsion from the law.

I am puzzled, then.

QuoteEven Christians who claim to get their ethics and morals from the bible pick and choose which parts of the bible they follow, and which parts they don't based on their own moral convictions.

You say, or at least imply, that what people can figure out for themselves about their own moral convictions is good enough, and at the same time, you say that the overarching, larger definition of what is Right is to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
I can tell you now that people will not always choose the Golden Rule, and won't think it's wrong to do so. So, either they are wrong, or the Rule isn't what you say it is. That is to say - either the rule is a standard of morality or it isn't.

As well, setting the golden rule up as being the arbitrary definition of what is correct - that is, to say that what is Right, is to Do Unto Others, sounds very much like a religion to me. An arbitrary and final definition of what is good and correct, because it embodies Goodness and Correctness itself. It is right because it is Right.

What you probably would mean, is that it is right because it ensures the survival of the species and ensures good social order, not because it embodies any sort of larger correctness. To which, again, one has to ask - is what ensures the survival of the species and good social order what is Good and Correct? I think there is something called Utilitarianism, and this says much the same thing. Charline and Charles's schemes of world domination often involve this principle.

When a Christian asserts something to be right or wrong, he does point to the Bible. Which, in turn, makes me ask - what do you point to, to say that something is, morally, wrong?

Quote
There is something to be said for euthanasia of a disabled child, if said child would be unable to lead a fulfilling life. The question is, of course, who would be able to judge whether a disables individual would or would not be able to lead a fulfilling life.

If we are to agree that killing a human is wrong...

Does living a fulfilling life make something human? Or, if it is human, does being able to live a fulfilling life add value to it?

QuoteMembers of ALF follow their own moral codes, and they might conflict with the moral codes of the mainstream. This does not mean that they are wrong. It simply means, that different people have different convictions about what is right and what is wrong.

Again, I find this an odd thing to say. Either the Golden Rule is overarchingly what is right, or it isn't. You can't have your cake and eat it too - you can't say that moral ambiguity is fine, while also saying that there really is any sort of larger moral or ethical standard. Even if the rule is an imperfect one, there are times and places that any rule is violated.

QuoteI would say that the morals that permeate this civilisation can use some work here and there, but overall, we are doing a heck of a lot better than what the bible says.

No greater love hath a man than this, that he would lay down his life for another. This is what the Bible commands, under the new covenant:

John 13:34 -34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another."

Galatians 5:14 - 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Romans 13:9-10 - 9 For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not bear false witness," "You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

1 John 3:16-18 - 16 By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 17 But whoever has this world's goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him? 18 My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth.

Ephesians 4:31-5:2 - 31 Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. 32 And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ also forgave you. 1 Therefore be followers of God as dear children. 2 And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.

1 Corinthians 13:1-3 - 1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become as sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

1 Corinthians 13:4-7 - 4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

1 John 4:21
21 And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also.

QuoteIf we consider children to be human beings, with feelings, opinions, and personalities, then laws against pedophilia have benefits outside of religion as well. The Golden Rule would also support anti-pedophilia laws, since pedophilic acts would likely harm a human being. No religious background is needed for anti-pedophilic laws.

That's very true. Religion, or an ultimate standard of right and wrong, are for making consent a necessary thing.

Cog, there's a difference between a standard and the ultimate standard.

There are lots of standards, and not everyone implements every standard or even implements the same standards in te same way.  (kind of like HTML or CSS :B )
The best standard of morality I've seen is the platinum rule: do unto others as they would have you do unto them.

That notwithstanding, cherry picking quotes from the bible to prove your point does neither side any good, because you can find a passage in the bible to support any viewpoint if you leave out the context, which quoting single passages does.(this directed to both of you.)

IMO, the ultimate arbiter of humanist morality is simply what is good for people and society.  The rules in the bible are, many of them, rules to minimize conflict and keep as many people as possible happy within the community that it originated, or to keep people healthy and maintain and expand the community.

Certainly there is a lot of new testament material that is about tolerance and love, but these are things that people can see as necessary without the bible to tell them so.

Yes, there are people who go against the rules, but they don't care where the rules come from, Deuteronomy or Dawkins, they'll break them all the same.

Aside, I'd love to see a source for that drop in crime rates thing; is it measured on a regional basis or overall world statistics?

Quote from: Reese Tora on August 08, 2008, 08:02:13 PM
Cog, there's a difference between a standard and the ultimate standard.

In terms of CSS and HTML, certainly. In terms of morality, I disagree. Either something is Right, or it isn't. It can't be both ways at the same time. If you say that it's wrong to steal, than it's wrong. If you say that it's generally a bad thing to steal, than that's not really a standard - like programming in HTML or CSS, it's simply a suggestion. To use a pirate term - they're more like guidelines, and in reality, anyone can do whatever they'd like, and it wouldn't be Wrong, per se.

If you are claiming that something is an overarching moral or ethical standard, one cannot then also say that moral relativism is fine too.

QuoteThat notwithstanding, cherry picking quotes from the bible to prove your point does neither side any good, because you can find a passage in the bible to support any viewpoint if you leave out the context, which quoting single passages does.(this directed to both of you.)

It was not my intent to leave out context - it was, in fact, my intent to provide as much as I could, in the setting of a forum. I'd rather not post chapters here. I did want to provide more than Book and Number. If I've misrepresented something, I'd be more than glad to have it brought to my attention.

QuoteIMO, the ultimate arbiter of humanist morality is simply what is good for people and society.

A little thought, and one can see that's a very dangerous road to travel.

Addendum:
These sorts of threads are like punching a tar baby. This will be my last post here, and I will resume my strict rule of closing my mouth, lest my foot find its way in, and I be proved the fool I am.

Quote from: PencilinHand on August 03, 2008, 11:45:52 AM
By the way, Atheism is a religion as well, a religion where there is nothing bigger than man individually and ultimately an individual is only answerable to themselves. Everyone is a god to themselves and there is nothing beyond the here and now, really it is quiet a depressing religion.

The Romans didn't know how to count with the number zero either. Then, more modern and convenient and logical systems of calculation were formed, and we were given modern mathematics, which have ultimately taken us a good way toward knowledge and illumination.

Ah, if only irrefutable logic could be applied to theories and beliefs as well.

You know, I'm not going to contest you. I know that there is nothing that can prove or convince you of the fallaciousness of your thinking. And you can't convince me of mine either. Sadly, technically, I can't take solace in the fact that your thinking holds no sway and dictates nothing, because theoretically, that acts as a universal affirmative to the fact that neither does mine.

Though, I'm willing to point out and ridicule you for the fact that your view seems quite a lot more narrow-minded and prone to making you seem unsympathetic and unintelligent, of course.

Cheers. :3

You know, I once put forward a similar theory amongst my friends and acquaintances, and I'm rather glad that it's not me being yelled at for it now. =D A religion or belief system is defined by what they believe, not a lack of what they believe, and there's plenty of moral atheists. Hell, a friend of mine once put it rather nobly; you do the right thing because it's the right thing, not because some god offered you a bribe if you did.

Quote from: Vidar on August 08, 2008, 11:49:27 AM

Quote from: Cogidubnus on August 08, 2008, 10:25:30 AM

Quote from: Vidar on August 08, 2008, 08:02:13 AMAtheism is not as corrosive to morals and ethics as you might think, Alondro.

This wasn't adressed to me, but it still managed catch my eye.

Are you, then, implying that there is some sort of larger moral or ethical standard?

Yes.
Even Christians who claim to get their ethics and morals from the bible pick and choose which parts of the bible they follow, and which parts they don't based on their own moral convictions.
For example, no Christian would take a disobedient child to the gates of the town to have him stoned by the entire village. It is just barbaric to do such a thing even if the bible says you must do such a thing.

Religion is a very poor place to get your morals from. The bible alone condones and promotes animal cruelty (Joshua 11:6, 2 Samuel 8:4), incest (Genesis 4; 9:1; 19:30-38; 20:11-12, 2 Samuel 13:1-15), slavery (Numbers 31:31-35; Leviticus 25:44-45; Exodus21:2-7; Ephesians 6:5; 1 Timothy 6:1-2), abuse of slaves (Exodus 21:7, 20-21; Luke 12:47-48), spousal abuse (Numbers 5:5-31; Deuteronomy 22:13-21, 28-29; 1 Peter 3:17), child abuse (Genesis 22; Deuteronomy 21:18-21, 23:2; Proverbs 13:10, 20:30, 22:15, 23:13-14, Psalm 137:9), child molestation (Numbers 31:17-18), abortion (Amos 1:13; 2 Kings 15:16; Hosea 9:11-16, 13:16 Numbers 5:5-31), pillage (Genesis 34:13-29; Deuteronomy 20:13-14; Numbers 31:7-12), murder (Exodus 2:12, Judges 9:5, 11:29-39, 14:19; 2 Samuel 18:15; 1 Kings 2:24-25, 29-34, 46, 9:27, 10:7; 2 Chronicles 21:4 Ezekiel 20:26), cannibalism ( Leviticus 26:29, Deuteronomy 28:53, Isaiah 49:26, Jeremiah 19:9, Ezekiel 5:8-10, 2 Kings 6:29), genocide (Genesis 6:11-17, 7:11-24; Exodus 17:13, 32:27, Numbers 21:3, 35, Deuteronomy 2:33-34, 3:6, 7:2, 20:16; Joshua 8:22-25, 10:27-40, 11:8-23; 1 Samuel 15:3, 7-8), and prejudice against race (Exodus 23:23, 28, Numbers 21:35, Deuteronomy 3:6, 7:1; Matthew 15:22-28), nationality (Leviticus 25:46, Joshua 6:21-27, Matthew 11:21-24), religion (The whole bible, really. In particular: 2 Kings 10:19-27), sex (Genesis 38:16-24, Judges 9:53-54, 19:22-29, 21:10-12, Deuteronomy 21:10-14; 22:23-24, 28-29, 25:11-12, Zechariah 14:1-2, Leviticus 12:1-8, 14, 14:19-30, 18:19, 19:20, 21:9, 27:3-7, Numbers 1:2, 20:13-15, 30:3-16, 31:14-18), and sexual orientation (Deuteronomy 22:5, Leviticus 18:22-23, 10:13). The Quran doesn't fare much better, if at all.
Buddhism seems to be something of an exception, and ironically, it doesn't have any gods to tell mankind what to do.

I find that the 'golden rule' (do unto others as they would do unto you) is a useful, though imperfect, guideline. This golden rule is much older than Christianity, and it permeates most well-meaning and well-thought out laws. Laws that do not follow this rule require an explanation, or expultion from the law.
For instance, the ban on gay marriage in America is a law that does not follow the golden rule by removing rights from people based on their sexual preference. I would not want to have my rights taken away from me because of any perceived sexual deviancy on my part (as long as it does not bring harm to anyone), and so, I would not like to see this happening to homosexuals either.

Morals come to us through out genes, our upbringing, and our culture.
I would say that the morals that permeate this civilisation can use some work here and there, but overall, we are doing a heck of a lot better than what the bible says. 

Hello, world meet wall of text.


I have to ask, did you get this from some place? 
It seems like a lot of trouble(research and writing) to go through to make a point, and that you originally put it in italics...it just seemed oddly done. 

The Short Version

A number of the cited passages are out of context or have no relevance to the topic.  Some are irrelevant taken in light of the New Testament, and most of the remainder should be viewed in light of the times.  Example, the consequences of losing a war in Biblical times were MUCH greater and more extensive than in recent times, it was common for whole cities to be emptied of wealth and its entire population either carted off or slaughtered on the spot.

However, a there are a few spots have a valid if overblown point.

Largely, I don't think your claims are valid.


Regarding,
"Even Christians who claim to get their ethics and morals from the bible pick and choose which parts of the bible they follow"
Please review my previous posts regarding humanism, man acting as his own moral authority, and et. all.


The Long Version

animal cruelty (Joshua 11:6, 2 Samuel 8:4)
In both cases it speaks of hamstringing horses and destroying chariots, which are weapons of war, and particularly weapons which the Israelis (at the time at least) did not have the technology to maintain.  By doing so they are removing the ability of their enemy to wage war.  To me at least, this does not indicate the Bible condones animal cruelty.


incest (Genesis 4; 9:1; 19:30-38; 20:11-12, 2 Samuel 13:1-15) 
There are indeed instances of incest but to say it is condoned is incorrect.  Leviticus 18:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2018:17;&version=31;) clearly does not condone it. 


slavery (Numbers 31:31-35; Leviticus 25:44-45; Exodus21:2-7; Ephesians 6:5; 1 Timothy 6:1-2)
A difficult subject; however, there seems to be a difference between modern slavery and slaver in the Bible.  In the Old Testament Bible, slavery seems to almost be a social/economic status where you could sell yourself into slavery to pay a debt but had to be released after a few years.  New Testament or Roman slavery was a little different and not an easy or light subject to discuss; however, in Philemon (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=64&chapter=1&version=31), which is a letter written by Paul to be carried by a runaway slave back to his owner.  Paul seems to imply he should be set free(see verse 16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philemon%2016;&version=51;)).  I disagree that the Bible condones slavery in the modern sense. However, it does not seem to explicitly rebuke it either, but the New Testament at times seems to imply it.


abuse of slaves (Exodus 21:7, 20-21; Luke 12:47-48)
These three seem to be loosely related.  Exodus 21:7-11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021:7-11;&version=31;) is related to if someone buys a wife and how she is to be treated if he goes back on it.  Beating someone or killing them seem to be the primary means of punishment during Bibliclal times and up until very recently in history. In Exodus 21:20-21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021:20-21;&version=31;), it says that if someone beats someone else and they don't survive then the beater is to be punished.  However, if you look at Exodus 21:26-27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021:26-27;&version=31;) you will see that if the slave loses a tooth or an eye they are to be set free.  The passages in Luke 12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012;&version=31;) seem to be Christ using lazy slaves as an analogy, and basically saying a just punishment for someone who knew better would be greater than for someone didn't know better.  These seem to me to be more closely related to "don't punish(beat) someone more than they deserve and let the punishment fit the crime" than condoning abuse.


spousal abuse (Numbers 5:5-31; Deuteronomy 22:13-21, 28-29; 1 Peter 3:17)
Number 5:5-31 is an odd one.  It seems to be describing a ritual to rectify a unfaithful(or thought to be unfaithful) wife with her husband, where in the wife drinks bitter muddy water.  Deuteronomy 22:13-21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:13-21;&version=31;) is a matter of breaking the law, at the time if you slept around and got caught you died.  Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:28-29;&version=31;) isn't related to spousal abuse, it says what is to be done when a man rapes a woman.

1 Peter 3:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203:17;&version=31;) is "It is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil."  I think you meant 1 Peter 3:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203:7;&version=51;) but even that is at best a stretch, "7 In the same way, you husbands must give honor to your wives. Treat your wife with understanding as you live together. She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner in God's gift of new life. Treat her as you should so your prayers will not be hindered."  I don't feel you can support your statement that the Bible condones spousal abuse.


child abuse (Genesis 22; Deuteronomy 21:18-21, 23:2; Proverbs 13:10, 20:30, 22:15, 23:13-14, Psalm 137:9)
Genesis 22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2022;&version=51;) is the account of Abraham being tested by God to see if he held his son in higher regard to God.  " 12 "Don't lay a hand on the boy!" the angel said. "Do not hurt him in any way, for now I know that you truly fear God..."  Deuteronomy 21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2021;&version=51;) is a harsh example of the law which in that day applied not only to adults but also to children, it is a foreign concept as most developed modern nations almost don't consider the law applicable to someone under 18.  Deuteronomy 23:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2023;&version=51;) is regarding regulations for worship assembly, specifically that someone of illegitimate birth(for 10 generations) may not be allowed to assemble for worship.  Proverbs 13:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2013:10;&version=51;) has nothing to do with children, punishment, or abuse.  You may be thinking of Proverbs 13:24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2013:24;&version=51;) which says "24 Those who spare the rod of discipline hate their children.  Those who love their children care enough to discipline them."  Also,
Proverbs 22:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2022:15;&version=51;), and  Proverbs 23:13-14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2023:13-14;&version=45;) also say that children need discipline.  This runs counter to a lot of modern thinking on how to raise children, but to say it condones child abuse is a stretch at best.

Also, Psalms 137:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20137;&version=9;) is used out of context, it is a song of lament for when the Jews were in bitterly displaced in Babylon.
"8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
       happy is he who repays you
       for what you have done to us-

9 he who seizes your infants
       and dashes them against the rocks."


child molestation (Numbers 31:17-18)
Numbers 31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2031;&version=51;) deals with the spoils of war or pillaging and doesn't condone or promote child molestation.  That is how it was done, war wasn't just a matter of life and death for those immediately involved but for everybody.  It wasn't until chivalry was common that war was done much differently, this was absolute total war.


abortion (Amos 1:13; 2 Kings 15:16; Hosea 9:11-16, 13:16 Numbers 5:5-31)
Regarding, Amos 1:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Amos%201;&version=51;), 2 Kings 15:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Kings%2015;&version=51;), Hosea 9:11-16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hosea%209;&version=51;), Hosea 13:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hosea%2013;&version=51;) see my previous comment on "child molestation".  Numbers 5:5-31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205:5-31;&version=51;) has nothing to do with abortion(see previous comments about "spousal abuse").


pillage (Genesis 34:13-29; Deuteronomy 20:13-14; Numbers 31:7-12 )
See comments regarding "child molestation" and "abortion" above.

murder (Exodus 2:12, Judges 9:5, 11:29-39, 14:19; 2 Samuel 18:15; 1 Kings 2:24-25, 29-34, 46, 9:27, 10:7; 2 Chronicles 21:4 Ezekiel 20:26)
Do not feel I need to individually refute this as I think part of the 10 commandments Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder." (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:13;&version=31;) is enough.   


cannibalism ( Leviticus 26:29, Deuteronomy 28:53, Isaiah 49:26, Jeremiah 19:9, Ezekiel 5:8-10, 2 Kings 6:29)
Leviticus 26:29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2026;&version=31;) is part of a punishment by God if the Jews don't obey him(that means it is a "bad thing").  Deuteronomy 28:53 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2028;&version=31;) is similar to Leviticus 26:29.  Isaiah 49:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2049;&version=31;) is a judgment on Israels oppressors.  Jeremiah 19:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2019;&version=31;) and Ezekiel 5:8-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%205;&version=31;)is a proclamation of Gods judgment on Israel.  2 Kings 6:29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Kings%206;&version=31;) is an evidence of a judgment.  In no way is cannibalism condoned or promoted.


genocide (Genesis 6:11-17, 7:11-24; Exodus 17:13, 32:27, Numbers 21:3, 35, Deuteronomy 2:33-34, 3:6, 7:2, 20:16; Joshua 8:22-25, 10:27-40, 11:8-23; 1 Samuel 15:3, 7-8) Genesis 6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%206;&version=31;) and 7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%207;&version=31;) are about the same incident of the "great Flood" and how men were so wicked as to be beyond help except for Noah and his family.  Exodus 32:27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2032;&version=31;) has to do with putting down rebellion in the Israelite camp when they were fleeing from Egypt.  See my comments on "child molestation" for Numbers 21:35 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2021;&version=31;),  Deuteronomy 2:33-34 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%202;&version=31;), Deuteronomy 3:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%203;&version=31;), Deuteronomy 7:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%207;&version=31;), Joshua 8:22-25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua%208;&version=31;), Joshua 10:27-40 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua%2010;&version=31;), Joshua 11:8-23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua%2011;&version=31;), and 1 Samuel 15:3, 7-8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/parser.php?search1=1+Samuel+15&version1=31&showmoresearches=closed&showmoreversions=closed&pslookup_showfootnotes=yes&pslookup_showxrefs=). Exodus 17:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2017;&version=31;) doesn't have anything to do with genocide, so I assume you mean verse 14, but this is also covered.


prejudice against race (Exodus 23:23, 28, Numbers 21:35, Deuteronomy 3:6, 7:1; Matthew 15:22-28)
I don't see race mentioned anywhere in Exodus 23:23,28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2023;&version=9;), Numbers 21:35 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2021;&version=31;), Deuteronomy 3:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%203;&version=31;), Deuteronomy 7:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%207;&version=31;) nor in Matthew 15:22-28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2015;&version=9;), though nationality is mentioned and will be covered under the appropriate section.


[prejudice against] nationality (Leviticus 25:46, Joshua 6:21-27, Matthew 11:21-24)
Other examples for this would include Exodus 23:32, 34:12-16; Deuteronomy 7:1-3, 20:10-18, 23:3-8; Ezra 9:2-15, 10:1-18, Nehemiah 13:1-3, 23-31 some of which is already mentioned but all speak of the foreigner being different.  However, Exodus 22:21, 23:9; Leviticus 19:10, 33-34, 24:22 speak of treating foreigners equally.  Furthermore, in Acts 10:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2010:28;&version=9;) and 34-35 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2010:34-35;&version=9;) differences of nationality are abolished. 


[prejudice against] religion (The whole bible, really. In particular: 2 Kings 10:19-27)
No real argument on this one, except for the mater or prejudice.  The Bible is pretty clear about Christ being only one way to heaven.  However, most other major religions say something similar.  Regarding prejudice, bigotry isn't the issue it is a matter of belief.  If you believe in the Bible, Christ, etc. then you believe that everyone is going to hell or whatever, regardless of religion or any thing.  To be truly "Christ like" you need to fulfill the "Great Commission" as laid out in Matthew 28:19-20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2028;&version=9;).


[prejudice against] sex (Genesis 38:16-24, Judges 9:53-54, 19:22-29, 21:10-12, Deuteronomy 21:10-14; 22:23-24, 28-29, 25:11-12, Zechariah 14:1-2, Leviticus 12:1-8, 14, 14:19-30, 18:19, 19:20, 21:9, 27:3-7, Numbers 1:2, 20:13-15, 30:3-16, 31:14-18)
I am tired and I am doubting someone is going to read this far down very soon.  I will edit this in later as it has very many cited passages and I need to read all of them to be certain.  However, if I were to venture a guess I would say that the "prejudice against sex" is a combination of different times and possibly needing to be viewed in light of the New Testament considering how every passage here is from the Old Testament.

[prejudice against] sexual orientation (Deuteronomy 22:5, Leviticus 18:22-23, 10:13)
In the Old Testament, sexual orientation was a matter of the law, archaic, but that is the way it was.  In the New Testament, it is handled a little differently.  It is still considered "sin" but "sin" is "sin" regardless of what "sin" it is.  So lying, stealing, homosexual relations, murder, cheating on a test, even dwelling on lust, are all on the same level of "sin" and all deserving of the same punishment(being death)and the same redemption(being "salvation in Christ").  There is a little more detail than that but that is the basis.

Quote from: Cogidubnus on August 08, 2008, 08:23:44 PM

Quote from: Reese Tora on August 08, 2008, 08:02:13 PM
Cog, there's a difference between a standard and the ultimate standard.

In terms of CSS and HTML, certainly. In terms of morality, I disagree. Either something is Right, or it isn't. It can't be both ways at the same time. If you say that it's wrong to steal, than it's wrong. If you say that it's generally a bad thing to steal, than that's not really a standard - like programming in HTML or CSS, it's simply a suggestion. To use a pirate term - they're more like guidelines, and in reality, anyone can do whatever they'd like, and it wouldn't be Wrong, per se.

If you are claiming that something is an overarching moral or ethical standard, one cannot then also say that moral relativism is fine too.

I am not claiming any such thing as an ultimate standard; I don't believe any such thing exists(or, if it does, no human has knowledge of it).  Pointing out that there's a difference between something being a standard and something being an ultimate standard, and implying that nothing mentioned earlier was the latter was kinda the point when I posted that.

Quote from: PencilinHand on August 08, 2008, 10:15:17 PM
Greater Wall of Text.

I got the verses from a youtube video, so I didn't do the research myself. I'm glad someone is taking it this seriously, though.
In any case, the bible is full of stuff we consider barbaric by any standard. I'm not going over all the verses, as you seem to have done a thorough job, but I will make a few comments.

Slavery: not so difficult at all. Slavery is now seen a barbaric, ad the bible never explicitly states that keeping slaves is morally reprehensible. Vague hints that a slave should be set free is not what I would call explicit.

Abuse of slaves: I would say that keeping a slave is already a form of abuse, since you rob them of their freedom. The bible places some restrictions on how hard you can beat your slaves, but essentially, it still condones the beating of slaves.

spousal abuse: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 does say what to do when a man rapes an unmarried woman. It says that the poor girl must marry her rapist, thus becoming his spouse. He is then free to do with her as he pleases, except he can't divorce her. The girl is then forced to live with her rapist for the rest of her life. How is that not spousal abuse?

child abuse: Genesis 22 is indeed about "god testing Abraham", but how do you think Abraham's son would feel to see that his father is about to slaughter him, because god told him so? Sounds like a pretty goddamn traumatic experience to me. A just and moral god would never tell a father to sacrifice his son, and an all-knowing one would not need to test anything, since he already knows everything.
Deuteronomy 21 is specifically about the killing of a disobedient child by stoning. Child abuse at it's most harsh if you ask me. To say that this was ok in those times because the law applied also to children does nothing to mitigate the barbarism of this act.
The passages in proverbs, with the exception of 13:10, deal with beating your children with rods. It not only condones the practice, it actively promotes this barbarism.

Child molestation: Numbers 31 does deal with he spoils of war, and among the spoils, mentioned right after the cattle, are 32000 virgin girls, who are force to marry the murderers of their entire family, except for the 32 that are sacrificed to god. Sacrificed as in bound on an altar, having their throat slit, and set on fire. A lot of these girls would be under 18 years old. I dare you to say that this is not child molestation.

Also, the conduct of the Israelites in war is barbaric. If a good and just god would have let them, we should Israel act in a far more chivalrous manner. If a good and just god led them, we should expect nothing less.

Murder: Yes, the 10 commandments say "thou shalt not murder", but in the next chapter god says the equivalent of "go kill those people" in reference to the Canaanites, who's only crime was living in their own country. God like to play loose with his own rules, it seems.

Genocide: God apparently thought that destroying the world is a better idea than educating people before things get out of hand, if the flood story is to be believed. Could god really not have done something to prevent the need to flood the world, killing innumerable innocents (newborn come to mind), and creatures that had nothing to do with the apparent wickedness of mankind? It's not like everyone broke the 10 commandments, because the 10 commandments didn't exist yet.

Prejudice against sexual orientation: Saying "that was the way it was" is no justification for this prejudice. It's still bigotry.


If the bible really was the inerrant word of god it would have profound moral insights in it. I have yet to see any profound moral insights coming exclusively from Christianity.

Quote from: PencilinHand on August 08, 2008, 10:15:17 PM
I am tired and I am doubting someone is going to read this far down very soon.  I will edit this in later as it has very many cited passages and I need to read all of them to be certain.  However, if I were to venture a guess I would say that the "prejudice against sex" is a combination of different times and possibly needing to be viewed in light of the New Testament considering how every passage here is from the Old Testament.

Why not, I read it all.

I must say, I'm impressed with how much effort you're putting into this. And you've certainly thought through your responses, which is muchly appreciated.

Vidar, I think your logic is flawed in that you basically assume atheist and intelligent to be synonyms.

History only proves that most people can't handle themselves without fighting. It's not the existence of religion that causes the problems. Stupid people can be told they have to kill others for whatever reason (be it a God, their Nation or even, ironically, things like freedom and human rights). Once more, that has nothing to do with religion. If the stupid people in question are atheists, that only leaves out one excuse to get them to kill others. And if you're dealing with thinking religious people, then no one will convince them to kill others because God says so. The problem is not religion, it's stupidity and gullibility.

Finally, if the reason for atheists to deny the existence of a supernatural being is, as you say, lack of evidence, then they shouldn't affirm His/Her/Its/Their inexistence either, as there is just as little evidence on that respect.

(http://www.missmab.com/Images/WoT.jpg)

XD Good call, Amber. But there is actually some content within the wall of words.

I would hope so! The great text-wall of China wouldnt be nearly as great if it couldn't keep the mongols from invading!

But....
but it didn't. D:

oh...

well shit.  'A'

no to mention the Gauls, Teutons, Visigoths, Celts, and Norsemen

the Huns usually hang around with the Mongols and feel shy attacking alone.





i am going to throw my lot in with stoicism, at least somewhat, and ponder how many even know what that is without resorting to wikipedia

and if thats not enough, try deific clock, i like that one too

Quote from: Amber Williams on August 09, 2008, 10:54:54 AM
I would hope so! The great text-wall of China wouldnt be nearly as great if it couldn't keep the mongols from invading!

Quote from: Zina on August 09, 2008, 11:19:30 AM
But....
but it didn't. D:

Quote from: Amber Williams on August 09, 2008, 11:21:13 AM
oh...

well shit.  'A'

Scheit. Who's going to tear down this useless wall of text then? Hm? Llearch's going to be pissed.

I mean, it's arguably gone off-topic. Notice how fast the discussion turned from arguing that atheism is an active religion, and going to defending the message of religions. I think that ought to say something.

Quote from: Stygian on August 09, 2008, 12:29:29 PM
Scheit. Who's going to tear down this useless wall of text then? Hm? Llearch's going to be pissed.

No, I'm not. Why would I be pissed? It's not like anyone has even bought me a drink yet...

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on August 09, 2008, 12:39:43 PM
No, I'm not. Why would I be pissed? It's not like anyone has even bought me a drink yet...

Very witty. I laugh until I split my lip and get another scar there.

there is a severe difference however between not believing in god and fervently believing there is no god

its a quite simple breakdown, the lack of belief is not a religion, just as silence is not a sound. actively disbelieving is a form of belief however

http://loopzy.com/v/debate_forum

Well played, sir. Well played.  >:3

Quote from: Gabi on August 09, 2008, 10:08:59 AM
Vidar, I think your logic is flawed in that you basically assume atheist and intelligent to be synonyms.

History only proves that most people can't handle themselves without fighting. It's not the existence of religion that causes the problems. Stupid people can be told they have to kill others for whatever reason (be it a God, their Nation or even, ironically, things like freedom and human rights). Once more, that has nothing to do with religion. If the stupid people in question are atheists, that only leaves out one excuse to get them to kill others. And if you're dealing with thinking religious people, then no one will convince them to kill others because God says so. The problem is not religion, it's stupidity and gullibility.

You have a valid point there. People can be made to do stupid and immoral things in  the name of many things. It's just that religion has been, and in some parts of the world still is, used to justify man's inhumanity to other human beings. With religion removed, it suddenly becomes much harder to make people suicide-bomb a schoolbus full of children, or to fly a plane full of people into a tall building. The carrot of heaven and the stick of hell are to some people much more powerful incentives than a flag ever could be.

Quote from: Gabi on August 09, 2008, 10:08:59 AM
Finally, if the reason for atheists to deny the existence of a supernatural being is, as you say, lack of evidence, then they shouldn't affirm His/Her/Its/Their inexistence either, as there is just as little evidence on that respect.

Technically we would have to be called agnostic about god. But we must then have this same technical agnosticism for Thor, Zeus, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, Santa Clause, and a small china teapot in orbit around the sun between mars and earth. There is no evidence for their existence either.
You can never prove the nonexistence of anything, which is why the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim. The claim(s) in this case is the existence of a specific god, and that the holy scriptures attached to this god are also completely accurate.
For an example of the 'burden of proof' thing, I would refer to Carl Sagan's book "the Demon haunted world", specifically the chapter about the Invisible Garage Dragon. He manages to explain it much better than I can.

So far no God has revealed him/her/itself thoroughly enough to satisfy science, and all the holy books ever written are riddled with inaccuracies, and fantastic claims that are impossible to verify, or have been found to be outright lies.
To me, the chance that the Christian god really exists is so small, that I may well call myself an atheist regarding him, just as I'm an atheist to all other gods that have ever (non-)existed.

...as well as other non deistic belief systems.

Quote from: King Of Hearts on August 10, 2008, 02:22:18 AM
...as well as other non deistic belief systems.

Like the buddhist faith? If so, you would be correct, sir.

Quote from: Vidar on August 10, 2008, 01:58:17 AM

Quote from: Gabi on August 09, 2008, 10:08:59 AM
Vidar, I think your logic is flawed in that you basically assume atheist and intelligent to be synonyms.

History only proves that most people can't handle themselves without fighting. It's not the existence of religion that causes the problems. Stupid people can be told they have to kill others for whatever reason (be it a God, their Nation or even, ironically, things like freedom and human rights). Once more, that has nothing to do with religion. If the stupid people in question are atheists, that only leaves out one excuse to get them to kill others. And if you're dealing with thinking religious people, then no one will convince them to kill others because God says so. The problem is not religion, it's stupidity and gullibility.

Quote from: Gabi on August 09, 2008, 10:08:59 AM
Finally, if the reason for atheists to deny the existence of a supernatural being is, as you say, lack of evidence, then they shouldn't affirm His/Her/Its/Their inexistence either, as there is just as little evidence on that respect.

Technically we would have to be called agnostic about god. But we must then have this same technical agnosticism for Thor, Zeus, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, Santa Clause, and a small china teapot in orbit around the sun between mars and earth. There is no evidence for their existence either.
You can never prove the nonexistence of anything, which is why the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim. The claim(s) in this case is the existence of a specific god, and that the holy scriptures attached to this god are also completely accurate.
For an example of the 'burden of proof' thing, I would refer to Carl Sagan's book "the Demon haunted world", specifically the chapter about the Invisible Garage Dragon. He manages to explain it much better than I can.

So far no God has revealed him/her/itself thoroughly enough to satisfy science, and all the holy books ever written are riddled with inaccuracies, and fantastic claims that are impossible to verify, or have been found to be outright lies.
To me, the chance that the Christian god really exists is so small, that I may well call myself an atheist regarding him, just as I'm an atheist to all other gods that have ever (non-)existed.

The Problem with Christian beliefs is that the early Church near it's start fell into two camps.  One, which want to spread the word and the faith far and wide as quickly as possible, and another, which wanted to keep it true to the message of Yeshau.    Jesus(Yeshau) said that he was here to forfill the law, and not change or abandon it. The true selfless path of the Jesus is hard road, even now, and there were not many takers and only a true few followers every year. The other early church was easier to follow because the people didn't have to change too much.  The Roman authorities in the beginning, were mixing the early Christian up with the Jews and because of the Jesus' "betrayal" by the Jews, this early Roman Catholic Church want to distant themselves from the Hebrew faith.  So, many traditions and rites of the Jews, were change or abandon.  The RCC mixed the Hebrew Holy days and rites with the local pagan faiths, mainly the wider sun worshipers, to attract many new followers...In time, Christmas, and Easter replace many Hebrew Holy days. Even SUNday replace the Sabbath.  A goddess-like woman giving birth to a god-king was also added to the Roman Catholic faith.  Later emperors and kings saw one religion would unifying of their conquered lands and then many became followers with a knife to their backs.   As time goes on, the Church goes thru a period that it was the only one, who could read the holy books of the bible, and the Church could said it said anything it need to said.  Ultimate power corrupts even the saintly.   The Protestants saw many hypocritical practices of the Roman Catholic Church and revolted against it, but they follow many of the same rites as the Catholics to be daughters of the same faith. 

Islam is the bastard stepchild of the Abraham, but they were also spread their faith by the sword of war in the 6th century. 

It is only now that we are challenge this old traditions, and information on that the early Christians' believe has come to the surface. (maybe God want us to know this and raise this questions about the Church.  God wants the faithful and that you have choice.)

Atheist forget that the Church is made of men and men are not GOD.  The Acts of the Church/religion are the act men and not God.  God has given everyone a life, and the freedom to follow his way or not.  The problem is that we forgot that God is not alone, that another is working to destroy everything in existence, thinking he can replace God with himself and remake the universe into his own version.  Satan cares not if we don't believe in him.  He knows he will not get the final prize,so he will destroy everything, so God will get nothing.  Satan also has the power to blind us, mainly because we, man, want things the easy way.  God has let us follow our own path of doing things, so we can learn what heartaches we can cause to ourselves.  We, Man, will not learn this, if God hands us that knowledge.  We have rejected God since Adam and Eve.  He has told us thru Israel and Jesus about himself and his way over the last six thousands years, and we have only take what we feel like we can do, when we feel like we can do it.

Man as a whole is self-servicing from the beginning, Man follows the laws of society, because he benefits from the peace and order that civilization.  One can't be on his guard 24/7, but once society is seen as not being a benefit to oneself, and punishment is far from swift.  The mob rules.  One must fall to the law of jungle for survive.  Katrina showed us that.  What would have happen if help was even slower in arriving there? 

The atheist maybe right, that price of sin is death, non-existence.  No Human is in Heaven or Hell right now, and will not be until Judgement.  Now, death is to sleep inside God the father.  When Judgement comes, we will be awake and ask "Are you humble enough to ask forgiveness and take responsibility for your sins?  Have you learned anything in seven thousand years?"  Well, truly humble will get the prize, to be brothers/sister of Yeshau, and be true children of God, to be like God, the father.  That is the meaning of life.

PBH

"We all must choose our own path, no one can choose it for us."= Leia Organa

Satan as the adversary is also an invention of the RCC, though.

If you remove the church, should you also remove what the church has written? and, if that's the case, what do you have left?

It's not that atheists forget that the church and the religion are different things so much as atheists see no evidence outside of the church for god's existence, and what is available from the church amounts to arguments from authority, circular logic, and unverifiable(or verifiably false) claims.

Oh It is funny that but the debate over the question of God, never seem to include the adversary...and he was around before the RCC.  He was just not named Satan, he is in the Old Testament, a main player in the Book of Job for one.

Now, then I can removed the Church (RCC) and her daughters, without removing the Bible.  In fact, I need the Gospels, or the Apocalypse of John, if I'm to believe in Jesus .  Believe me, the book can confusing, yet it never lies, one should only look at the whole book.  It maybe the only source of the words of God, but one must work to find God and believe.  It is written plain English for you.

In most cases, it is a history book, and it only covers the last six thousand years.  It doesn't tell us how the Earth was made, but only how God clean up the mess of Satan's rebellion which destroyed the Earth.  Adam and Eve could have been made just as Genesis says, but the rest of the world could have been evolved.  It never said how God created theEarth, just that he did do it.  Why the men of science must be so negative of God, and the churchgoers so afraid of any advance in science or any new idea.  is beyond me.

I find it hard to believe that Earth and moon just happen to be in the right orbit for liquid water.  Their masses are just right so that the Earth keeps spinning and not becomes almost tidal lock like Venus.  The Earth's magnetic field is just strong enough to keep solar flares and cosmic rays at bay.  This universe is a very lonely place, if all these things have to happen to support life long enough to get intelligent life.  Well, Carl Sagan would think differently.

On another Note, Religion has been excuse for war, murder and genocide.  But Science has also had that honor as well.  Darwinism is also a religion or theory that people have used to keep the lower classes down, enslave the poor and approve of genocide unpopular races by the Nazi, and others.  Charles Darwin didn't approve that thinking, but Einstein didn't approve of nuclear weapons either.  Humans don't need excuses to murder,hurt or steal from each other, but it helps one to sleep at night.  Darwinism is also an excuse for not growing spiritalyl or morally.. After all we are just animals, Aren't we?..

PBH

PBH: Darwinism as an excuse for lack of growth? I really don't see it like that.  I suppose one could say that it's all in how you interpret the message (just like religion), but in my own view using Darwinism as an excuse for lack of growth is like using a report on the health benefits of eating vegetables to justify an all-beef diet.  After all, did Darwin not say "It is not the strongest of species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change."

Life changes constantly.  Nothing stays the same forever.  If one does not grow, learn, and adapt to these changes, one cannot expect to thrive!

Though you may find it hard to believe that these tings could come about without some supernatural influence, consider that it's happened, the odds are now 1:1; if it hadn't happened just so, it may ahve happened anoher way that could have developed life, and it could have happened on any of the trillions of other planets that no doubt exist elsewhere in the universe.  There could be a billion other sets of conditions thata would have brought about sentient life that we are as yet unaware of, and while the odds may be one in a billion that our conditions occurred, there are still 999,999,999 other possibilities that would have worked just as well.

As an aside, many scientists are religious people, and have no problem being rational and also believing in god.  Likewise, many people of many faiths are comfortable with science and scientific advances, and it's typically only leaders and fundamentalists who object, and only where they percieve it to interect with their beliefs or sphere of influence.

Oh, and 'Darwinism', as it's used by creationists and the like(and they're the ones who use it, generally speaking), is a pretty straw man they've built.  The Nazis believed that they were a superior race as ordained by god, and that, as such, they had a right, or even a mandate, to remove the 'inferior' races.
(hey, quick, someone invoke Godwin's law! Oh, wait, calling on it like that negates it. :P )

PBH:
"Darwinism" is not a religion, or a theory. The word has no meaning. It was made up by the likes of Ken Ham and Ben Stein.
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. It is the best explanation science can offer for the diversity of life on earth. It doesn't say god does not exist, and it doesn't impede growth of any kind, so what do you mean with "Darwinism as an excuse for a lack of growth"?

Quote from: Prof B Hunnydew on August 10, 2008, 09:20:00 PM
Believe me, the book can confusing, yet it never lies, one should only look at the whole book.  It maybe the only source of the words of God, but one must work to find God and believe.  It is written plain English for you.

Of course, the bible as it is today doesn't contain all the gospels. The used to be at least 16 of them, but during the councel if Nicea the RCC voted on which books to include in the current bible, and which ones to discard. Most of these apocryphs have been lost over time, so good luck with looking at the whole book.
Oh, and as for the bible never lying, look here: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Quote from: Prof B Hunnydew on August 10, 2008, 09:20:00 PM
In most cases, it is a history book, and it only covers the last six thousand years.  It doesn't tell us how the Earth was made, but only how God clean up the mess of Satan's rebellion which destroyed the Earth.  Adam and Eve could have been made just as Genesis says, but the rest of the world could have been evolved.  It never said how God created theEarth, just that he did do it.  Why the men of science must be so negative of God, and the churchgoers so afraid of any advance in science or any new idea.  is beyond me.

Genesis most certainly does pretend to have the whole story on how earth was made.

If we really where specially created, we would expect to find a lot more anomilies in our own physiology and genetic makeup, but we don't. All the evidence points to us having evolved on earth without the need for god.

Not all men of science are negative about god. Kenneth Miller is a devout catholic, and an evolutionary biologist.

Quote from: Prof B Hunnydew on August 10, 2008, 09:20:00 PM
I find it hard to believe that Earth and moon just happen to be in the right orbit for liquid water.  Their masses are just right so that the Earth keeps spinning and not becomes almost tidal lock like Venus.  The Earth's magnetic field is just strong enough to keep solar flares and cosmic rays at bay.  This universe is a very lonely place, if all these things have to happen to support life long enough to get intelligent life.  Well, Carl Sagan would think differently.

It's not so hard to believe that amongst the hunreds of billions of stars there is a planet with the right conditions for life to exist. The Drake Equation seems to suggest that there are many planet out there wich can support life as earth does. Of course, one such planet is right here in the solar system. We call it "earth".
We might not be the only one, but we won't know that until we find life out there in the rest of the universe.
That the universe is a lonely place is apperent. The universe is not finetuned for life, otherwise we would have found more of it by now.

Quote from: Prof B Hunnydew on August 10, 2008, 09:20:00 PM
On another Note, Religion has been excuse for war, murder and genocide.  But Science has also had that honor as well.  Darwinism is also a religion or theory that people have used to keep the lower classes down, enslave the poor and approve of genocide unpopular races by the Nazi, and others.  Charles Darwin didn't approve that thinking, but Einstein didn't approve of nuclear weapons either.  Humans don't need excuses to murder,hurt or steal from each other, but it helps one to sleep at night.  Darwinism is also an excuse for not growing spiritalyl or morally.. After all we are just animals, Aren't we?..

"Darwinism" is a made-up word. It is not a religion. The theory of evolution is not "darwinism", does not revere anything supernatural, holds nothing sacred, and does not allow blind faith.
Social darwinism was a stupid idea that some people put toghether from a profound misunderstanding of evolution.

BTW. the Nazi-thing:
(http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes/buckle.jpeg)
This is a nazi belt buckle. All nazi soldiers wore them. It says "Gott mit uns", which means "God with us".
Also, in his book Mein Kampf Hitler states that he though he was doing god's work by exterminating the jews.

Ben Stein's equation of science and nazism is a bold-faced lie, and I'm deeply saddend to see that you have fallen for it.

Well, ultimately we'll all find out who was right after we die.

Because if a god does exist, it's really not going to matter if we believe or not.  It'll be like an ant shouting at a human "I don't believe in you, so you can't squish me!"

SQUISH!

I like Sekhmet's way of doing things.   >:3

Quote from: Alondro on August 11, 2008, 11:37:28 AM
Well, ultimately we'll all find out who was right after we die.

Because if a god does exist, it's really not going to matter if we believe or not.  It'll be like an ant shouting at a human "I don't believe in you, so you can't squish me!"

SQUISH!

I like Sekhmet's way of doing things.   >:3

Pascal's Wager has been squished so many times in so many ways, it surprises me that anyone still thinks up variations on it.

On top of my head are a few flaws already: how do you know you worship the right god? Every religion claim to worship the right god, or gods, and they all have holy books and fantastic claims of miracles and promises of infinite torment or pleasure depending on whether you wordhip one of them and no other god.
How do you know what the proposed god in Pascal's Wager wants? Does he/she/it even reward faith without evidence of his/her/its existence?

You don't know.  You just hope you get it right!  And if yer wrong... SQUISH!  Or burninate.

But, what're ya gonna do?  The being with the most power wins.  I'll be all like:  Damn, so it was Cthulhu all along?  Oh well, I gonna get my soul eated now.  :C 

And if aetheists are right, nothing will happen and I'll be dead forever... which is gonna suck because then I'll never know I was wrong in that case... since if I'm dead and can't be reborn/resurrected/reincarnated/etc., I can't know anything.

That's where faith comes in.  No matter what you believe, you must still have faith in many things related to it, because even now our understanding is heavily flawed.  Simply look at how surprising other solar systems we've discovered have been.  All the models were wrong and many revisions have had to be made in the past decade.  And how many more surprises will we find as we explore?  There was a report last week that light and energy, and therefore mass, in many distant galaxies has been greatly underestimated due to an underestimation of how much is blocked out by great clouds of dust and gas.  Depending on exactly how much extra mass is found, it could be a very big problem for modern cosmology, not to mention if so much was blocked and the light is a part of the calculation of distance, is it possible too that the distances are way off?  I must wait and see exactly what the implications end up being as the discrepancy is sorted out.

Basically, my main interest is to know the absolute truth.  People have faith in the Big Bang too.  It's got evidence, yes.  But it could be a misinterpretation of facts that just happen to fit that theory.  And there are some fundamental issues with it that aren't resolved, not the least of which is what triggered the event in the first place?  And what was the expansion expanding into?  The newest thing is to believe that there was nothing outside the universe, not even space.  But there is nothing whatsoever to prove that, no evidence at all, not even mathematics to prove that there can be such a lack of everything.  That is something that must be taken on faith in order for the rest of the theory to work.  Frankly, the theories passed around to explain the creation of the universe through physics require just as much faith as believing in God, because in all cases, there is simply no way to prove these things because they are beyond the capacity to get any information on them.

Another thing to note about the Bible.  It is not one book.  It is a collection of books put together over thousands of years, which includes a great number of re-translations and books (such as the Kings and Chronicles) which were written by a nation trying to boost up its own prestigue.  Each nation claimed a god helped them win battles, even those they lost!  We have to sort through the information to find the true character of God.  If we are to assume Jesus was the Son of God, then we have only to look at his actions to see what God is like.  Many people balk at the notion of Jesus being a human sacrifice.  But that is wrong.  He was not a sacrifice at all in the pagan sense of it.  He was a supplement, he paid the price for all, replacing the law's demand that all who sin must die by being the one who was innocent and died instead.  I see it quite clearly as a loophole placed in the law to allow for just such an out, not that it was easy.  Jesus asked if the cup could be taken away from him in the garden of Gethsemene.  In a way, his connection to divinity made it harder for him as muchas it made it easier.  Imagine having the power to save yourself with a thought and destroy all those who tormented you and not using it? 

Honestly, could any of us have resisted the urge to exterminate the ones hurting us?  I certainly couldn't.  Buddhists devoted to pacifism can, in many cases... and perhaps they are the ones in the world closest to the character of God.  Jesus himself did say He had sheep we know not of.  The one thing I am sure of is that those who stand up and claim to the the only ones who will be saved are almost assuredly the ones most likely to be lost.  It was not for nothing that Jesus called their equivalents during him time 'a generation of vipers'.

Quote from: Alondro on August 11, 2008, 02:29:31 PM
You don't know.  You just hope you get it right!  And if yer wrong... SQUISH!  Or burninate.

But, what're ya gonna do?  The being with the most power wins.  I'll be all like:  Damn, so it was Cthulhu all along?  Oh well, I gonna get my soul eated now.  :C 

And if aetheists are right, nothing will happen and I'll be dead forever... which is gonna suck because then I'll never know I was wrong in that case... since if I'm dead and can't be reborn/resurrected/reincarnated/etc., I can't know anything.

If there is a god, and he's going to punish me for all eternity for drawing the wrong conclusions based on the evidence available to me, then he deserves no respect, he deserves my absolute and complete contempt. What you are proposing isn't mercy, or justice, but utter totalitarianism, and a complete disregard for the limits of humanity. Limits you claim we were made with by him.
The only reason a god would punish his own creation for being flawed after he made it flawed in the first place would be base sadism. The god you propose is worse than the Satan proposed by Christian doctrine. Even if he would exist, I would resist him even if it would cost me  my soul.

Quote from: Alondro on August 11, 2008, 02:29:31 PM
That's where faith comes in.  No matter what you believe, you must still have faith in many things related to it, because even now our understanding is heavily flawed.  Simply look at how surprising other solar systems we've discovered have been.  All the models were wrong and many revisions have had to be made in the past decade.  And how many more surprises will we find as we explore?  There was a report last week that light and energy, and therefore mass, in many distant galaxies has been greatly underestimated due to an underestimation of how much is blocked out by great clouds of dust and gas.  Depending on exactly how much extra mass is found, it could be a very big problem for modern cosmology, not to mention if so much was blocked and the light is a part of the calculation of distance, is it possible too that the distances are way off?  I must wait and see exactly what the implications end up being as the discrepancy is sorted out.

Science doesn't know everything, and it  never claimed to do so, but it has brought humanity further than anything before it. Christian doctrine reigned supreme for 900 years, and during those 900 years everyone was afraid of god, and Satan, and the inquisition, and hell.
When this evil doctrine was finally shed by intelligent men humanity finally started to make some progress again, in spite of the church's best efforts to halt it and drag it back into the dark ages.
Science has lengthened the live of everyone. It has raised the standards of living across the world, and it lets us explore the universe in ways Christian doctrine never let us imagine.
Each discovery made by science brings humanity closer to understanding the universe and everything in it. We may never understand everything, but we would be all the much more foolish and cowardly if we wouldn't at least try.
Science doesn't know what it will find next, and if it will find something that will require the rewriting of all the science-books ever written, it will be hailed as the greatest scientific breakthrough ever, and it will be an enrichment to all of humanity, and it will not be suppressed as heresy. Scientists don't hold to some doctrine with blind faith, but will always be prepared to review even their innermost convictions if the evidence is counter to them, unlike those clinging to religious doctrine as if it will save them from oblivion.
Science is an attempt to find out the truth based on observations of reality, and not on ancient stories written down by bronze age savages. It's a continuing work in progress, and it has brought humanity far beyond any pitiful religious doctrine.

Quote from: Alondro on August 11, 2008, 02:29:31 PM
Basically, my main interest is to know the absolute truth.  People have faith in the Big Bang too.  It's got evidence, yes.  But it could be a misinterpretation of facts that just happen to fit that theory.  And there are some fundamental issues with it that aren't resolved, not the least of which is what triggered the event in the first place?  And what was the expansion expanding into?  The newest thing is to believe that there was nothing outside the universe, not even space.  But there is nothing whatsoever to prove that, no evidence at all, not even mathematics to prove that there can be such a lack of everything.  That is something that must be taken on faith in order for the rest of the theory to work.  Frankly, the theories passed around to explain the creation of the universe through physics require just as much faith as believing in God, because in all cases, there is simply no way to prove these things because they are beyond the capacity to get any information on them.

If you want to know the truth, you will go by the evidence, and not by stories written thousands of years ago. New discoveries are made all the time, and these discoveries demand that we revise our beliefs to reflect the evidence, and not deny the evidence when it conflicts with our errant beliefs.
The big bang might be a misinterpretation, but it is still better supported by the evidence than any creation story in any holy book of any religion ever was.
We don't quite know what caused the big bang but that doesn't mean it didn't happen, and it also doesn't mean that your particular god exists or had anything to do with it.
The latest theories suggest that our big bang is but one in many big bangs and that there are many universes beyond our own, each with their own laws of physics and forever beyond our reach and observation. We have no way of verifying this, and as such it is classified as merely a hypothesis, and not a fully fledged scientific theory, but it is still better supported by the evidence than anything that says "goddidit".
Scientists know that they will have to revise any theories about the conception of the universe as new evidence presents itself, and they are prepared to do so. They don't hold on the blind faith, but base their beliefs on the available evidence, and are ready to revise their beliefs whenever needed, unlike those clinging to religion for their imagined "salvation".
Just so you know, there is no evidence for the existence of you particular god, just as there is no evidence for Allah, the Jewish Abba, the Greek, roman, or Norse pantheons, Zoroaster, the flying spaghetti monster, the invisible pink unicorn, and Russel's teapot but you can't disprove any of them either. Just what makes you think you picked the right god?

Quote from: Alondro on August 11, 2008, 02:29:31 PM
Another thing to note about the Bible.  It is not one book.  It is a collection of books put together over thousands of years, which includes a great number of re-translations and books (such as the Kings and Chronicles) which were written by a nation trying to boost up its own prestigue.  Each nation claimed a god helped them win battles, even those they lost!  We have to sort through the information to find the true character of God.  If we are to assume Jesus was the Son of God, then we have only to look at his actions to see what God is like.  Many people balk at the notion of Jesus being a human sacrifice.  But that is wrong.  He was not a sacrifice at all in the pagan sense of it.  He was a supplement, he paid the price for all, replacing the law's demand that all who sin must die by being the one who was innocent and died instead.  I see it quite clearly as a loophole placed in the law to allow for just such an out, not that it was easy.  Jesus asked if the cup could be taken away from him in the garden of Gethsemene.  In a way, his connection to divinity made it harder for him as muchas it made it easier.  Imagine having the power to save yourself with a thought and destroy all those who tormented you and not using it? 

The bible is an incomplete, contradictory, and flawed book, written by numerous authors, may of them bigoted savages, and selected by voting during the counsel of Nicea, as tough the truth could be revealed by popular vote, like the election of George W. Bush. As such, it needs to be held up to the best possible evidence, and judged accordingly. So far it has a very bad track record, and I don't see it improving any time soon, as it is never reevaluated or corrected when new evidence is discovered that conflicts with it.
The best available evidence doesn't even suggest that the Jesus described in the bible ever even existed. Likely he was a character made up from an amalgamation of various self-appointed messiahs that roamed around Israel during the roman occupation. Historians have a library full of documents describing the situation of Israel at the time, and no mention is made of the biblical Jesus. If he really was dangerous and important enough to crucify him instead of a mass-murderer (Barabbas), then some mention would have been made somewhere, but it just isn't there. Therefore, your assumption that Jesus was the son of God is a far stretch indeed, since the evidence doesn't even suggest that Jesus even existed.
Until solid evidence to the contrary turns up, I will not be convinced that he did.

Quote from: Alondro on August 11, 2008, 02:29:31 PM
Honestly, could any of us have resisted the urge to exterminate the ones hurting us?  I certainly couldn't.  Buddhists devoted to pacifism can, in many cases... and perhaps they are the ones in the world closest to the character of God.  Jesus himself did say He had sheep we know not of.  The one thing I am sure of is that those who stand up and claim to the the only ones who will be saved are almost assuredly the ones most likely to be lost.  It was not for nothing that Jesus called their equivalents during him time 'a generation of vipers'.

The irony here is that Buddhists don't believe in any god. All the 28 Buddhas were human beings who gained their wisdom by looking at the world around them, and not by desperately holding on to doctrine as their salvation. They still managed to cling to far too much mysticism, and many of them committed suicide based on this mysticism, like the ' living mummy' type of Buddha's.
You are right about one thing, though. The truth may be persued, but never possessed, and anyone claiming to have the absolute and total truth should immediately be distrusted. Remember that the next time you hear your preacher talk form the pulpit.
Oh, and just so you know, no scientist claims to know the absolute and total truth. That is why they are always prepared to revise even their most deeply held beliefs, if the evidence points elsewhere.

btw. It's spelled "atheists", and not "aetheists". We have nothing to do with the aether.

I'm not speaking about Christianity. I'm not Christian myself. I'm speaking about religion in general, and freedom of thought.

And some scientists do believe too much in their theories. As do too many people who are not scientists and would argue to death that something is true because a scientist said it was.

You say "it would be hard" to get atheists to kill others. Well, hard or not it is happening. Just change the excuse and that's it. Only the most fanatics would kill for religion and in their case it's because something's wrong with them, not with religion itself. And atheists who predicate the abolition of all belief systems -and thus the negation of freedom of thought- are just as fanatic. You in particular may not be willing to kill for it, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone following that train of thought eventually did.

and many religious fanatics probably don't care or believe one whit of what they're killing for- its just an excuse, a front, a cover, so they can claim they're not monsters

Whoa Gabi, dear.  I agree with you, I have a few friends lose their jobs because they believe in God or thought to question Darwin's Theory.  We let fanatics from the 60's become professors and teach their ideas to our children, but bring the idea of a god into the universities.  And you looking at the gates with your research work thrown in your face.  But I will let Ben Stein tell that story, yes he is over the top on somethings.  But so is Michael Moore.

Okay I am Sorry to bring up Darwinism.  It is a poor way of thinking, and it is so last century.  The Fanatics was on both side are what is polarizing the country, the world.  We are getting so angry at each other over the little difference, we all have.  I think God is the only one, keeping us from killing each other and exploding the World.  

Okay, And Science doesn't always advance as you say.  Einstein's theories were not approved of by the wider scientific community until later in his life.

PBH

Quote from: Prof B Hunnydew on August 11, 2008, 10:58:45 PM

Okay, And Science doesn't always advance as you say.  Einstein's theories were not approved of by the wider scientific community until later in his life.

PBH

But what you say there proves that it DOES advance - Einstein's theories were eventually accepted.  What you have to remember is that in theoretical physics (and many other areas of science) there are always a lot of new conflicting theories. A theory becomes accepted only after their proponents have demonstrated it to be more accurate than the competition.

Quote from: Gabi on August 11, 2008, 09:48:01 PM
I'm not speaking about Christianity. I'm not Christian myself. I'm speaking about religion in general, and freedom of thought.

And some scientists do believe too much in their theories. As do too many people who are not scientists and would argue to death that something is true because a scientist said it was.

You say "it would be hard" to get atheists to kill others. Well, hard or not it is happening. Just change the excuse and that's it. Only the most fanatics would kill for religion and in their case it's because something's wrong with them, not with religion itself. And atheists who predicate the abolition of all belief systems -and thus the negation of freedom of thought- are just as fanatic. You in particular may not be willing to kill for it, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone following that train of thought eventually did.

You are free to believe anything you want. No one who matters denies you that I should hope.

Everything scientists say should be critically considered, and not blindly followed or dismissed out of hand. Do research, look at the evidence, and try to poke holes in their theories as best as you can. If you can disprove a theory, more power to you. If you can't then maybe you should concede that they might be right, and learn something new in the process. It's part of how science works.

Please find me an example of an atheist killing religious people based on his atheism. I can't find any.

People who kill for their religion often not only use their religion to justify their own inhumanity towards those not following other faiths, but can even claim to have absolute authority to do so based on their holy books.
For example, the Quran advocates the conquest and elimination of everything that isn't Muslim, and Muslim terrorists use this not only as an excuse, but as the very basis for what they do. they feel that their god wants them to do this, so they do, whether they like doing it or not. They are even willing to die for it in the process.

Atheists who want to abolish all religions are fucking idiots who need to STFU and get an education on freedom of thought and religion. These atheists are fortunately very rare. I doubt that even Christopher Hitchens, who has some very strong opinions about religion, would want to abolish religion.
Indeed, we support the freedom of religion, and the right of everyone to believe what they want. We would also like to see that atheism is publicly accepted, and not openly discriminated against. George Bush the first made a statement about atheists in America that I find quite chilling. He answered on a question about whether he thought atheists could be patriots with the following answer: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
If a similar remark would have been made about any religious group he would have killed off his political career right there and then. Instead of that happening, he then became president of the USA.
Atheists pay taxes like everyone else. We have jobs, families, houses, and we are registered voters, yet here was the future president stating flatly that in spite of all this atheists are unpatriotic non-citizens. This sort of bigotry hurts. contrary to what some people seem to believe, we atheists have feelings too. </rant>

Quote from: Prof B Hunnydew on August 11, 2008, 10:58:45 PM
But I will let Ben Stein tell that story, yes he is over the top on somethings.  But so is Michael Moore.

Michael Moore exaggerates a lot, but at least he has some idea what he's talking about.
Ben stein is either an outright liar, or he has done absolutely no research about evolution. In a recent interview he flatout stated that the theory of evolution should not just account for the diversity of life on earth, which is what evolution does, but that it should also explain things like gravity, stellar and planetary formation, the origin of life, and emotions such as love. None of these are part of evolution, but of a list of other scientific disciplines. Of course, the sockpuppet tv-show host just kept nodding his head and agreeing with Stein a lot instead of mentioning things such as astronomy, cosmology, physics and biochemistry.
Ben Stein is not out to inform, but to line his pockets with the money from the gullible masses that believe in young earth creationism.

If you really want to learn more about evolution, and science in general, I can reccomend a youtube channel called "potholer54". He has made a series of videos that explain science in a nutshell quite clearly. Be advised that he is also rather frustrated by the claims of biblical literalists and young earth creationists, so expect the odd remark lambasting such beliefs.

I'd never heard of discrimination against atheists before (except from a guy who had mental problems, so I don't think it really counts). Most people I've met in real life -and even online, I think- are atheists, including my parents (officially Jewish, but they believe there is no God so I'd say that makes them atheists regardless of their roots). I think that if someone were discriminated for being an atheist here in Buenos Aires all the local newspapers would cover the story.

But then again, we don't have Bush here. No offense meant to your country, but I think he's a bigot, and he would be one no matter what he believed. He's probably still trying to create big scandals based on ridiculous things to divert the public attention from the serious problems.

I generally shudder when there's a nation being led by someone with strong religious inclinations or any convictions really.  It's just a motive for abuse.  It's also why I don't desire any form of power or responsibility as I know that, despite my hard work to the contrary, I'd be no better.  I don't like any organization or forced structure but I'm forced to live with it for now as it's the world I live in.

Ultimately I think if humanity were a lot smaller and more spread out, such that the need for such systems wasn't necessary, we'd all be better off.  It'd be easier to avoid situations in which people tried to force their structures on one another.  However this is a sadly idyllic and inherently flawed wish.  Anyway, I've never been good at expressing my thoughts clearly or concisely so I'll let others who are far more eloquent and well spoken get back to it. 

Edit:  Btw, thank you to all of you who have been participating in this conversation.  It's been a great read and I've had the opportunity to enjoy a lot of different well thought out and reasonably well researched points of view. :)

FWIW, management were discussing closing this a while ago, on grounds of religious arguments tend to devolve into shouting matches pretty much all the time.

It's pleasant to be proven wrong. Please, continue to exceed our wildest dreams. ;-]

I'd say the clostest thing to an atheist government killing a religious one would be Communist China's invasion of Tibet, where monks were slaughtered for no reason.

While many of the people of China may have a religion they follow (mostly Buddhist), the government is officially atheist.  In the Soviet Union, there were also plenty of accounts of the KGB arresting people (and making them disappear) of many religious faiths the atheist leaders felt were dangerous to their control.

And let us also not forget that the French revolution was very much founded by 'enlightened' individuals... who then went on to behead thousands, even children who had done nothing other than belong to an aristocratic family.

Again, atheism will solve nothing.  Human nature will always find a way.  If there is no god a t all, then the only way to explain religion's ability to lead people to violence is that it must be an inherent part of human nature.  Without any god to influence them, the people's actions can only be attributed to their own willingness to kill.  The belief that humans are inherently good in spite of thousands of years of evidence to the contrary?  Now THAT requires blind faith!

Quote
Again, atheism will solve nothing.  Human nature will always find a way.  If there is no god a t all, then the only way to explain religion's ability to lead people to violence is that it must be an inherent part of human nature.  Without any god to influence them, the people's actions can only be attributed to their own willingness to kill.  The belief that humans are inherently good in spite of thousands of years of evidence to the contrary?  Now THAT requires blind faith!

Er... Yes, people are inherently evil, and kill each other for no good reason.

Believing people are inherently good in the face of thousands of years of evidence doesn't require faith, it requires blind ignorance.

Believing people can rise above their baser instincts, and manage to create beauty, peace, etc, despite all the many reasons for not doing so? That requires faith.

... at least IMHO.

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on August 12, 2008, 11:37:15 AM
Believing people are inherently good in the face of thousands of years of evidence doesn't require faith, it requires blind ignorance.

Believing people can rise above their baser instincts, and manage to create beauty, peace, etc, despite all the many reasons for not doing so? That requires faith.

... at least IMHO.

Llearch, I think you've reached a new level of awesome in my mind. You too, Gabi.

(although I'm more of the mindset that humans are more neutral and easily influenced than evil. But I am not a philosopher)

I'll think of a more constructive post later.

~Keaton the Black Jackal

Thank you, Keaton. :3

And llearch.

And Keaton, I'm with you on that one, with the added remark that not all humans are alike. The possibilities to create and to destroy, to help and to hurt, are always present. So are the instincts (in both directions).  I think the choice is up to each one of us at each turn in our lives, and not everyone will make the same choices.

Every person has the same type of choices to make, we all just take different paths for different reasons. People are generally easily influenced, so it's not always a well-thought out decision that's made. People are neither inherently good nor evil, but it's up to them to think and figure out for themselves what lies on the side of good and what does not. Unfortunately, they're often told by other people and it becomes similar to a rote exercise, without having actually thought out for themselves the reasons why that particular thing might be good or bad.

Think about it and decide for yourself.

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on August 12, 2008, 10:40:03 AM
FWIW, management were discussing closing this a while ago, on grounds of religious arguments tend to devolve into shouting matches pretty much all the time.

It's pleasant to be proven wrong. Please, continue to exceed our wildest dreams. ;-]

That's one of the things I like about this forum. in spite of our wildly different beliefs, we are capable of supressing our more base instincts, and not start typing in all-caps about how a person of differing opinion is a dirty little hussy, in spite of some of these beliefs and opinions lying very close to the heart.

Which brings me to the next point:

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on August 12, 2008, 11:37:15 AM
Believing people can rise above their baser instincts, and manage to create beauty, peace, etc, despite all the many reasons for not doing so? That requires faith.

... at least IMHO.

The very thread you just posted this in is an antithesis to your statement. We are rising above our baser instincts and turning this into a shouting match.

Ah, but see - I believe small groups of people can rise above their baser instincts.

Larger groups? Those are just mobs.

Amen

PBH

I will have to read up a little more.  I am rusty and out gun right now. 

But I will add one thing... Every civilization has had to face destructive events and/or changing political/cultural structures.  With growth and age, Society became more restrictive and greater tyrannical rules to "fight" these changes in attempts to keep the status quo.  Soon, you have civil unrest(civil war), invasion of barbarians(terrorist), and/or climatic calamities(climate change), which will make the supporting the society impossible.

The 21st century Earth is no different, we just has no where to run, this time.  Much like ancient Easter Island's inhabitants found themselves.  The true test of a person character is how they act when the lights have gone out.

Quote from: Prof B Hunnydew on August 12, 2008, 08:34:23 PM
The true test of a person character is how they act when the lights have gone out.

Like an animal.

Er. Uh. *shifty look* Er... Look! It's the Goodyear Blimp! *skips out while everyone else is looking the wrong way*

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on August 12, 2008, 08:41:00 PM

Quote from: Prof B Hunnydew on August 12, 2008, 08:34:23 PM
The true test of a person character is how they act when the lights have gone out.

Like an animal.

Hmm.. why does the song 'Closer' by Nine Inch Nails suddenly come to mind?

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on August 12, 2008, 08:41:00 PM

Quote from: Prof B Hunnydew on August 12, 2008, 08:34:23 PM
The true test of a person character is how they act when the lights have gone out.

Like an animal.

Yay!  Furries!   :boogie

Quote from: Mowser on August 13, 2008, 07:22:18 AM
Hmm.. why does the song 'Closer' by Nine Inch Nails suddenly come to mind?

The Mario version?

There'll always be someone to tell the dying man to stop praying and there'll always be someone to tell the dying man to start praying.

He dies anyway.

Quote from: rabid_fox on August 13, 2008, 02:43:18 PM

There'll always be someone to tell the dying man to stop praying and there'll always be someone to tell the dying man to start praying.

He dies anyway.

I would never tell someone to stop praying, lest they do it in my house, or specifically at me.

Quote from: Vidar on August 14, 2008, 05:19:55 AM

Quote from: rabid_fox on August 13, 2008, 02:43:18 PM

There'll always be someone to tell the dying man to stop praying and there'll always be someone to tell the dying man to start praying.

He dies anyway.

I would never tell someone to stop praying, lest they do it in my house, or specifically at me.

*prays for Vidar*   >:3

Quote from: Alondro on August 14, 2008, 04:07:27 PM

Quote from: Vidar on August 14, 2008, 05:19:55 AM

Quote from: rabid_fox on August 13, 2008, 02:43:18 PM

There'll always be someone to tell the dying man to stop praying and there'll always be someone to tell the dying man to start praying.

He dies anyway.

I would never tell someone to stop praying, lest they do it in my house, or specifically at me.

*prays for Vidar*   >:3

*prays AT Vidar*

Quote from: rabid_fox on August 14, 2008, 06:49:21 PM

Quote from: Alondro on August 14, 2008, 04:07:27 PM
*prays for Vidar*   >:3

*prays AT Vidar*

"Oh glorious Vidar, whose metric capacity we are not worthy to calculate, whose sublime intelligence is so far above our own that we poor benighted souls must merely stand in awe, whose feet we are not sufficient to clean with our dirty, dirty tongues, hear us in our hour of need..."

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on August 14, 2008, 06:52:18 PM

Quote from: rabid_fox on August 14, 2008, 06:49:21 PM

Quote from: Alondro on August 14, 2008, 04:07:27 PM
*prays for Vidar*   >:3

*prays AT Vidar*

"Oh glorious Vidar, whose metric capacity we are not worthy to calculate, whose sublime intelligence is so far above our own that we poor benighted souls must merely stand in awe, whose feet we are not sufficient to clean with our dirty, dirty tongues, hear us in our hour of need..."

"... can you tell us the name for the section between the triglyphs on a classic Greek Doric temple frieze?"

And then Vidar's booming voice emerged from heaven: "Oh, don't grovel! If there's one thing I can't stand, it's people groveling. And don't apologize! Every time I try to talk to someone, it's "I'm sorry" this, and "forgive me" that, and "I'm not worthy"!"

... Sorry, couldn't resist a Monty Python joke. The answer is "metope."

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on August 14, 2008, 06:52:18 PM

Quote from: rabid_fox on August 14, 2008, 06:49:21 PM

Quote from: Alondro on August 14, 2008, 04:07:27 PM
*prays for Vidar*   >:3

*prays AT Vidar*

"Oh glorious Vidar, whose metric capacity we are not worthy to calculate, whose sublime intelligence is so far above our own that we poor benighted souls must merely stand in awe, whose feet we are not sufficient to clean with our dirty, dirty tongues, hear us in our hour of need..."

Oh, please shut up. You're making me blush, even though all of it is true.  :rolleyes

Also, that would be praying to me, rather than at me.
What I mean with people praying at me is more something like some nutter screaming "In Jesus Name, I Pray! You will go to Hell, in Jesus name I Pray!!" etc. For a perfect example of this, go to youtube and search for "god warrior".
I hate that.
Fortunately, I'm not confrontational enough to attract such idiots.

Quote from: Jairus on August 14, 2008, 06:59:16 PM

"… can you tell us the name for the section between the triglyphs on a classic Greek Doric temple frieze?"

And then Vidar's booming voice emerged from heaven: "Oh, don't grovel! If there's one thing I can't stand, it's people groveling. And don't apologize! Every time I try to talk to someone, it's "I'm sorry" this, and "forgive me" that, and "I'm not worthy"!"

… Sorry, couldn't resist a Monty Python joke. The answer is "metope."

Monty Python rules.
* hums "Always look on the bright side of life"*  :boogie

Quote from: Vidar on August 15, 2008, 04:07:08 AM
Also, that would be praying to me, rather than at me.

Correct. Alondro prays for you, rabid_fox prays at you, and I pray to you. I thought it was fairly obvious...

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on August 15, 2008, 09:59:54 AM

Quote from: Vidar on August 15, 2008, 04:07:08 AM
Also, that would be praying to me, rather than at me.

Correct. Alondro prays for you, rabid_fox prays at you, and I pray to you. I thought it was fairly obvious...

In retrospect it was. Please continue, so I can tell you to stop doing that.  >:3

Quote from: Vidar on August 15, 2008, 10:41:28 AM
In retrospect it was. Please continue, so I can tell you to stop doing that.  >:3

"Oh, great Vidar, whose matrices I am unworthy to calculate, and yet whose operating parameters I will, eventually, design, whose shiny blinken forehead light is just so shiny, who can operating in conditions of deepest darkness thereby, who  wears his pyjamas inside out and nobody will argue with him about it, whose eyes watch the moogle, whose dance routine exceeds that of the Riverdance crew combined, whose IQ is immeasurably positive, if barely so, and whose red wings flutter most graciously, look down upon your servant and grant us our wish, which is...


... which is....


... Nuts. Now I've forgotten what it was I was wanting."

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on August 15, 2008, 10:46:37 AM
"... Nuts. Now I've forgotten what it was I was wanting."

Dead things?  Extra teeth?

Has anybody heard of this new religion that's the opposite of agnosticism? Instead of not believing in things that can't be proven, they believe in all things that can't be disproven. They devote a different day of the year to each religion. It's a really weird concept.

Quote from: Rakala on August 15, 2008, 10:50:18 AM
Has anybody heard of this new religion that's the opposite of agnosticism? Instead of not believing in things that can't be proven, they believe in all things that can't be disproven. They devote a different day of the year to each religion. It's a really weird concept.

Ehrm, you do realise that thise video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqJpZOljjG8 is satire, right?

that is criminal abuse of cryptology

Surprisingly that is not the source I got it from.

I just realized If you don't believe in God, where do you put my faith in?  Science, Men, or nothing.  It would made it hard not to get up, when one is alone in desperate times.

PBH

Last night, I had sex with your religion.

Last night, my karma ran over your dogma.

That's just Bad karma

Good Karma
(http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f216/PBHunnydew/Chicks0371.jpg)

anthropic theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle)

When we analyze the constants of natural forces(atomic forces, and gravity, etc.), we find that they are "tuned" very precisely to allow for life.  If the nuclear forces is increase, stars would burn out too fast to give rise to life. or decrease the strength and then stars will not ignite at all.  If gravity is increased, then universe heads to the big crunch quickly.  Gravity decreased the universe expands rapidly to a big dark end.  In fact, there are scores of "accident" involving the cantants of nature that allow life.  Many parameters are all "fine-tuned" to allow for life. So either, we left with the conclusion that there is a God of some sort who has chosen our universe to just right to allow life, or there is billion of parallel universies,(multi-verse), many many of them dead.  As Free Dyson has siad "The universe seemed to know we were coming."

The Anthropic Principle, the weak version simply states that our universe is fine-tuned to support life (because we are here in the first place).  The strong version states that our existence wa by -produce of design or propose.

PBH

Quote from: Prof B Hunnydew on August 17, 2008, 09:43:41 AM
anthropic theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle)

When we analyze the constants of natural forces(atomic forces, and gravity, etc.), we find that they are "tuned" very precisely to allow for life.  If the nuclear forces is increase, stars would burn out too fast to give rise to life. or decrease the strength and then stars will not ignite at all.  If gravity is increased, then universe heads to the big crunch quickly.  Gravity decreased the universe expands rapidly to a big dark end.  In fact, there are scores of "accident" involving the cantants of nature that allow life.  Many parameters are all "fine-tuned" to allow for life. So either, we left with the conclusion that there is a God of some sort who has chosen our universe to just right to allow life, or there is billion of parallel universies,(multi-verse), many many of them dead.  As Free Dyson has siad "The universe seemed to know we were coming."

The Anthropic Principle, the weak version simply states that our universe is fine-tuned to support life (because we are here in the first place).  The strong version states that our existence wa by -produce of design or propose.

PBH

Of course the problem with the anthropic principle is that... there is actually quite a lot of wiggle room for parameters where life in some form could exist.

Also, while the parameters may be perfect for life as it exists NOW, that is because life evolved in that environment, if the parameters were different, that only means that we would not have life as we know it, not necessarily no life.

It's like assuming that a race track was made specifically for a car when that car was really made with performance characteristics that are meant to allow it to perfectly dominate the track.  If you have a differnt track, you get a different car (the difference between NASCAR and the Baja 1000 makes a pretty good example)(yes, the car is designed, but the same example can be made for many species that are evolved to fit a niche outside of which they can no longer survive, the niche is not designed for them, their environment shaped them to fit itself)

This does not preclude a designer who could have designed everything, but there's still no reason to assume there is.

If you look at the history of race cars, you can see that they actually have "evolved." For instance, from the early Formula 1 cars like this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Mike_Hawthorn_1958_Argentine_GP.jpg) to modern cars like this one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Fernando_Alonso_2008_Valencia_test.jpg). Yes, as you say, there is a designer, but it follows the same basic principles: good qualities are kept, bad ones aren't, new ones are tried, repeat.

Quote from: modelincard on August 17, 2008, 05:17:06 PM
If you look at the history of race cars, you can see that they actually have "evolved." For instance, from the early Formula 1 cars like this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Mike_Hawthorn_1958_Argentine_GP.jpg) to modern cars like this one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Fernando_Alonso_2008_Valencia_test.jpg). Yes, as you say, there is a designer, but it follows the same basic principles: good qualities are kept, bad ones aren't, new ones are tried, repeat.

Yeah, but you'll never get the deep creationists to acknowledge the 'evolution' of design that these kinds of things go through.
(then again, you can't even get them to acknowledge that they have no clue how to apply the second law of thermodynamics, either...)

Closed systems, baby. And the only truly closed system is the universe itself.

Creationists always try to use the second law,
to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
The second law is quite precise about where it applies,
only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
The earth's not a closed system' it's powered by the sun,
so [censored...]
That, in a nutshell, is what entropy's about,
you're now down with a discount. -MC Hawking

Quote from: Prof B Hunnydew on August 15, 2008, 06:53:20 PM
I just realized If you don't believe in God, where do you put my faith in?  Science, Men, or nothing.  It would made it hard not to get up, when one is alone in desperate times.

PBH

This might end up initiating a discussion over the virtue of faith.
I can't speak for other atheists, but I have some faith in science, because it works. It's not perfect, mistakes are made, and sometimes it's outright wrong about something, however, science has shown us more about the universe than any religion has revealed.
I don't have absolute faith in science, and I consider everything it says critically, in so far as I can. Even scientists don't have absolute faith in their own scientific theories. For instance, right now, there is a sattelite orbiting the earth, called "Gravity Probe B" which has the purpose of finding things in gravity that are not explained by current scientific theories. They actively try to disprove their own theories, and in doing so, improve them.

To me, faith is an obstacle, and not a virtue. Some people might get some comfort out of faith, but far too often it is used as an excuse to stop thinking critically, and simply go for the answer "goddidit". I'm opposed to this answer, not just because I don't believe it, or because of my 'lack of faith', but mainly because it doesn't explain anything.

Quote from: Prof B Hunnydew on August 17, 2008, 09:43:41 AM
anthropic theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle)

There's an article on the front page of slashdot right now, that suggests that the anthropic principle has been rendered shaky at best. The margins for a workable universe are apparently a lot broader than supposed by the anthropic principle. Of course, this is all hypothetical, because we can't observe other universes at the moment.

On creationist arguments: I've heard a number of them (2nd law of thermodynamics, irriducable complexity, various probability arguments, using the bible as the absolute truth), and they're all easily debunked as nonsense. The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems, and the earth isn't a closed system, and even in a closed system there may be pockets where entropy decreases, like in stellar formation.

There is a long (over an hour, iirc) youtube video of Ken Miller, one of the scientists who testified against the Dover board in the court case "Kitzmiller vs Dover", in which he explains in detail why Intelligent Design is bunk. He also explains what irriducable complexity is, and why it doesn't work, with the creationist favourite, the bacterial flagellum, as his example of why it is false.
I suggest that everyone who has an interest in science clears some time for this, because it really is worth seeing.

Quote from: Vidar on August 18, 2008, 03:54:28 AM

Quote from: Prof B Hunnydew on August 15, 2008, 06:53:20 PM
I just realized If you don't believe in God, where do you put my faith in?  Science, Men, or nothing.  It would made it hard not to give up, when one is alone in desperate times.

PBH

To me, faith is an obstacle, and not a virtue. Some people might get some comfort out of faith, but far too often it is used as an excuse to stop thinking critically, and simply go for the answer "goddidit". I'm opposed to this answer, not just because I don't believe it, or because of my 'lack of faith', but mainly because it doesn't explain anything.

QuoteGod helps those, who help themselves

and others..  Faith is one thing, believing that God helps you find the answers, but one has to get up and look.  Critical thinking is another and a must for any science or life, but it shouldn't kill one's belief in God.  I am a mortal, trying to see infinite.  It is not possible as a mortal to see it all, but it is fun to see the new things that I can discover. 

The more, I seek of God in nature or even proof of him, the more I find that He believes in freewill.  He setup the rules of the universe, so he knows how to perform miracles within those laws.  He gives us enough "proof" that we may think he might be out there, but he leaves enough doubt that we must have faith that he is there. 

That is what, this really boils down to. Belief.   Faith

PBH

Thanks for the great reading material and videos.

I think if you want to consider yourself any sort of 'scientist' you have to be open to any and every possibility, even the seemingly absurd.  To me, most faiths are absurd, but I won't rule them out.  I'll just stick most of them in the 'highly unlikely' category.  Same as any other fringe theory with little to no supporting evidence.  It's not out and I'm not going to waste my time saying it's wrong until I can prove that it is with irrefutable evidence.

Quote from: Prof B Hunnydew on August 18, 2008, 07:24:28 AM

Quote from: Vidar on August 18, 2008, 03:54:28 AM

Quote from: Prof B Hunnydew on August 15, 2008, 06:53:20 PM
I just realized If you don't believe in God, where do you put my faith in?  Science, Men, or nothing.  It would made it hard not to give up, when one is alone in desperate times.

PBH

To me, faith is an obstacle, and not a virtue. Some people might get some comfort out of faith, but far too often it is used as an excuse to stop thinking critically, and simply go for the answer "goddidit". I'm opposed to this answer, not just because I don't believe it, or because of my 'lack of faith', but mainly because it doesn't explain anything.

QuoteGod helps those, who help themselves

and others..  Faith is one thing, believing that God helps you find the answers, but one has to get up and look.  Critical thinking is another and a must for any science or life, but it shouldn't kill one's belief in God.  I am a mortal, trying to see infinite.  It is not possible as a mortal to see it all, but it is fun to see the new things that I can discover. 

The more, I seek of God in nature or even proof of him, the more I find that He believes in freewill.  He setup the rules of the universe, so he knows how to perform miracles within those laws.  He gives us enough "proof" that we may think he might be out there, but he leaves enough doubt that we must have faith that he is there. 

Science has found out an awful lot about the universe, and not much points to an omnipresent deity of any kind, let alone a specific one. Indeed, it seems that the more we figure out, the less of any god is needed, or present.
It used to be (long ago) that a rainbow could only be explained by a supernatural entity spontaniously making it. We now know that a rainbow is the result of a lot of water-droplets reflecting and refracting sunlight.
If your god leaves enough doubt that faith instead of evidence is needed to fill up the gaps, he can hardly blaim us for not believing in him.

Quote from: Prof B Hunnydew on August 18, 2008, 07:24:28 AM
That is what, this really boils down to. Belief.   Faith

I still prefer evidence over faith. If it isn't there, I'm not inclined to believe it, and even if it's there, it should be doubted and picked apart for any flaws that it may contain, just like science does.
If a religion is true, it should have nothing to fear about science, but instead embrace it, because if that religion really is true, then science would eventually verify all of it's claims.

Quote from: Prof B Hunnydew on August 18, 2008, 07:24:28 AM
Thanks for the great reading material and videos.

You're welcome.
For more interesting, but unrelated stuff, do a youtube search for 'tedtalksdirector'. It's a series of lectures from people with important/interesting/creative ideas of all kinds of subjects.

Quote from: Mowser on August 18, 2008, 07:30:34 AM
I think if you want to consider yourself any sort of 'scientist' you have to be open to any and every possibility, even the seemingly absurd.  To me, most faiths are absurd, but I won't rule them out.  I'll just stick most of them in the 'highly unlikely' category.  Same as any other fringe theory with little to no supporting evidence.  It's not out and I'm not going to waste my time saying it's wrong until I can prove that it is with irrefutable evidence.

Technically we would have to be agnostic about everything, even the things we see with our own eyes. However, we don't doubt our eyes most of the time, and we can be fairly certain that when we see, for instance, a table, it is really there, and we rule out the possibility that it isn't there.
To me, all religious faiths are absurd ebough for me to dismiss them, until a lot of evidence comes up that directly proves everything they claim, and that's a lot of evidence that is currently just not there.

Quote from: Vidar on August 18, 2008, 08:09:19 AMTo me, all religious faiths are absurd ebough for me to dismiss them, until a lot of evidence comes up that directly proves everything they claim, and that's a lot of evidence that is currently just not there.

The absurdity, really, does not lie in the rules or arguments presented mainly, but rather in the thought that we, humans, fettered by emotionality and intellectual limitations, little specks of random thoughts and flesh wandering about on an insignificant, tiny rock out in nowhere, could possibly comprehend or be deigned some greater meaning in the massive and infinitely complex cosmos...

Quote from: Stygian on August 18, 2008, 08:16:36 PM

Quote from: Vidar on August 18, 2008, 08:09:19 AMTo me, all religious faiths are absurd ebough for me to dismiss them, until a lot of evidence comes up that directly proves everything they claim, and that's a lot of evidence that is currently just not there.

The absurdity, really, does not lie in the rules or arguments presented mainly, but rather in the thought that we, humans, fettered by emotionality and intellectual limitations, little specks of random thoughts and flesh wandering about on an insignificant, tiny rock out in nowhere, could possibly comprehend or be deigned some greater meaning in the massive and infinitely complex cosmos...

Thanks Stygian....nice to see you out and about, you Dear bat..

My point is the Cosmos is a giant jigsaw puzzle, that has a very faded picture on the box and your not sure you have all the pieces.  You can figure out a piece at a time but you don't have the all edges connected yet.  And sometimes one piece can flip the picture over.
  Do you have faith in the toy company put every piece in there?  Can the puzzle can be completed?

Maybe the real question is
Will Man mature enough in time not to abuse science into killing himself?  We have had too many close calls to say the next close-call or next will not do us all in.

PBH

Quote from: Prof B Hunnydew on August 18, 2008, 09:56:52 PM

Quote from: Stygian on August 18, 2008, 08:16:36 PM

Quote from: Vidar on August 18, 2008, 08:09:19 AMTo me, all religious faiths are absurd enough for me to dismiss them, until a lot of evidence comes up that directly proves everything they claim, and that's a lot of evidence that is currently just not there.

The absurdity, really, does not lie in the rules or arguments presented mainly, but rather in the thought that we, humans, fettered by emotionality and intellectual limitations, little specks of random thoughts and flesh wandering about on an insignificant, tiny rock out in nowhere, could possibly comprehend or be deigned some greater meaning in the massive and infinitely complex cosmos...

Thanks Stygian....nice to see you out and about, you Dear bat..

My point is the Cosmos is a giant jigsaw puzzle, that has a very faded picture on the box and your not sure you have all the pieces.  You can figure out a piece at a time but you don't have the all edges connected yet.  And sometimes one piece can flip the picture over.
  Do you have faith in the toy company put every piece in there?  Can the puzzle can be completed?

These are questions that science sets out to answer, and bloody well knows that it can never answer these questions.
One may ask then what is the point of science. Science is a journey where the journey itself is more important than the destination. By doing science we enrich ourselves by learning. I can't think of  a higher goal than this.

Quote from: Prof B Hunnydew on August 18, 2008, 09:56:52 PM
Maybe the real question is
Will Man mature enough in time not to abuse science into killing himself?  We have had too many close calls to say the next close-call or next will not do us all in.

That is a very good question. Carl Sagan touched on this in the Demon haunted world in the chapter "when scientists know sin". Mankind may even have come closer to extinction than you know. There's an article on damninteresting.com about at least one moment where nuclear war almost broke out between the USA and the Soviet Union.
In spite of this, I remain optimistic that mankind will survive it's own technology. Already, one scenario for global war, that over the dwindling resources that fossil fuels provide, grows less likely as scientists find renewable energy sources that can replace them. If we can ween the world off of oil, we stand a better chance of surviving ourselves. In the end, we will have to take action, and not rely on a supernatural entity to solve our problems for us.
Even is you believe in a god, you must first do everything you can do yourself to solve your problems. If a god exists, then I don't think he would be happy to hear people whine about their problems to him, when he gave humankind soundly working brains, and dexterous hands.

Quote from: Vidar on August 19, 2008, 03:55:12 AM
Even is you believe in a god, you must first do everything you can do yourself to solve your problems. If a god exists, then I don't think he would be happy to hear people whine about their problems to him, when he gave humankind soundly working brains, and dexterous hands.

I like that. It's kind of similar to something I came up with for one of my characters: "In times of crisis, there are three things you can do. You can pray to the gods to make something happen, you can pray to the gods to make something happen and then go and do it yourself, or you can just go and do it yourself. I always take the third option: might as well cut out the middle man."

And I agree: we humans may be stupid, but at the same time we are working on it. If we can solve the energy problem, if we can work on the population problem, if we can get our butts in gear and start working on the survival of us and our world... there's not a doubt in my mind that humanity will not only survive, but accomplish more than we ever dared. We just have to get to that point first. Ultimately, I guess the one thing that I truly believe in are humans, as flawed and imperfect as they are.

Hm, I'm kind of reminded of something that Zeus said in a Harryhausen movie: "The gods are best served by those who do not need their help," or something like that. Kind of cheesy coming from the king of the gods, but Zeus gets some very introspective moments in Harryhausen's movies that usually end with him concluding something positive about the mortal pawns in the gods' games of destiny and fate.

Okay, I'm starting to sound like a bad drug trip, which means it's time for me to go to bed. Good night.