NationStates Jolt Archive

First of all, let's get a few things out of the way:

I am not one of your Pat Robertson-god-will-smite-you-if-you-don't-do-exactly-as-the-bible-says types.

Secondly, I am a devout Christian, although I have no intention whatsoever of forcing atheists or agnostics to follow my religion.

Thirdly, this isn't meant as a flame on atheists/agnostics, so please DONT FLAME ME.

Now let's get down to business.

I believe in God and what the Bible says because it provides a moral framework for my life and it gives me hope and self-awareness. The fact that I will be rewarded for good deeds is a positive feeling that can come only with religion. (this includes all regions, I just choose to follow Christianity:)

I think God is a benevolent, forgiving father figure who deserves respect and attention, ie. going to church, praying, repenting.

THE REASON why I think non-believers are wrong is because they simply refuse to recognize the positive presence in their lives and they choose to explain away things with science and psychology, et cetera, although these things just aren't able to explain many things.

However, this doesn't mean that I think that believers can't achieve salvation, just like some Christians can't. I just think that religion provides a route towards that salvation and increases one's chances of achieving.

I know there are a lot of atheist/agnostic types out there, and I will be more than happy to debate this with you, but if you insult me, I just won't respond.:cool:

Thank you for your time :)

1. I am a Catholic and there is a big reason I usualy stay out of religion threads-they go in circles
2. Read Neo-K's first amendment.

What's neo-Ks first amendment? :/

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=464525

You gotta be kidding. Most of my fellow agnostics and atheists will agree when I say that we aren't without moral framework, it's just that we establish it for ourselves. One might think that if you need a reward at the end of the maze of life to help other people, then you aren't really doing it for the sake of being "good", you're doing it for the cheese.

1. I am a Catholic and there is a big reason I usualy stay out of religion threads-they go in circles
2. Read Neo-K's first amendment.

I personally think his 10th amendment is the funniest

1. I am a Catholic and there is a big reason I usualy stay out of religion threads-they go in circles
2. Read Neo-K's first amendment.

Hey, I'm just stating my point of view. To be honest, I think that religion needs a voice on this forum, considering all the anti-religion threads:)

Excuse me? We explan away things with science and psychology? Science is the only method we have of finding facts and truth. We refuse to accept positive influence in our lives? What a crock of shit. Do you think for one minute that it's fun to be an atheist? We have no meaning to our lives. We have nothing to give us hope when we need it most. We fear death because we know that after death there is nothing. It is in no way fun or enjoyable to be atheistic. I'd love for God to exist. I'd love for eternal life in heaven. But I don't care about what I want. i care about truth. The only way to find truth is through science and philosophy. Faith has nothing to do with truth whatsoever. I really don't like you thinking that we're wrong when it's us that use the very method that defines right and wrong.

You gotta be kidding. Most of my fellow agnostics and atheists will agree when I say that we aren't without moral framework, it's just that we establish it for ourselves. One might think that if you need a reward at the end of the maze of life to help other people, then you aren't really doing it for the sake of being "good", you're doing it for the cheese.

Forgive me, I forgot to specify that morality and atheism are perfectly compatible. I just think that religion helps achieve morality. :)

God? I used to believe in some form of "higher being". But, what has "God" done for me? NOT A DAMN THING. So what is the point of believing in a "God" if one, you have no proof WHAT SO EVER that they exist, and if they really don't do anything?

Why Atheists/Agnostics Are Wrong.

I believe in God and what the Bible says

That's nice. But it doesn't make anyone else *wrong*.

the fact that I will be rewarded for good deeds is a positive feeling that can come only with religion.

Wrong. Have you ever helped out a homeless person? I have. That was a good deed that gave me a positive feeling and it had nothing to do with religion.


I think God is a benevolent, forgiving father figure who deserves respect and attention, ie. going to church, praying, repenting.

That's nice. I think God is a fictional being.

THE REASON why I think non-believers are wrong is because they simply refuse to recognize the positive presence in their lives and they choose to explain away things with science and psychology, et cetera, although these things just aren't able to explain many things.

Non-believers refuse to recognize positive presences in their lives? Since when? You just pulled that 'reason' out of nowhere. Your assumptions do not, again, make anyone else *wrong.*

I know there are a lot of atheist/agnostic types out there, and I will be more than happy to debate this with you, but if you insult me, I just won't respond.:cool:

Thank you for your time :)

Well, being told I'm "wrong" for my belief straight-out is something I consider an insult, myself. There's nothing "wrong" about me, regardless of what you think, believe or assume. Can you dig it?

Hey, I'm just stating my point of view. To be honest, I think that religion needs a voice on this forum, considering all the anti-religion threads:)
Well usually we leave pro-religion to Smunkeeville -she seems to have more respect than the rest of us put together. And when I just joined Zooke taught me posting rights and wrongs, kept me from abtaining any real enemies due to making these posts.

Excuse me? We explan away things with science and psychology? Science is the only method we have of finding facts and truth. We refuse to accept positive influence in our lives? What a crock of shit. Do you think for one minute that it's fun to be an atheist? We have no meaning to our lives. We have nothing to give us hope when we need it most. We fear death because we know that after death there is nothing. It is in no way fun or enjoyable to be atheistic. I'd love for God to exist. I'd love for eternal life is heaven. But I don't care about what I want. i care about truth. The only way to find truth is through science and philosophy. Faith has nothing to do with truth whatsoever. I really don't like you thinking that we're wrong when it's us that use the very method that defines right and wrong.

I like science as much as the next guy, and I fully believe in evolution and all that stuff. I just think that science can't explain spirituality.

"Well, being told I'm "wrong" for my belief straight-out is something I consider an insult, myself. There's nothing "wrong" about me, regardless of what you think, believe or assume. Can you dig it?"

I wasn't trying to insult you, I was only stating that I disagree with you. I think that's kind of implied when I say that atheists are wrong.

I like science as much as the next guy, and I fully believe in evolution and all that stuff. I just think that science can't explain spirituality.

First your thinking. Don't think. Just prove that science can't explain spirituality. Second, you're assuming that spirituallity exists. You can't make that assumption.

First of all, let's get a few things out of the way:

I am not one of your Pat Robertson-god-will-smite-you-if-you-don't-do-exactly-as-the-bible-says types.

Secondly, I am a devout Christian, although I have no intention whatsoever of forcing atheists or agnostics to follow my religion.

Thirdly, this isn't meant as a flame on atheists/agnostics, so please DONT FLAME ME.

Now let's get down to business.

I believe in God and what the Bible says because it provides a moral framework for my life and it gives me hope and self-awareness. The fact that I will be rewarded for good deeds is a positive feeling that can come only with religion. (this includes all regions, I just choose to follow Christianity:)

I think God is a benevolent, forgiving father figure who deserves respect and attention, ie. going to church, praying, repenting.

THE REASON why I think non-believers are wrong is because they simply refuse to recognize the positive presence in their lives and they choose to explain away things with science and psychology, et cetera, although these things just aren't able to explain many things.

However, this doesn't mean that I think that believers can't achieve salvation, just like some Christians can't. I just think that religion provides a route towards that salvation and increases one's chances of achieving.

I know there are a lot of atheist/agnostic types out there, and I will be more than happy to debate this with you, but if you insult me, I just won't respond.:cool:

Thank you for your time :)

I certainly do believe in a positive presence in the world. It's called humanity. I believe people to be self-sufficient, and generally good. And, to be perfectly honest, religion does not explain things well either (in my opinion). Science is perfectly viable, especially with evidence backing it. And don't call the bible evidence of God, because anyone can write a book. I could write a book saying that I was emporer of earth, and all people bowed before me and baked me chocolate cake, and, in two thousand years, people might find it and believe it to be a true historical record. But that wouldn't make it true.

Here's my ultimate question: If God exists, why doesn't he come down and talk to us? If he really wants our recognition, that's probably the best way to do it. Or, he could gain my respect by stopping the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa and redistributing the world's wealth, but that's another issue entirely.

First your thinking. Don't think. Just prove that science can't explain spirituality. Second, you're assuming that spirituallity exists. You can't make that assumption.

I know spirituality exists because I EXPERIENCE IT EVERYDAY. To me, the Bible, and God offer the best reason why I feel this.

I wasn't trying to insult you, I was only stating that I disagree with you. I think that's kind of implied when I say that atheists are wrong.

But the fact is is that you used the word WRONG, implying that it is bad to be an athiest, which is insulting.

Here's my ultimate question: If God exists, why doesn't he come down and talk to us. If he really wants our recognition, that's probably the best way to do it. Or, he could gain my respect by stopping the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa and redistributing the world's wealth, but that's another issue entirely.
But if He did what would we have to flame each other about? Politics thats what.

"Well, being told I'm "wrong" for my belief straight-out is something I consider an insult, myself. There's nothing "wrong" about me, regardless of what you think, believe or assume. Can you dig it?"

I wasn't trying to insult you, I was only stating that I disagree with you. I think that's kind of implied when I say that atheists are wrong.

Well, it's not "Why I think atheists and agnostics are wrong." it's not even specific, like "Why I think there is a God." It's just, we're all wrong, period.

And then your reasoning is just the same old, same old. You believe in God, so you believe those who do not are wrong. This isn't an argument, it's just you asserting that your belief is superior to anyone else's. It's intellectually insulting whether you intended it or not.

Well, being told I'm "wrong" for my belief straight-out is something I consider an insult, myself. There's nothing "wrong" about me, regardless of what you think, believe or assume. Can you dig it?

I wasn't trying to insult you, I was only stating that I disagree with you. I think that's kind of implied when I say that atheists are wrong.

It should be insulting. You've betrayed rational thought. You've given into your intuition.

I really don't care what you think. I don't want to know your opinion or beliefs. They don't provide any underlying natural truth do they. If you consider something to be fact you need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is fact. If you just hold some speculatory belief based on your feelings, that's plain stupidity. Nobody should, or will, respect it.

But if He did what would we have to flame each other about? Politics thats what.

I could handle that.

I certainly do believe in a positive presence in the world. It's called humanity. I believe people to be self-sufficient, and generally good. And, to be perfectly honest, religion does not explain things well either (in my opinion). Science is perfectly viable, especially with evidence backing it. And don't call the bible evidence of God, because anyone can write a book. I could write a book saying that I was emporer of earth, and all people bowed before me and baked me chocolate cake, and, in two thousand years, people might find it and believe it to be a true historical record. But that wouldn't make it true.

Here's my ultimate question: If God exists, why doesn't he come down and talk to us. If he really wants our recognition, that's probably the best way to do it. Or, he could gain my respect by stopping the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa and redistributing the world's wealth, but that's another issue entirely.

We have free will, that's why. Think of religion like a constitution for a government. It provides the framework in which to solve problems, but the founders (God) aren't going to solve them for us. It is our humanity which provides the essence to overtake health problems, war, et cetera. If God did it all for us, that would undermine the entire point of our existence.

Well, it's not "Why I think atheists and agnostics are wrong." it's not even specific, like "Why I think there is a God." It's just, we're all wrong, period.

And then your reasoning is just the same old, same old. You believe in God, so you believe those who do not are wrong. This isn't an argument, it's just you asserting that your belief is superior to anyone else's. It's intellectually insulting whether you intended it or not.

I agree.

Well, it's not "Why I think atheists and agnostics are wrong." it's not even specific, like "Why I think there is a God." It's just, we're all wrong, period.

And then your reasoning is just the same old, same old. You believe in God, so you believe those who do not are wrong. This isn't an argument, it's just you asserting that your belief is superior to anyone else's. It's intellectually insulting whether you intended it or not.

Shall you have me change the post to "Why I Don't Agree With Atheists, Agnostics" ?

First of all, let's get a few things out of the way:

I am not one of your Pat Robertson-god-will-smite-you-if-you-don't-do-exactly-as-the-bible-says types.



You know, by saying that atheisim and agnosticisim is wrong, then you kind of are like Pat Robertson

I know spirituality exists because I EXPERIENCE IT EVERYDAY. To me, the Bible, and God offer the best reason why I feel this.

You don't know that there is a spiritual world. What you experience is something tha closely mimics something spiritual, but it's perfectly natural.

Dubya, here is my advice to you on threads of this sort
How do you feel when you see threads along the lines of "Why I know there is no God"? I dont like them because whatever author who has created them feels they know beyond a doubt that their "facts" are undoubtdly right. It is the same way here, except on the reverse side. IMO these threads are good for nothing but your post count.

We have free will, that's why. Think of religion like a constitution for a government. It provides the framework in which to solve problems, but the founders (God) aren't going to solve them for us. It is our humanity which provides the essence to overtake health problems, war, et cetera. If God did it all for us, that would undermine the entire point of our existence.

If God is benevolent, why would there be an AIDS crisis in the first place? What's going on is horrific, and the people suffering are the least deserving. God, assuming he does exist, must be cruel to turn his back on such pain.

Shall you have me change the post to "Why I Don't Agree With Atheists, Agnostics" ?
Perhaps 'Atheists/Agnostics are wrong becasue...' and a valid logical reason making as few assumptions as possible.

First of all, let's get a few things out of the way:

I am not one of your Pat Robertson-god-will-smite-you-if-you-don't-do-exactly-as-the-bible-says types.

Secondly, I am a devout Christian, although I have no intention whatsoever of forcing atheists or agnostics to follow my religion.

Thirdly, this isn't meant as a flame on atheists/agnostics, so please DONT FLAME ME.


As an agnostic I must tell you that a great many of us would take a very dim view of being associated with atheists in any manner. Of the three groups of individuals we are by far the most open minded of them, and freely admit that we do not know what the answers are when it comes to god. When we say we do not know, it means we do not know. There is no such thing as an agnostic that leans heavily against a belief in God. That is an athiest, and they try and associate us with them to make it appear there numbers are far greater than they are. We are not non-believers as you put it. Those are also athiests, and I for one would be very appreciative not to be catagorized with them.

As an agnostic I must tell you that a great many of us would take a very dim view of being associated with atheists in any manner. Of the three groups of individuals we are by far the most open minded of them, and freely admit that we do not know what the answers are when it comes to god. When we say we do not know, it means we do not know. There is no such thing as an agnostic that leans heavily against a belief in God. That is an athiest, and they try and associate us with them to make it appear there numbers are far greater than they are. We are not non-believers as you put it. Those are also athiests, and I for one would be very appreciative not to be catagorized with them.

I'm agnostic too, and I know what you mean, but I doubt that the world will stop lumping us together.

It's a beautiful feeling to be unsure.

We have free will, that's why. Think of religion like a constitution for a government. It provides the framework in which to solve problems, but the founders (God) aren't going to solve them for us. It is our humanity which provides the essence to overtake health problems, war, et cetera. If God did it all for us, that would undermine the entire point of our existence.

Would people stop using that bullshit free will defense. God is powerful enough to create a perfect world with which free will still exists. No pain, no unhappiness. But still free will. God can do it, why didn't he?

Hey, I'm just stating my point of view. To be honest, I think that religion needs a voice on this forum, considering all the anti-religion threads:)
I think Atheism has a voice on this forum, specifically because of the increased pressure on public life by religious groups.

Would people stop using that bullshit free will defense. God is powerful enough to create a perfect world with which free will still exists. No pain, no unhappiness. But still free will. God can do it, why didn't he?

Because a part of self-realization is overcoming your obstacles and helping your fellow human beings. Those who truly deserve salvation can do this, and religion helps a lot.

As an agnostic I must tell you that a great many of us would take a very dim view of being associated with atheists in any manner. Of the three groups of individuals we are by far the most open minded of them, and freely admit that we do not know what the answers are when it comes to god. When we say we do not know, it means we do not know. There is no such thing as an agnostic that leans heavily against a belief in God. That is an athiest, and they try and associate us with them to make it appear there numbers are far greater than they are. We are not non-believers as you put it. Those are also athiests, and I for one would be very appreciative not to be catagorized with them.

Ok, but you're still basically a non-believer, so I will keep it the way it is.

I am not a huge fan of political correctness, as you can tell. ;)

Rather than get on this merry-go-round, I'm going to put Mr Bukowski on it because Battestar Galactica is on...

For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can't readily accept the God formula, the big answers don't remain stone-written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command or faith a dictum. I am my own God. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us.

As an agnostic I must tell you that a great many of us would take a very dim view of being associated with atheists in any manner. Of the three groups of individuals we are by far the most open minded of them, and freely admit that we do not know what the answers are when it comes to god. When we say we do not know, it means we do not know. There is no such thing as an agnostic that leans heavily against a belief in God. That is an athiest, and they try and associate us with them to make it appear there numbers are far greater than they are. We are not non-believers as you put it. Those are also athiests, and I for one would be very appreciative not to be catagorized with them.

There's nothing wrong with atheists. We just say that we're going to deny that anything exists until it is show that it does. It's the logical position to take. Some do take it a bit far though, I admit. But we're not all bad.

Because a part of self-realization is overcoming your obstacles and helping your fellow human beings. Those who truly deserve salvation can do this, and religion helps a lot.

How the f*** are the 11 million African children orphaned by AIDS suppossed to overcome their problems? With all their money, healthcare, and parental advice? They shouldn't suffer just because the western world is a bit slow to become "self-realized." Get a better argument.

But the fact is is that you used the word WRONG, implying that it is bad to be an athiest, which is insulting.

If I say that 2+2+5, and you thought I was wrong, you have every right to tell me so. Similarily, if I don't agree with you, I have every right to tell you that you are wrong

Because a part of self-realization is overcoming your obstacles and helping your fellow human beings. Those who truly deserve salvation can do this, and religion helps a lot.

I think you mean to say that Faith helps a lot. While most religions require Faith, they themselves are just the blunt instruments for spreading Faith and their own particualr systems and doctrines. Faith I'm quite impressed with, religion is only as good as the people who use it.

Because a part of self-realization is overcoming your obstacles and helping your fellow human beings. Those who truly deserve salvation can do this, and religion helps a lot.

Why do we even have salvation? God gives you a soul when you are born. He takes it back when you die and either sends it to heaven or hell, depending what the persons life was like. What's the point?

How the f*** are the 11 million African children orphaned by AIDS suppossed to overcome their problems? With all their money, healthcare, and parental advice? They shouldn't suffer just because the western world is a bit slow to become "self-realized." Get a better argument.

Although, this scenario is tragic, self-realization doesn't always mean that you are healthy in body. It means primarily that you are healthy and pure in soul, and being healthy in body helps.

I believe in God and what the Bible says because it provides a moral framework for my life and it gives me hope and self-awareness.

I choose not to believe in God because the very possibility of a higher being capable of contravening the laws of morality and the consequences of my actions gives me "hope" that I need not really be responsible for them. "Forgiveness" is too easy: I don't want it.

The fact that I will be rewarded for good deeds is a positive feeling that can come only with religion.

I do good deeds because they are good, not for some after-death pay-off.

I think God is a benevolent, forgiving father figure who deserves respect and attention, ie. going to church, praying, repenting.

If there were a God, I would judge him on his record in caring for his "flock." Taking a look at human history, I'd say "Dad" hasn't done too well. If I ever met him, I'd give him one solid kick in the nuts... for every bloody massacre, every genocide, every f***ing useless war.

THE REASON why I think non-believers are wrong is because they simply refuse to recognize the positive presence in their lives and they choose to explain away things with science and psychology, et cetera, although these things just aren't able to explain many things.

"God" does not "explain" anything, because as you believers are always eager to point out in response to his logical contradictions, "he is supernatural and does not have to make sense." Well, here's news for you: "explanations" are the province of reason--if they don't make sense, they're not explanations.

Thus, the fact that "some things are unexplained" does not give us "God" as an explanation. Rather, it merely means that we're going to have to try harder if we want an explanation... and when we get one, it will make sense, because that's what explanations do. Since "God" does not make sense, he cannot be the explanation for anything.

However, this doesn't mean that I think that believers can't achieve salvation, just like some Christians can't. I just think that religion provides a route towards that salvation and increases one's chances of achieving.

How about this? I work my ass off to conform to the best moral standards that, with reason, I can figure out. If that's not good enough for "God," then he wouldn't be the kind of God I'd want to hang with anyway.

I know there are a lot of atheist/agnostic types out there, and I will be more than happy to debate this with you, but if you insult me, I just won't respond.

Just to be clear, I'm not insulting you.

I'm insulting your God.

If I say that 2+2+5, and you thought I was wrong, you have every right to tell me so. Similarily, if I don't agree with you, I have every right to tell you that you are wrong

It doesn't work that way. If you say 2+2=5, you have to give a damn good reason as to why that is.

Because a part of self-realization is overcoming your obstacles and helping your fellow human beings. Those who truly deserve salvation can do this, and religion helps a lot.


Interesting point. I belive in helping your fellow humans, but if god exists, why would he allow something like the Holocaust to happen? 30 million people dead.......

If I say that 2+2+5, and you thought I was wrong, you have every right to tell me so. Similarily, if I don't agree with you, I have every right to tell you that you are wrong

What you're doing is making a thread called "Mathematicians are wrong" and then your argument goes, "I believe 2+2 equals 5." Can you tell me what is flawed about this tactic?

Although, this scenario is tragic, self-realization doesn't always mean that you are healthy in body. It means primarily that you are healthy and pure in soul, and being healthy in body helps.

Living past the age of two helps, as well.

If I say that 2+2+5, and you thought I was wrong, you have every right to tell me so. Similarily, if I don't agree with you, I have every right to tell you that you are wrong

If you said that "2+2+5," I'd await an = before making a judgment. But if you said "2+2 = 5," I could say that I thought you were wrong, and (here's the critical part) prove with evidence why you were wrong. If you just say that you think God exists and thus disagree with atheists/agnostics, you still need to take care of that whole proof thing. And saying spirituality makes it so does not in fact make it so. You attribute spiritual feelings to some supernatural force for which your only evidence is a really old book and the aforementioned spiritual feelings. I attribute spiritual feelings to the fact that the human brain is an insanely complicated organ, and can make us feel all sorts of things. My evidence is the precedent established by most other feelings/mental states being explained by neurological activity. Personally, I think my evidence is just a teensy bit better.

Interesting point. I belive in helping your fellow humans, but if god exists, why would he allow something like the Holocaust to happen? 30 million people dead.......


Make that 15 million. I was thinking of Stalins great purge.

I just think that science can't explain spirituality.

Try the first 30 pages or so of Freud's Civilizations and Its Discontents. Straightforward and plausible... while I'm willing to allow that better explanations of spirituality may be out there, his analysis adequately demonstrates that the "oceanic feeling" of the spiritual is not beyond rational investigation.

You can only pick one:

1. God is not all powerful.

2. God doesn't love you.

3. Death, need, disease, and natural disasters are all wonderful blessings.

or 4. God works in mysterious ways (ie. the "DUR!" I have absolutely no way to back up my argument answer)

Ok, but you're still basically a non-believer, so I will keep it the way it is.

I am not a huge fan of political correctness, as you can tell. ;)

What ever floats your boat, but I will tell you this, you will not make people receptive to your ideas while you are insulting them.

Please consider:

nonbeliever
n : someone who refuses to believe (as in a divinity)

Summary: Atheists are wrong because science is stupid, it doesn't say god exists which is true, because science can't say he doesn't.

Can we finish up here now? Please?

2+2 -does- equal 5...for very large values of 2...

I think Atheism has a voice on this forum, specifically because of the increased pressure on public life by religious groups.

Maybe atheism has a voice on this forum because this forum seems to attract posters with more education and/or intellect than the average internet forum... and atheist opinions have been shown to correlate positively with both independent variables.

Why do we even have salvation? God gives you a soul when you are born. He takes it back when you die and either sends it to heaven or hell, depending what the persons life was like. What's the point?
Ummm, I dont know what religion in particular you are refering to, but that isn't the case at all. The point is that we are imperfect beings, and therefore we sin. The point isn't that we either go to heaven or hell based on our deeds during life, but that we accept our own mortality and imperfection and ask forgiveness for our sins.

Try the first 30 pages or so of Freud's Civilizations and Its Discontents. Straightforward and plausible... while I'm willing to allow that better explanations of spirituality may be out there, his analysis adequately demonstrates that the "oceanic feeling" of the spiritual is not beyond rational investigation.

Wasn't Freud on Cocaine? The better explanation of the situation is that there is a part of the human brain that allows us to believe in God. Nobody knows why, though. Christians think it's there because God exists. Aethiests think that "god" exists because it's there.

That's nice. But it doesn't make anyone else *wrong*.



Wrong. Have you ever helped out a homeless person? I have. That was a good deed that gave me a positive feeling and it had nothing to do with religion.



That's nice. I think God is a fictional being.



Non-believers refuse to recognize positive presences in their lives? Since when? You just pulled that 'reason' out of nowhere. Your assumptions do not, again, make anyone else *wrong.*



Well, being told I'm "wrong" for my belief straight-out is something I consider an insult, myself. There's nothing "wrong" about me, regardless of what you think, believe or assume. Can you dig it?

He isint insulting at all he is just showing what he thinks.

Another thing how do you know he hasnt help a homeless person? im a christian and i help homeless people and i tell you it has nothing to do with religion it's just a good deed and is something that should be done by every human being regardless of Race,Culture or Religion.

It's nice that your a Atheist but you also make it quite to our knowleage that you think we are wrounge so i think you should keep your Tounge in your mouth before you become a hippocrit.

Now i shall leave this topic because i have shown where i stand and do not wish to get into a arguement.

Ummm, I dont know what religion in particular you are refering to, but that isn't the case at all. The point is that we are imperfect beings, and therefore we sin. The point isn't that we either go to heaven or hell based on our deeds during life, but that we accept our own mortality and imperfection and ask forgiveness for our sins.

What is "sin". If there's some sort of icky wrongness inside human beings from point of conception, I'm sure we'll evolve our way out of it.

Ummm, I dont know what religion in particular you are refering to, but that isn't the case at all. The point is that we are imperfect beings, and therefore we sin. The point isn't that we either go to heaven or hell based on our deeds during life, but that we accept our own mortality and imperfection and ask forgiveness for our sins.

Why are we on earth? What is God doing with us? Just screwing around trying to see how many people he can fool? Why does God not make his existance proveable?

Why do we even have salvation? God gives you a soul when you are born. He takes it back when you die and either sends it to heaven or hell, depending what the persons life was like. What's the point?


Yeah, sin hasn't mattered in Christianity for -years- now. You can sin all you want you just have to say your sorry when you're done.

He isint insulting at all he is just showing what he thinks.

In an insulting way. Kind of like some others I know.


Another thing how do you know he hasnt help a homeless person? im a christian and i help homeless people i give them upto 50$ but you must see that some people pretend to be homeless so you cant just give money away like crazy.


Yeah I didn't know he hasn't helped a homeless person. That's why there was a question mark involved.


It's nice that your a Atheist but you also make it quite to our knowleage that you think we are wrounge so i think you should keep your mouth shut before you become a hippocrit.

I think you should leave this thread before you wind up in an argument with people who knows how to read and write.

Now i shall leave this topic because i have shown where i stand and do not wish to get into a arguement.

Oops, spoke too soon.

What is "sin". If there's some sort of icky wrongness inside human beings from point of conception, I'm sure we'll evolve our way out of it.

Religious morality and what's evolutionarily beneficial have nothing to do with one another. Sex has to feel good for the human race to perpetuate, but every priest and his mother would like to convince you otherwise, that enjoying sex is a huge transgression against God.

What is "sin". If there's some sort of icky wrongness inside human beings from point of conception, I'm sure we'll evolve our way out of it.

Evolution effect the body and has nothing to do with the spirit.

Humans have been around in science terms for 40,000 years and our attitude hasnt changed.

Most importent things 4000 years ago
1.How much gold you had
2.your looks
3.the amount of power in the grasp

Look at that and then tell my we will evolve out of 'Icky Wrongness'

What is "sin". If there's some sort of icky wrongness inside human beings from point of conception, I'm sure we'll evolve our way out of it.

God gave us free will. He gave us the choice to sin. So why punish us for it. Gives us the choice, but if we make one that doesn't suit him he sends us to hell. What's the point of free will then? If we don't want to be close to God why can't he send us somewhere nice where he isn't around?

God gave us free will. He gave us the choice to sin. So why punish us for it. Gives us the choice, but if we make one that doesn't suit him he sends us to hell. What's the point of free will then? If we don't want to be close to God why can't he send us somewhere nice where he isn't around?

Exactly. Why did he 1) provide us with the ability to sin, and 2) the temptations to do so in the first place? Why say that greed is a sin and then put us on a planet with limited resources and the ability to feel greedy and covetous? It's like leaving your pet alone for a week and then smacking it for going on the rug.

Science is the only method we have of finding facts and truth.
ahaahahhahah (liq.) a fact is something you say or I say and you disagree with. Truth is what we all agree about. Sceince is theory that can never be 100% but atleat will allow engineers to repeat something.


Do you think for one minute that it's fun to be an atheist?

I was an atheist once. I was more so upset with g-d, but then I found peace, atheism was very peaceful until stimulus response made me feel inhumane. Paradox of course was the epitome of atheism. Which led back to faith.. but my perception of faith is a little more personal and broad now. More defined but more open. I definately did have meaning as an atheist though and that was to be at peace in life. Quite the contrary I did not and do not fear death. As an atheist with logic death was illogical I could not beleive in my own death it was redundant to have thought or to conceive my inabiity to exist if I could not exist to know it. Thus this fed my sense of self worth and morals to do good since I will be hear forever as much as forever exists in my logical awareness. Thus in relizing my own divinity that the goal was not to be g-d alone but to be an equal enhancer of human society. As that of many veiwpoints of the greater will of g-d all of us eqaul in communication, absolute, yet different. There is no reason to fear what you cannot know.


Truth is what is, and morals are absolute.

Guys we really need to end this argument. It is pointless and impossible for either side to come out the victor.

The main problem with this entire argument is one that many philosophers and scientists have also encountered. It is quite simple. Science and math are based on logic and fact. Religion is based on belief and faith. You can't use one to prove or disprove the other... the two can't be used in argument against each other because they don't exist in the same realm of thought. Period. End of story.

Wasn't Freud on Cocaine?

He quit long before writing Civilization and its Discontents, one of his last works before Moses and Monotheism, in which he argued that Moses was an Egyptian (from the Egyptian word "moises") who copied the Ten Commandments almost verbatim out of the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

The better explanation...

How can you argue for a "better explanation" when, as far as I can tell, you are not aware of Freud's?

Perhaps you thought his cocaine use had something to do with his notion of God? :confused:

Quite the contrary. Freud was a life-long atheist who claimed not to feel this "oceanic", "spiritual" feeling that others claim for themselves... and who therefore tried to "diagnose" it in others.

He makes a rather plausible argument that the feeling is an abstraction of a sense of "connectedness" with the world, of a dissolution of the self, probably stemming from infancy when the undeveloped self was, in a psychological sense, not differentiated from the world.

In brief: the feeling of spirituality, of a deep connection with the "universe," is actually a symptom of an undeveloped sense of self.

As I said, there may be better explanations out there... but this is some pretty clear reasoning about what believers claim is "unknowable."

...there is a part of the human brain that allows us to believe in God. Nobody knows why, though.

Then it's not much of an "explanation" is it? It amounts to, "we just do." ;)

Exactly. Why did he 1) provide us with the ability to sin, and 2) the temptations to do so in the first place? Why say that greed is a sin and then put us on a planet with limited resources and the ability to feel greedy and covetous? It's like leaving your pet alone for a week and then smacking it for going on the rug.

Wonderful example.:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

I know spirituality exists because I EXPERIENCE IT EVERYDAY. To me, the Bible, and God offer the best reason why I feel this.

How do you know that what you experience is the kind of experience you believe it to be? That is, what makes it "spiritual" rather than a mental function you didn't know you had?

ahaahahhahah (liq.) a fact is something you say or I say and you disagree with. Truth is what we all agree about. Sceince is theory that can never be 100% but atleat will allow engineers to repeat something.


Do you think for one minute that it's fun to be an atheist?

I was an atheist once. I was more so upset with g-d, but then I found peace, atheism was very peaceful until stimulus response made me feel inhumane. Paradox of course was the epitome of atheism. Which led back to faith.. but my perception of faith is a little more personal and broad now. More defined but more open. I definately did have meaning as an atheist though and that was to be at peace in life. Quite the contrary I did not and do not fear death. As an atheist with logic death was illogical I could not beleive in my own death it was redundant to have thought or to conceive my inabiity to exist if I could not exist to know it. Thus this fed my sense of self worth and morals to do good since I will be hear forever as much as forever exists in my logical awareness. Thus in relizing my own divinity that the goal was not to be g-d alone but to be an equal enhancer of human society. As that of many veiwpoints of the greater will of g-d all of us eqaul in communication, absolute, yet different. There is no reason to fear what you cannot know.


Truth is what is, and morals are absolute.


Morals are not absolute. Even if they were they wouldn't mean anything. I don't like your view of morality, so I'll go against it whether it's moral or not. Many other will do the same.

Truth is what we all agree about.
Truth is what is, and morals are absolute.

Oh thank goodness then. I was worried for a while that people might disagree with each other sometimes, but it's clear from your post that they don't.

He quit long before writing Civilization and its Discontents, one of his last works before Moses in Monotheism, in which he argued that Moses was an Egyptian (from the Egyptian word "moises") who copied the Ten Commandments almost verbatim out of the Egyptian Book of the Dead.



How can you argue for a "better explanation" when, as far as I can tell, you are not aware of Freud's?

Perhaps you thought his cocaine use had something to do with his notion of God? :confused:

Quite the contrary. Freud was a life-long atheist who claimed not to feel this "oceanic", "spiritual" feeling that others claim for themselves... and who therefore tried to "diagnose" it in others.

He makes a rather plausible argument that the feeling is an abstraction of a sense of "connectedness" with the world, of a dissolution of the self, probably stemming from infancy when the undeveloped self was, in a psychological sense, not differentiated from the world.

In brief: the feeling of spirituality, of a deep connection with the "universe," is actually a symptom of an undeveloped sense of self.

As I said, there may be better explanations out there... but this is some pretty clear reasoning about what believers claim is "unknowable."



Then it's not much of an "explanation" is it? It amounts to, "we just do." ;)

I didn't mean to suggest that Freud wasn't entirely right. There's a possibility that he was, but most of his speculations were recently proved incorrect, which calls his judgement into question.
And "we just do" is basically the argument I use, when it comes to life. As far as I'm concerned, life has no meaning. We just live, and anyone spending too much time pondering over the issue is likely to drive himself crazy.

Now, I think you're generalizing this greatly. Much like I believe there are Christians who do not turly follow all the Bible says or the ways of the current church, Atheists and Agnostics have a similar system.

I am agnostic, but I follow spirituality very much. I do not see a God as the Bible claims it to be, like a father figure who commanded early humans. Neither do I see sense in the Bible. To me it truly seems like man's creation to explain the then-unexplained.
I see more of a presence who may or may not have power over us or all. I refuse to set any facts on that. I also believe several atheists are somewhat wrong when it comes to completely denying any existance of spirituality. My view of what I stand in spiritualy would lean to another topic of discussion, but there is no need to reconsider the existence of a moral framework as you put it.
Now, there are some who are not spiritual at all, and I'm fine with that point of view. But what I often see there is a blank space. Whenever I hear of people basing their beliefs on science alone, I see hypocrisy. They claim science to be the law of the universe when at the same time call the belief of religion false... both beliefs created by man! Some of the hardcore scientist will argue with me now for claiming science to be "false", although there are many laws and theories I believe in, like evolution, the denial of a spirit world and calling every person who has had a "spiritual exprience" a lunatic or crazy is just too narrow minded.
Religion has some elements of spirituality, and I truly admire the historical Jesus for his belief. If you take what Christianity is now to what he intended, I think he'd be very disappointed. His idea was one simply based on love, sharing, and treating all with respect, not the bullshit man added to the Bible.
Still, religion and spirituality are very different, for religion nowadays is based more on a forced community task, where as spirituality as I see it is based on independent communication with others. Not being religious at all, I still have morals to follow. I respect, share, and treat others how I would myself. I still feel guilt if I know I could have prevented something, or if a cause of suffer was by me, etc. So would my atheist friend. In all, I think humans naturally have this moral framework and therefore no religion is needed.

I've always thought as religion being an alternative to the spirit world due to our lack of brain power.


So even though I think you should reconsider Christianity, I won't bash the religion. But definitely consider that some atheists but mostly agnostics and deists out there have morals without religion. Some of which have even claimed to have some belief to some aspects of my view on spirituality without my mentioning it.

Humans have been around in science terms for 40,000 years and our attitude hasnt changed.


Try 1 million years. And we have no evidence for "attitudes" during prehistory.

I am agnostic, but I follow spirituality very much.

All those "I'm spiritual but not religious" people really piss me off. Nine times out of ten they're weirdos that believe in ghosts, Ouija boards, and "spirit worlds" and are no better than religious nuts. With spiritual people for every ounce less intolerance and fanaticism you get a big scoop of crazy.

Try 1 million years. And we have no evidence for "attitudes" during prehistory.
One million? Since when?

I didn't mean to suggest that Freud wasn't entirely right. There's a possibility that he was, but most of his speculations were recently proved incorrect, which calls his judgement into question.

Which of his "speculations" were "recently proved incorrect"? Last I heard, sensitive empirical tests of psychoanalytic theories were being developed that demonstrate their validity.

(For instance, psychoanalytic theory has long argued that homophobia is a defense against unsuccessfully repressed homosexual feelings--a theory that positive psychology claimed was untestable. Recently, however, machines have been developed that measure minute physical arousal in the penis. Straight men, attached to these machines, were first given surveys measuring their thoughts and feelings about homosexuals and homosexual intercourse, and they were then shown videos featuring depictions of sex between men. The least homophobic straight men showed the least physical arousal; the most homophobic men showed the most physical arousal. Afterward, they were asked their opinions of the experience: the homophobes were unaware of their arousal. Thus, this provides support for the theory that they have unconscious, unsuccessfully repressed homosexual feelings themselves.)

Yes, some of Freud's specific notions have been undermined or expanded... but mostly by psychoanalysts interested in developing the field he had invented. More generally, his sense of female sexuality was clouded by his sexism (although not nearly so badly as some critics contend). But there is little strong evidence that psychoanalysis is not based on a firm foundation (though there is much prejudice to this effect); and there is therefore no reason to reject specific claims without evaluating them on their own merits.

One million? Since when?

The earliest homo sapiens have been traced back around 60,000 years, but our ancestors have been walking on two feet for over four million.

Morals are defined. Individually. You have yours, I have mine.
A Truth is also NOT static. What is considered static (i.e. gravity) is called a 'law'. Truths and axioms have changed on many occaisions (i.e. flat earth).

Perhaps we're using different meanings for the word truth. I see truth as the thing that is absolute. Flat Earth was an assumption, not truth according to my, and the most common, definition for the word.

All those "I'm spiritual but not religious" people really piss me off. Nine times out of ten they're weirdos that believe in ghosts, Ouija boards, and "spirit worlds" and are no better than religious nuts. With spiritual people for every ounce less intolerance and fanaticism you get a big scoop of crazy.

i don't think that all the people who are "spiritual" without religion are nuts. My ex girlfriend was of the "ghost-seeing atheist" type, and yeah, they're compeltely binkers, but I have a lot of friends who, I don't know how to put it aside from saying that they're spiritual but not at all religious. One friend says he feels incredibly intimately connected with his girlfriend, and that's it feels like more than science. So here's the way that figures: It IS just science, until we think about it enough. Sound good?

Besides, being "spiritual" might just have to do with the Human Spirit.

Which of his "speculations" were "recently proved incorrect"? Last I heard, sensitive empirical tests of psychoanalytic theories were being developed that demonstrate their validity.

(For instance, psychoanalytic theory has long argued that homophobia is a defense against unsuccessfully repressed homosexual feelings--a theory that positive psychology claimed was untestable. Recently, however, machines have been developed that measure minute physical arousal in the penis. Straight men, attached to these machines, were first given surveys measuring their thoughts and feelings about homosexuals and homosexual intercourse, and they were then shown videos featuring depictions of sex between men. The least homophobic straigt men showed the least physical arousal; the most homophobic men showed the most physical arousal. Afterward, they were asked their opinions of the experience: the homophobes were unaware of their arousal. Thus, this provides support for the theory that they have unconscious, unsuccessfully repressed homosexual feelings themselves.)

Yes, some of Freud's specific notions have been undermined or expanded... but mostly by psychoanalysts interested in developing the field he had invented. More generally, his sense of female sexuality was clouded by his sexism (although not nearly so badly as some critics contend). But there is little strong evidence that psychoanalysis is not based on a firm foundation (though there is much prejudice to this effect); and there is therefore no reason to reject specific claims without evaluating them on their own merits.

The mother-complex and anal-retentive stuff isn't exactly widely accepted.

Perhaps we're using different meanings for the word truth. I see truth as the thing that is absolute. Flat Earth was an assumption, not truth according to my, and the most common, definition for the word.

Then there might as well not be any truth because there's no way for us to be certain about -anything-, all we can do is assume and make educated guesses. You're pretty sure that when you get out of bed in the morning you're going to fall downward but you can never whether that's really "true".

It's pointless to have that definition because then you'd have to admit that Truth doesn't really exist from our perspective.

Then there might as well not be any truth because there's no way for us to be certain about -anything-, all we can do is assume and make educated guesses. You're pretty sure that when you get out of bed in the morning you're going to fall downward but you can never whether that's really "true".

It's pointless to have that definition because then you'd have to admit that Truth doesn't really exist from our perspective.

Not so. Truth does exist and has a very precise definition, but unfortunately it's such a complex idea that human language can't communicate it adequately.

The mother-complex and anal-retentive stuff isn't exactly widely accepted.

Most of Frued's theories have been rewritten, rejected, or recognized as completly scientifically unverifiable (and therefore useless for most psychologists), but that doesn't lessen his contribution to humanity. He changed psychological disorders from a criminal offense to a treatable disease. Before his work no one had ever thought that actually listening to someone problems might make a difference. Sure some of his ideas about babies were a little off and he was certainly biased when it came to women and religion, but that doesn't change the fact that he is one of history's most brilliant and influential minds on par with Einstien and Newton.

Not so. Truth does exist and has a very precise definition, but unfortunately it's such a complex idea that human language can't communicate it adequately.

Exactly, so as far as we're concerned there is no "truth" because we will never be able to comprehend it.

Exactly, so as far as we're concerned there is no "truth" because we will never be able to comprehend it.

We can comprehend it and we know what it is. But we just can't tell other people what it is. It has an intuitive definition. All we can do is give examples of truth so that others will develop the same definition.

The mother-complex and anal-retentive stuff isn't exactly widely accepted.

You obviously don't know your psychoanalytic theory. The "mother complex" is Jungian, rejected by Freud. (Though Freud identifies the mother as the primary love object, his analysis was more straightforward in that he made the same assumption for both male and female children. Jung insisted that sexuality is innate, which led to perverse complications of the theory.)

The term "anal-retentive" has been abused and over-used in popular culture, to the point that it bears little relation to its meaning in psychoanalytic theory. Of course, theorists' evaluation of its relevance varies... but these are all theorists working with the fundamental assumptions of psychoanalytic theory, which have met with general success.

In the first years of relativity, physicists made many mistaken deductions based on misunderstandings and confusions of the theory's implications. That physicists now know better does not invalidate the theory as such. The same is true of psychoanalysis.

Most of Frued's theories have been rewriteen, rejected, or recognized as completly scientifically unverifiable (and therefore useless for most psychologists), but that doesn't lessen his contribution to humanity. He changed psychological disorders from a criminal offense to a treatable disease. efore his work no one had ever thought that actually listening to someone problems might make a difference. Sure some of his ideas about babies were a little off and he was certainly biased when it came to women and religion, but that doesn't change the fact that he is one of history's most brilliant and inluential minds on par with Einstien and Newton.

I never said that he didn't contribute to society. Anybody referenced as often as he is certainly did. I was simply suggesting reasons why his theories should be viewed with caution. Evaluating theories by considering the viability of the mind behind them is an important part of understanding them, and choosing whether or not to accept them.

My ideas about religion are as follows: Church is a great way to meet new people, learn how to sing, give your kids a place to socialize and feel welcome, and convince stupid people to not do stupid things. I'll bring my kids to church as they're growing up and all that, but I'll still know in my heart that it's a bunch of lies just to meet an specified end.

One million? Since when?

I was going from H. erectus, not from H. sapiens sapiens, sorry.

My ideas about religion are as follows: Church is a great way to meet new people, learn how to sing, give your kids a place to socialize and feel welcome, and convince stupid people to not do stupid things. I'll bring my kids to church as they're growing up and all that, but I'll still know in my heart that it's a bunch of lies just to meet an specified end.

Good for you. :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

I never said that he didn't contribute to society. Anybody referenced as often as he is certainly did. I was simply suggesting reasons why his theories should be viewed with caution. Evaluating theories by considering the viability of the mind behind them is an important part of understanding them, and choosing whether or not to accept them.

Science is a process that's built one block at a time. Using your logic Copernicus was a complete idiot because he thought orbits were circular, so we should completely ignore heliocentricism. No, he was pretty much right and his ideas have been added to and subtracted from to make a more complete view of how our universe functions. Same thing with Freud. Sure you can't take all of his theories on face value, but you certainly can't condemn the man for his theories or vice-versa.

I think any and all hardcore Christians have departed though, so I believe our discussion has come to an end.

You obviously don't know your psychoanalytic theory. The "mother complex" is Jungian, rejected by Freud. (Though Freud identifies the mother as the primary love object, his analysis was more straightforward in that he made the same assumption for both male and female children. Jung insisted that sexuality is innate, which led to perverse complications of the theory.)


I think he meant Oedipus complex. Anyway, only some of Freuds ideas have been verified cross-culturally. It's a little presumptuous to establish theories of the human mind based of of a non-representative sample (Westerners only).

You obviously don't know your psychoanalytic theory. The "mother complex" is Jungian, rejected by Freud. (Though Freud identifies the mother as the primary love object, his analysis was more straightforward in that he made the same assumption for both male and female children. Jung insisted that sexuality is innate, which led to perverse complications of the theory.)

The term "anal-retentive" has been abused and over-used in popular culture, to the point that it bears little relation to its meaning in psychoanalytic theory. Of course, theorists' evaluation of its relevance varies... but these are all theorists working with the fundamental assumptions of psychoanalytic theory, which have met with general success.

In the first years of relativity, physicists made many mistake deductions based on misunderstandings and confusions of the theory's implications. That physicists now know better does not invalidate the theory as such. The same is true of psychoanalysis.

Perhaps I mis-phrased my post. By "mother complex," I meant the theory that the sexuality of a boy is based upon a relationship to his mother. I also forgot to mention his rejected theories of infants passing through stages of sexuality.
To be honest, I don't know enough about Freud to start a debate. I'm not trying to attack you or his theories. I just wanted to ask a question and offer an idea.

First of all, let's get a few things out of the way:

I am not one of your Pat Robertson-god-will-smite-you-if-you-don't-do-exactly-as-the-bible-says types.

Secondly, I am a devout Christian, although I have no intention whatsoever of forcing atheists or agnostics to follow my religion.

Thirdly, this isn't meant as a flame on atheists/agnostics, so please DONT FLAME ME.

Now let's get down to business.

I believe in God and what the Bible says because it provides a moral framework for my life and it gives me hope and self-awareness. The fact that I will be rewarded for good deeds is a positive feeling that can come only with religion. (this includes all regions, I just choose to follow Christianity:)

I think God is a benevolent, forgiving father figure who deserves respect and attention, ie. going to church, praying, repenting.

THE REASON why I think non-believers are wrong is because they simply refuse to recognize the positive presence in their lives and they choose to explain away things with science and psychology, et cetera, although these things just aren't able to explain many things.

However, this doesn't mean that I think that believers can't achieve salvation, just like some Christians can't. I just think that religion provides a route towards that salvation and increases one's chances of achieving.

I know there are a lot of atheist/agnostic types out there, and I will be more than happy to debate this with you, but if you insult me, I just won't respond.:cool:

Thank you for your time :)
I know right from wrong, have hope and I don't believe in a god. I do what I can for others with no promise or expectation of a reward in life or after my death. Whats wrong about that?

I think he meant Oedipus complex. Anyway, only some of Freuds ideas have been verified cross-culturally. It's a little presumptuous to establish theories of the human mind based of of a non-representative sample (Westerners only).

Yes, I meant Oedipus, but couldn't remember how to spell it. And for future reference, I do not posses a Y-chromosome.

I know right from wrong, have hope and I don't believe in a god. I do what I can for others with no promise or expectation of a reward in life or after my death. Whats wrong about that?

But Christians would say that you really have no idea what's "right and wrong" becasue you're basing your morals on your own arbitrary judgement and not the judgement of the creator passed down to us by the bible. You really aren't doig any "good" things becasue you're not doing them through Jesus.

Science is a process that's built one block at a time. Using your logic Copernicus was a complete idiot because he thought orbits were circular, so we should completely ignore heliocentricism. No, he was pretty much right and his ideas have been added to and subtracted from to make a more complete view of how our universe functions. Same thing with Freud. Sure you can't take all of his theories on face value, but you certainly can't condemn the man for his theories or vice-versa.

I'm bordering on frustration right now. I did NOT condemn Freud. All I said was that some of his theories weren't 100% right. Perhaps you could try actually reading the rest of my posts.

I It's a little presumptuous to establish theories of the human mind based of of a non-representative sample (Westerners only).

Because it's perfectly resonable to expect someone born when telephones weren't invented to have sampling groups from China.

Yes, I meant Oedipus, but couldn't remember how to spell it. And for future reference, I do not posses a Y-chromosome.

Ah, sorry ma'am ~tip of the hat~. Oh, but chromosomes actually only determine sex, not gender. ;)

Most of Frued's theories have been rewritten, rejected, or recognized as completly scientifically unverifiable

Well, you have to give the history to get the full perspective.

Psychoanalysis was widely accepted and implemented for the first 30-40 years of its existence. But some psychologists were dissatisfied with the fact that it did not conform to "hard science" standards of generalizability and materiality. "Behavioralism" was born, essentially the polar opposite of psychoanalysis in that it basically wrote off any discussion of the "mind" in favor of a discussion of "behaviors" that were measurable in the same ways as physical science variables.

Behavioralism enjoyed a relatively brief period of dominance before psychologists began to realize that its terms and its standards were simply inadequate to the problems of treating the human mind. (A small number of pure behavioralists persist in psychology, but their influence in recent years has been minimal at best.)

"Psychology," as differentiated from psychoanalysis, nevertheless retained a firm commitment to a positivist epistemology through the late 80s. However, with developments such as "paradox theory" in family counseling, and clinical tests that showed psychoanalytic success with neuroses comparable to other forms of therapy, the influence of psychoanalytic theorists began to creep back in. Nancy McWilliams has been particularly influential.

Today, increasing numbers of "psychologists" are coming to understand the psychoanalytic theory has much to tell them about the workings and development of the human mind. Some long-experienced psychologists are going back to study psychonalysis, and colleges and private firms have increasingly included at least one psychoanalyst in their counseling staff.

(My father, by the way, is a counseling psychologist -- Ph.D. -- who was trained in a cognitive-behavioral approach. Recently he has been going back to psychoanalytic theory, after hiring a Lacanian psychoanalyst as his assistant.)

I'm bordering on frustration right now. I did NOT condemn Freud. All I said was that some of his theories weren't 100% right. Perhaps you could try actually reading the rest of my posts.

Apologies all around. Besides, this really has nothing to do with the main idea of this board.

Recently he has been going back to psychoanalytic theory, after hiring a Lacanian psychoanalyst as his assistant.)

Lacan is the shit just so you guys know.

Where do you guys stand as far as teaching children religious ideas from a young age, baptism, and the like?

I think he meant Oedipus complex. Anyway, only some of Freuds ideas have been verified cross-culturally.

Actually, you just have to understand that the terms change somewhat. In matriarchal societies, for instance, we have found an "Oedipus complex" in which the male protagonist/antagonist (depending on whether we're talking about a positive or negative Oedipus complex) is the mother's brother rather than her husband.

It's a little presumptuous to establish theories of the human mind based of of a non-representative sample (Westerners only).

Even if he could explain only the Western mind (which I am not admitting), that's quite an accomplishment... we don't exactly make a lot of sense!

Apologies all around. Besides, this really has nothing to do with the main idea of this board.

Precisely. And, although it's not really in my proud nature (I'm a soprano), I'll apologise for jumping into an argument without really thinking about it. I'm still p.o.'d about the HIV/AIDS thing, so I was ready to argue with anyone.

I'm still p.o.'d about the HIV/AIDS thing, so I was ready to argue with anyone.

???

But Christians would say that you really have no idea what's "right and wrong" becasue you're basing your morals on your own arbitrary judgement and not the judgement of the creator passed down to us by the bible. You really aren't doig any "good" things becasue you're not doing them through Jesus.

And likewise the people of Paupa New Guinea could say Christians have no idea of what's right and wrong because they do not behave like "humans."

???

I've been mad all week about AIDS in Africa, and I brought it up here, wondering how a "god" could condone such pain, and was met with rather insufficient responses.

And likewise the people of Paupa New Guinea could say Christians have no idea of what's right and wrong because they do not behave like "humans."

Exactly the reason why all morality is cirumstantial, changing over distances, over time, and between individuals.

But the conundrums set in when a majority has to get together and enforce rules to form a society. Sure most people think murder is never justified, but some people think that killing a cheating wife is completely blameless. Who are we to say they're wrong??

Because it's perfectly resonable to expect someone born when telephones weren't invented to have sampling groups from China.

Oh yeah, I forgot that at the turn of the century no one had been to any part of the world besides Europe and the great old US. :rolleyes:

Perhaps I mis-phrased my post. By "mother complex," I meant the theory that the sexuality of a boy is based upon a relationship to his mother.

Yeah, that would be Jung. For Freud, both children's sexuality was determined based upon their relationship to the father, and--as feminist psychoanalysts have since argued--this was due in essence to society's patriarchal relations rather than innate psychological structures. Thus, as society's gender roles become more equal, the Oedipus complex fades in importance in favor of other relationships.

I also forgot to mention his rejected theories of infants passing through stages of sexuality.

Also widely misunderstood. The term "stages" is perhaps to be listed among his greatest mistakes (or at least his English translator's). The theory never implied that psychosexual development goes in any particular order (they may even happen at the same time) or that they relate to each other with any degree of importance, with the exception of the mature stage entered into with the resolution of the Oedipus complex.

More importantly, infantile fixations with the mouth--sucking on things, putting things into it--have been extensively verified empirically. Most children go through similar phases of fascination with their anuses and their feces, and hardly anyone will deny a fascination with the sexual organs (penis, clitoris) upon discovering them.

To be honest, I don't know enough about Freud to start a debate.

Few do. He is perennially troubled by the bastardizations that his theories underwent in popular culture; indeed, many generations of professional psychologists who "rejected" him actually never read him, but opposed his theories on the basis of common "knowledge."

I respect your being honest about it however. And I do not mean to be a pure apologist for Freud. He was wrong, about a good number of things. But I do wish to defend his basic assumptions and major theories against attacks that are, in my experience, largely contingent on misunderstandings.

I've been mad all week about AIDS in Africa, and I brought it up here, wondering how a "god" could condone such pain, and was met with rather insufficient responses.

Becuase all the suffering in this world just doesn't jive with the idea of a loving all powerful God. I think if you want to stay religious and happy you have to take the Calvanist view that God is so powerful and infinite that we can never possibly understand his actions or his motives. Calvanists see that it's useless to try and ask god what he's doing becasue even if he did decide to explain it we still could never understand.

Where do you guys stand as far as teaching children religious ideas from a young age, baptism, and the like?

I think the best option is to tell them what's out there (and I don't mean just the Big 6) and let them read, think, and feel for themselves.

Personally I think Moses just went up to mount Sinai and carved those commandments himself. Why do you think that he had to conveniently go alone to a mountain whenever he wanted to talk to God, and he coincidentally hasn't talked to anyone since except hobos?

But in the end who can blame him. What better way to unite a large group of people in hard times than to give them faith and hope and direction?

Exactly the reason why all morality is cirumstantial, changing over distances, over time, and between individuals.

But the conundrums set in when a majority has to get together and enforce rules to form a society. Sure most people think murder is never justified, but some people think that killing a cheating wife is completely blameless. Who are we to say they're wrong??

Oh, I agree that it is subjective.

However, it is generally agreed upon withing a society. We are just nowadays - with our hodgepodge culture - having to confront these problems. Knowing that our culture (if it is a culture) is mishmashed, however, means that we must seek means other than spirituality to comeby laws and mores.

Becuase all the suffering in this world just doesn't jive with the idea of a loving all powerful God. I think if you want to stay religious and happy you have to take the Calvanist view that God is so powerful and infinite that we can never possibly understand his actions or his motives. Calvanists see that it's useless to try and ask god what he's doing becasue even if he did decide to explain it we still could never understand.

Actually, I don't want to be religious and happy. I love the freedom that comes with atheism. I was just trying to deflate the theory that pain happens because God gave us free-will. HIV-positive Africans don't really have the ability to change their lives without outside intervention.

Oh, I agree that it is subjective.

However, it is generally agreed upon withing a society. We are just nowadays - with our hodgepodge culture - having to confront these problems. Knowing that our culture (if it is a culture) is mishmashed, however, means that we must seek means other than spirituality to comeby laws and mores.

Some people can accept morals based soley on traditions or faith, but using that as a policy for governments ended sometime around the Enlightenment. Governments have to use reason and reality to decide which laws will truly help keep a stable and safe government brining the greatest amount of good the the largest number of people, all based on the will of the majority. Not everyone can agree to the Bible or the Quoran, and besides, a lot has changed in 2000 years.

Excuse me? We explan away things with science and psychology? Science is the only method we have of finding facts and truth. We refuse to accept positive influence in our lives? What a crock of shit. Do you think for one minute that it's fun to be an atheist? We have no meaning to our lives. We have nothing to give us hope when we need it most. We fear death because we know that after death there is nothing. It is in no way fun or enjoyable to be atheistic. I'd love for God to exist. I'd love for eternal life in heaven. But I don't care about what I want. i care about truth. The only way to find truth is through science and philosophy. Faith has nothing to do with truth whatsoever. I really don't like you thinking that we're wrong when it's us that use the very method that defines right and wrong. So true, however Im not afraid of death, I like the idea of knowing theres nothing after we die. I would be more afraid of death if I knew Id live forever. It true we have no purpose or meaning of life and are no more important than an ant. oh well

i'm not sure about god/religion and all that jazz, but it doesn't mean i can't make my own meaning, my own hope/"positive influences" I still serve, still obligate myself to others.

hell, not devoutly worshiping/belieiing in a religion has probly made me more of what one would characterize as christian. i don't care if there is or isn't a god, but i do think the poor, the meek, those who are persecuted, those who thirst and hunger for justice...etc. are blessed, and that they should be put first. not because the bible tells me, but because it makes rational sense, poverty and injustice is a direct cause of societal problems....
The point is, you can still be a competenet, thoughtful, good human being, by believing in the power of man, not god.

Morals are relative, we have our natural societal laws, but much of it is relative: sex, speech, love; all things that can be relative.

i think the French existentialist, jean-paul sartre had it best:

"Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth."

So true, however Im not afraid of death, I like the idea of knowing theres nothing after we die. I would be more afraid of death if I knew Id live forever. It true we have no purpose or meaning of life and are no more important than an ant. oh well

I can't imagine living forever; it gives me a headache. While it would be fun to see a few hundred years into the future, the thought of eventually achieving "peace" is refreshing.

[U]sing that as a policy for governments ended sometime around the Enlightenment.

I wish! Have you been paying attention to what gets people elected these days? Election 2004 was all about making people think you held Christian values. And look what people said about the Miers nomination. People were supporting a woman for the Supream court not because of her time studying the Constitution or vast knowlege of US code but because she is (apparently) a Christian.

so ur also claiming that all religions have a god...huh:confused: ...well i'm Buddhist and i'm here to tell ya that Buddhism is an atheistic theology...no god yet considered a religion...and Buddhism is renown for it's strict morality and it's believers practicing what they preach...can Christianity claim that?

This is just a random thought, but it seems that if there is a god then he's very cruel and possibly sadistic. This is because he gave us free choice but if we don't make the 'right' choice of choice of choosing him then we apparantly burn in hell. This hardly seems loving :p

I totally disagree with the original post in this topic. I am an agnostic; that is that I feel there is no way of knowing if there is a god or not. However I am, to be frank, one of the most moral people of my generation (teenagers are not traditionally the most moral of creatures). I study philosophy, I study ethics. I have seen a huge amount of the relevant psycological findings. And from all that I build my morals, along with what I feel, in my heart of hearts, to be correct. I live without any guidance but that which I make myself. (see my thread on free thought: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=464261 )

I feel best when I reaffirm my faith in the Invisible Pink Unicorn.;)

I wish! Have you been paying attention to what gets people elected these days? Election 2004 was all about making people think you held Christian values. And look what people said about the Miers nomination. People were supporting a woman for the Supream court not because of her time studying the Constitution or vast knowlege of US code but because she is (apparently) a Christian.
:headbang:
and look where it got us a crack pot that if the constitution would let him would lead the country into fascism...Zieg heil George!...and about about the Miers nomination that'r really fricken scarey...those people shpuld open their eyes and vote on policy not religion...they've been blinded by their religion

I always figured, if god exists why doesn't he/she come down and talk to me? Faith doesn't seem (to me) to be necessary. Why all "mystery?"

"i don't believe in a god because god is an irrational concept and i lead a rational existance." The Great Buddha;)

I always figured, if god exists why doesn't he/she come down and talk to me? Faith doesn't seem (to me) to be necessary. Why all "mystery?"


That's the same question I always ask!

I don't get how I can be wrong as an agnostic. I don't believe it possible to know one way or the other whether a god exists.

I also know that it's up to us to make our lives good. You deceide whether you're going to have a good day or a bad day and that applies to life. You can take every situation and look at in a good way if you want or a bad way... you lose a job, oh well, you can use a change. It's mostly a matter of perspective (barring a chemical imbalance of the brain, of course) and even if external influences were the majority of what makes life good or bad, there's no reason to claim that it was some sort of a god that dictated these external influences and made them good or bad.

That's the same question I always ask!
i'm a recovering christian and i fully agree

I think the best option is to tell them what's out there (and I don't mean just the Big 6) and let them read, think, and feel for themselves.


:confused: the big 6?

Atheists and Agnostics can be spiritual without believing in god/religion. It is a common misconception that all Atheists and Agnostics are god hating people who go to hell. That is a generalization people use to cause unnessisary hatred towards these people.

1: Spirituality without a god. God is supposedly a being of infinite power and knowledge. To be spiritual without a god means to have a mythology they personally believe in that does not involve a god. A mythology can be formed from a variety of other mythologies and religions. Just not all from the same source.(ie: a atheist can believe in angels from the Bible, but not accept the existance of god and believe in Ifrit, the Wicca spirit of fire)

2: Religion has also been used to control the population(Jihad, Holy Crusades, Witch Hunts, etc.). While they do prove useful as methods of proper living, their interpretation can be heavily distorted.

3: You do not need to believe in a religion to do good deeds. I am a spiritual agnostic. Probably more spiritual than most people in a faith. Anyways the right way of living is not specific to religions so while it does improve the chance of better people, it isn't the only way or the best(parental guidance and role models will always defeat the bible on this subject).

4: Here is an interesting rhetorical question: If religion is so good, then why is it that it can be used to malicious deeds?(Don't answer this question, it will defeat its purpose. Just wonder about it for a few minutes and then let it go)

The ultimate arrogance is when any religion assumes only IT brings morality, or that all other religions ultimately rely on thier god for it.

No one needs God to be a good person.

Believing any religion will not make you one.

As an Agnostic and recovering former Catholic, when Christians can start offering theories that are logically comparable to that of Science, etc. then I will admit I'm wrong.

I think the only thing that is wrong is organized religion and how people follow it to a T rather than seeking out spiritual truths for themselves.

Excuse me? We explan away things with science and psychology? Science is the only method we have of finding facts and truth. We refuse to accept positive influence in our lives? What a crock of shit. Do you think for one minute that it's fun to be an atheist? We have no meaning to our lives. We have nothing to give us hope when we need it most. We fear death because we know that after death there is nothing. It is in no way fun or enjoyable to be atheistic. I'd love for God to exist. I'd love for eternal life in heaven. But I don't care about what I want. i care about truth. The only way to find truth is through science and philosophy. Faith has nothing to do with truth whatsoever. I really don't like you thinking that we're wrong when it's us that use the very method that defines right and wrong.
Great post! I just said basically the same thing to my sister yesterday, when she called to tell me to go rent "The Passion of the Christ"

I certainly do believe in a positive presence in the world. It's called humanity. I believe people to be self-sufficient, and generally good.

I'm an atheist, but I have to disagree with you here. People are not generally good. Have you ever been stuck in a traffic jam, where there's an accident up ahead, and everyone slows down to see the carnage? Have you watched TV (at least, in the U.S.) lately, and seen all the "reality" shows where people eagerly watch other people degrading themselves in various ways for money? Do you think any of that would fly, if people were generally good?

THE REASON why I think non-believers are wrong is because they simply refuse to recognize the positive presence in their lives ya... or they just don't need to invent something to feel positive about themselves.
and they choose to explain away things with science and psychology, et cetera, Well, yes although these things just aren't able to explain many things. Like what? Mabye if they just made stuff up to support their theories about things like christians than they'd be able to explain more...

However, this doesn't mean that I think that believers can't achieve salvation, just like some Christians can't. ya... right. Well
I just think that religion provides a route towards that salvation and increases one's chances of achieving. Well I'm "saved". Saved from the insanity of religious types

I know there are a lot of atheist/agnostic types out there, and I will be more than happy to debate this with you, but if you insult me, I just won't respond.:cool: So basically... people who use science to explain stuff may not be saved as much as religious people, and may be less happy. Is that it?

TBH, I'm not entirely sure that Christians believe in God either. What they do believe in are the ideas and principals that are codified in the Bible. Why? Because in their hearts, it feels right to do so. Anything that runs contrary to those ideas and principles would be dismissed as false.

Take the stories of women that have drowned their children because they received a sign from "God" that they were supposed to do so. They were branded as crazy, tried as criminals, and locked away. Rational people, given the "sign" to drown their children, would dismiss it because it would run contrary to the ideas and principles codified in the Bible.

Ultimately, it's a person's ability to discern good and evil that guides their behavior rather than accepting whatever commands come from an authority figure.

THE REASON why I think non-believers are wrong is because they simply refuse to recognize the positive presence in their lives and they choose to explain away things with science and psychology, et cetera, although these things just aren't able to explain many things.



Or it could be the other way arond. Religious folk refusing to recognize that there is no omni-benevolent father watching over them, and that they have invent their own positive feelings.

Thats the way I think, anyway.

You gotta be kidding. Most of my fellow agnostics and atheists will agree when I say that we aren't without moral framework, it's just that we establish it for ourselves. One might think that if you need a reward at the end of the maze of life to help other people, then you aren't really doing it for the sake of being "good", you're doing it for the cheese.

1. If morality is constructed, then what you percieve as good is nothing more than random chance. Morality could say (if it was constructed) that every family must kill its second born child in a firey pit. If morality is constructed then one morality is no more valid than another. Hence you cannot say that things like killing are wrong. The only reason they are considered wrong, is that the majority believes it to be so. But as we all know, majority opinion does not equate to accuracy of any kind

2. Christians do not lead the Christian life to get to heaven. They lead it because its the way that they believe they were intended to live by God. The Bible can be seen as an instruction manual on how to lead your life. Not following it is like putting a jam dougnut inside a CD player. It wont work properlly. If everyone lived their lives as the Bible explains the world would be a much better place

Actually, I don't want to be religious and happy. I love the freedom that comes with atheism. I was just trying to deflate the theory that pain happens because God gave us free-will. HIV-positive Africans don't really have the ability to change their lives without outside intervention.

Its not your own free will sometimes. Sometimes its others acting on the free will which harms you. The fact is pain happens because we chose to ignore God.

Funny how the first post says "THE REASON" in capitals, and yet there's clearly no reasoning involved.

But Christians would say that you really have no idea what's "right and wrong" becasue you're basing your morals on your own arbitrary judgement and not the judgement of the creator passed down to us by the bible. You really aren't doig any "good" things becasue you're not doing them through Jesus.

You dont understand

All humans have an understanding of right and wrong. Christians and non Christians. However that understanding comes from the fact that we were created in God's image. If morality were truely constructed it would be arbitary and aplicapble only to humans. Canabalism could be moral in that world. Hence you couldnt say there was such a thing as natural evil as evil is a concept only aplyable to humans.

Apparently, though, God didn't give us a good understanding because the ideas of "right" and "wrong" have constantly evolved in the human mind...

Atheists and Agnostics can be spiritual without believing in god/religion. It is a common misconception that all Atheists and Agnostics are god hating people who go to hell. That is a generalization people use to cause unnessisary hatred towards these people.

1: Spirituality without a god. God is supposedly a being of infinite power and knowledge. To be spiritual without a god means to have a mythology they personally believe in that does not involve a god. A mythology can be formed from a variety of other mythologies and religions. Just not all from the same source.(ie: a atheist can believe in angels from the Bible, but not accept the existance of god and believe in Ifrit, the Wicca spirit of fire)

2: Religion has also been used to control the population(Jihad, Holy Crusades, Witch Hunts, etc.). While they do prove useful as methods of proper living, their interpretation can be heavily distorted.

3: You do not need to believe in a religion to do good deeds. I am a spiritual agnostic. Probably more spiritual than most people in a faith. Anyways the right way of living is not specific to religions so while it does improve the chance of better people, it isn't the only way or the best(parental guidance and role models will always defeat the bible on this subject).

4: Here is an interesting rhetorical question: If religion is so good, then why is it that it can be used to malicious deeds?(Don't answer this question, it will defeat its purpose. Just wonder about it for a few minutes and then let it go)

I explicitly stated that you can be an atheist and moral at the same time. Read the actual post before ranting.

You dont understand

All humans have an understanding of right and wrong. Christians and non Christians. However that understanding comes from the fact that we were created in God's image. If morality were truely constructed it would be arbitary and aplicapble only to humans. Canabalism could be moral in that world. Hence you couldnt say there was such a thing as natural evil as evil is a concept only aplyable to humans.
In some places, cannibalism is acceptable and moral.

You dont understand

All humans have an understanding of right and wrong. Christians and non Christians. However that understanding comes from the fact that we were created in God's image. If morality were truely constructed it would be arbitary and aplicapble only to humans. Canabalism could be moral in that world. Hence you couldnt say there was such a thing as natural evil as evil is a concept only aplyable to humans.

This does make sense, after all it has ALWAYS been known that slavery is a horrible ill and truly reprehensible act of uncivilized society.

Except if you were black in Europe or the United States.

And that people are inherently equal and deserve to be treated equally.

Unless you were a woman.

And that people have the right to live a life free of intrusion, where they can love whomever they want, exist in a bond of cherished togetherness, without fear of persecution.

Unless you're gay.

You say that morality is absolute, and humanity shares one common morality because god made us that way. If then whyin almost every major society, be it african, roman, middle eastern, asian, european or american, and persisted for THOUSANDS of years, has there been the institution of slavery?

An institution that just about anyone in a modern enlightened society would think of one of the worst immoral abhoration to ever be visted on this earth.

So god gave us a universal moral code that says "slavery is bad, mkay" and yet it was practiced for probably....what, 95% of human history? Where was this univeral, human wide morality to the Romans? The Aztecs? The Egyptians? The Mesopotamians? And, yes, even the Jews? All these ancient (and let's not dare mention the very much not ancient) societies that thought this abhoration of morality was just perfectly ok.

Where was that universal morality then? Or maybe god LIKES the idea of slavery...talks about it quite a lot in Leviticus. Or maybe...society has evolved eh? Unless you're willing to state that god gave us universal morality, but not the capacity to see it clearly?

Its not your own free will sometimes. Sometimes its others acting on the free will which harms you. The fact is pain happens because we chose to ignore God.

So if Africans prayed, there wouldn't be pain, right? AIDS would just go away?
I always thought that any God must be cruel, but now I understand that, assuming he exists, he is self-absorbed and vain. True love and mercy doesn't come with the stipulation that they must be requited.

I'm an atheist, but I have to disagree with you here. People are not generally good. Have you ever been stuck in a traffic jam, where there's an accident up ahead, and everyone slows down to see the carnage? Have you watched TV (at least, in the U.S.) lately, and seen all the "reality" shows where people eagerly watch other people degrading themselves in various ways for money? Do you think any of that would fly, if people were generally good?

Yes, I think so. It may seem as though all the world is cruel, but, truthfully, it's just a matter of poor education and living conditions. Excepting those who are mentally ill, most people who do "bad" things are good people who make mistakes. The best way to stop that is rehabilitation and education. No one is born evil, and no one is without the potential to do good with help and support.

Yes, I think so. It may seem as though all the world is cruel, but, truthfully, it's just a matter of poor education and living conditions. Excepting those who are mentally ill, most people who do "bad" things are good people who make mistakes. The best way to stop that is rehabilitation and education. No one is born evil, and no one is without the potential to do good with help and support.

I think it would be difficult to prove that someone was "born evil". (How would one test such a thing?) I think it's easier to say, though, that most people have a capacity for evil that's just waiting for an excuse to be revealed. I offered some mundane examples, but there are other historical examples: Take Germany in the late 1930's. The population was more than happy to inflict horrible cruelty on the Jews. There are many such examples in history of people unleashing hell when they think history's back is turned.

Why bother arguing with the first poster.

He is of little threat. He still is a threat becuase although he isn't a crazed fundie he does support them.

I say let his post stand. I as an atheist think he made my case very well.

This does make sense, after all it has ALWAYS been known that slavery is a horrible ill and truly reprehensible act of uncivilized society.

Except if you were black in Europe or the United States.

And that people are inherently equal and deserve to be treated equally.

Unless you were a woman.

And that people have the right to live a life free of intrusion, where they can love whomever they want, exist in a bond of cherished togetherness, without fear of persecution.

Unless you're gay.

You say that morality is absolute, and humanity shares one common morality because god made us that way. If then whyin almost every major society, be it african, roman, middle eastern, asian, european or american, and persisted for THOUSANDS of years, has there been the institution of slavery?

An institution that just about anyone in a modern enlightened society would think of one of the worst immoral abhoration to ever be visted on this earth.

So god gave us a universal moral code that says "slavery is bad, mkay" and yet it was practiced for probably....what, 95% of human history? Where was this univeral, human wide morality to the Romans? The Aztecs? The Egyptians? The Mesopotamians? And, yes, even the Jews? All these ancient (and let's not dare mention the very much not ancient) societies that thought this abhoration of morality was just perfectly ok.

Where was that universal morality then? Or maybe god LIKES the idea of slavery...talks about it quite a lot in Leviticus. Or maybe...society has evolved eh? Unless you're willing to state that god gave us universal morality, but not the capacity to see it clearly?

Technically the Bible does defend slavery, but only in certain terms. Ephesians 6:5-8 may command slaves to serve their masters with utmost sincerity, but Ephesians 6:9 commands masters to not threaten them, because God is watching. Other similar references are in numerous places through the Bible, Leviticus also sets up a pretty clear standard as well. Im no historian, but it would seem to me that in most modern-time type slavery systems, threats and psycological bullying were pretty much the norm, and if it were ever instituted again it would probably be the same, so would most likely be a bad idea to re-institute. So in conclusion, God does LIKE the idea of slavery....in His own terms, not the terms of southern clergymen getting Frederick Douglass's slavemaster to act even more horrible towared slaves for example, or stuff like that.

Technically the Bible does defend slavery, but only in certain terms. Ephesians 6:5-8 may command slaves to serve their masters with utmost sincerity, but Ephesians 6:9 commands masters to not threaten them, because God is watching. Other similar references are in numerous places through the Bible, Leviticus also sets up a pretty clear standard as well. Im no historian, but it would seem to me that in most modern-time type slavery systems, threats and psycological bullying were pretty much the norm, and if it were ever instituted again it would probably be the same, so would most likely be a bad idea to re-institute. So in conclusion, God does LIKE the idea of slavery....in His own terms, not the terms of southern clergymen getting Frederick Douglass's slavemaster to act even more horrible towared slaves for example, or stuff like that.

Fine, true that the way the bible describes a vision of slavery that I suppose is a "kinder, gentler" method of slavery than what went on in the 1800s. But let me ask this, would our modern society accept, or condone what is described in the bible as slavery? In other words, would even this "nicer" version of slavery be ok in our modern era?

Now I think it's fair to say that even this nicer version of slavery would be an abhoration in modern society, so again I must ask, if morality is universal, then one of two things are true:

1) societies, for THOUSANDS of years, got it wrong, and had slavery, which we NOW know is a total, and UNIVERAL wrong

2) slavery is ok, and we're wrong now.

My question effectivly breaks down to: if morality is universal, why has our history shown everything else but? Moreover, if we have demonstrated as humans such a capacity to get it wrong, then how do we know that killing is in fact, wrong? If god has laid out a univeral morality, one we can't see clearly enough to realize slavery is a no no, how do we know we're right now?

Or, to reach the crux of the argument...if go'd universal morality is so opaque as to be that we're never sure we're getting it right or not, then how is this different than no particular universal moral code at all?

And don't pull the "it is clear, god makes his morality clear in the bible"....well as noted already, slavery has been described, in detail, many times, and there has been plenty of times where it's been shown that murder was generally ok.

Now let's get down to business.

I believe in God and what the Bible says because it provides a moral framework for my life and it gives me hope and self-awareness. The fact that I will be rewarded for good deeds is a positive feeling that can come only with religion. (this includes all regions, I just choose to follow Christianity:)

I think God is a benevolent, forgiving father figure who deserves respect and attention, ie. going to church, praying, repenting.

THE REASON why I think non-believers are wrong is because they simply refuse to recognize the positive presence in their lives and they choose to explain away things with science and psychology, et cetera, although these things just aren't able to explain many things.

However, this doesn't mean that I think that believers can't achieve salvation, just like some Christians can't. I just think that religion provides a route towards that salvation and increases one's chances of achieving.

So.... your argument is that there is a positive presence in my life... that I'm denying with the sciences... therefore my deignosticism(yes, I put the words deism and agnosticism together) is wrong?

You know, being friends with 2 evangelical christians has given me a unique opportunty to argue this kind of stuff. And I have to say that your argument is probably one of the most nonsensical things I've ever heard.

The fallacies are quite numerous. You assume stuff about my life, and you don't know me. You make sweeping generalizations about science and psychology not being able to explain stuff, but give no specific, or even broad examples. Then you contradict your own religion by kinda saying that all religions are good.

I'm gonna tell you right now... you're not winning any converts. In fact I'd say there's a statistical likelihood that your argument just drove some some dude to convert to Islam.:p

So if Africans prayed, there wouldn't be pain, right? AIDS would just go away?
I always thought that any God must be cruel, but now I understand that, assuming he exists, he is self-absorbed and vain. True love and mercy doesn't come with the stipulation that they must be requited.

1. If Africans obeyed the Bible (IE only having sex inside of marriage) then it is quite likley that the spread of AIDS would slow down dramatically. My point was that living the life that the Bible intended makes the world work better

2. I never said that pain just "goes away". Do not put words into my mouth

First of all, let's get a few things out of the way:

I am not one of your Pat Robertson-god-will-smite-you-if-you-don't-do-exactly-as-the-bible-says types.

Secondly, I am a devout Christian, although I have no intention whatsoever of forcing atheists or agnostics to follow my religion.

Thirdly, this isn't meant as a flame on atheists/agnostics, so please DONT FLAME ME.

Now let's get down to business.

I believe in God and what the Bible says because it provides a moral framework for my life and it gives me hope and self-awareness. The fact that I will be rewarded for good deeds is a positive feeling that can come only with religion. (this includes all regions, I just choose to follow Christianity:)

I think God is a benevolent, forgiving father figure who deserves respect and attention, ie. going to church, praying, repenting.

THE REASON why I think non-believers are wrong is because they simply refuse to recognize the positive presence in their lives and they choose to explain away things with science and psychology, et cetera, although these things just aren't able to explain many things.

However, this doesn't mean that I think that believers can't achieve salvation, just like some Christians can't. I just think that religion provides a route towards that salvation and increases one's chances of achieving.

I know there are a lot of atheist/agnostic types out there, and I will be more than happy to debate this with you, but if you insult me, I just won't respond.:cool:

Thank you for your time :)

oh bother... you were ever so close to making an excellent argument there, then flushed it down the toilet with the salvation bit. Why would an all knowing, all loving, all caring father, punish his children who failed to "belive" in him, even if the proper eviornmental conditioning wasn't provided.

Lets face facts, most people belive in religion because they are taught to. They get it from their parents, who got it from theres. This of course is not a universal truth, though it constitutes a large portion of those who belive in religion. Let us also realize, that while it is all well and good that you would belive in the "idea" of the bible, that it forms a positive moral structure (always a good thing) thus inspiring hope in the otherwise hopeless... it is infact a book written by men. And as in all things, men often act out of self interest. There are many aspects of the bible which are clearly set out to "control" human behavior... a reality which is directly contrary to the gift God gave each of us; being "choice". If it is Gods intention to have us find our own path, why then would he seek to control our behaviors along that path ?

Of course there are countless arguments of conjecture one could make in support of either side, but the reality at face value is, the Bible being made by imperfect being, is itself imperfect, and as such should be reguarded with a certain degree of scretuinty. I can hardly push myself to belive it is above all else a requirement to have belif in god inorder to acheive salvation. How many young children live their lives without knowing any god, let alone the Judeo god ? Do each of these fail to reach salvation ? If so, is this the mark of a loving father? the inevitable answer being no.. is this then a thing you would wish to worship? I for one, if this was the reality set before me.. would want to part of it.

Just as a disclaimer I am in fact very Roman Catholic, and simply belive you should put more thought, and scrutiny in your own belifs before you target others who oppose you.

This does make sense, after all it has ALWAYS been known that slavery is a horrible ill and truly reprehensible act of uncivilized society.

Except if you were black in Europe or the United States.

And that people are inherently equal and deserve to be treated equally.

Unless you were a woman.

And that people have the right to live a life free of intrusion, where they can love whomever they want, exist in a bond of cherished togetherness, without fear of persecution.

Unless you're gay.

You say that morality is absolute, and humanity shares one common morality because god made us that way. If then whyin almost every major society, be it african, roman, middle eastern, asian, european or american, and persisted for THOUSANDS of years, has there been the institution of slavery?

An institution that just about anyone in a modern enlightened society would think of one of the worst immoral abhoration to ever be visted on this earth.

So god gave us a universal moral code that says "slavery is bad, mkay" and yet it was practiced for probably....what, 95% of human history? Where was this univeral, human wide morality to the Romans? The Aztecs? The Egyptians? The Mesopotamians? And, yes, even the Jews? All these ancient (and let's not dare mention the very much not ancient) societies that thought this abhoration of morality was just perfectly ok.

Where was that universal morality then? Or maybe god LIKES the idea of slavery...talks about it quite a lot in Leviticus. Or maybe...society has evolved eh? Unless you're willing to state that god gave us universal morality, but not the capacity to see it clearly?

Did you not here me. I said a univesal idea of morality. This does not mean that everyone obeys it, it means they know about it. If you read C.S.Lewis's Mere Christianity you will understand. Also, our sense of morallity was forever damaged by sin entering the world. Which means that now people have other ideas which compete with their morality for their attention. Like greed, arrogence etc. And if you really want to know about slavery in the Bible, read these

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslavent.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html

1. If Africans obeyed the Bible (IE only having sex inside of marriage) then it is quite likley that the spread of AIDS would slow down dramatically. My point was that living the life that the Bible intended makes the world work better

2. I never said that pain just "goes away". Do not put words into my mouth

"Intention" is a difficult thing to discern, especially when we are mere mortals attempting to understand the supernatural. How can any of us as insignificant as we are, hope to truely understand that so far beyond our own comprehension. The world the bible describes (though not surpriseing as it was the normal reality in those times) sounds much like a despotism, one omnipitant figure to follow and worship. If you dare deviate, only punishment (eternal damination ??) awaits you. It seems to me, these being words written by imperfect men, and inthemselves are wrat with the imperfections which accompanies humanity (that being self-interest).

The Bible is just a subjective text, open to interpretation... its words arn't meant to be taken litterally, only its "ideas" should be left to discussion. Ideas, which inspire hope, and promote good and moral aditudes toward ourselves and one another (only in a positive sense; not negative as is the norm).

Im also interested to know what version of the Bible you so dedicate yourself to.. Do you recognize the realities the nostic episles presents (tensions between Paul and Mary Magdalin) and the conseqential ideas of the Church being an unessesary entity ? Or do you cast it aside as herisy as the church has ? Theres that "self interest" again.

Did you not here me. I said a univesal idea of morality. This does not mean that everyone obeys it, it means they know about it.

And here is the problem: people did NOT know that slavery is wrong. They did NOT know women deserve to be considered equal to men. It is not so that they chose to be evil - they simply saw nothing wrong with it.

Hmmm, wherever should I get my sense of morality from: carefully considered rational judgement, or a 2000-year old crackpot, self-contradictory storybook?
It's a complete toss-up.

Yes, I think so. It may seem as though all the world is cruel, but, truthfully, it's just a matter of poor education and living conditions. Excepting those who are mentally ill, most people who do "bad" things are good people who make mistakes. The best way to stop that is rehabilitation and education. No one is born evil, and no one is without the potential to do good with help and support.
People are not "good", nor are they "bad" or "evil". Everyone is worth just as much as anyone else (i.e. not much), and are fueled by greed in different forms. Good and bad are simply different points of view; Bin Ladin is/was considered evil by some people, a hero to others. George Washington is/was considered a traitor by some, a hero to others. Humans are a terrible species which should never have existed.

Money is power, capitalism is slavery, priests go around in Mercedes.
All your souls are belong to me. Truly yours, the devil.

People are not "good", nor are they "bad" or "evil". Everyone is worth just as much as anyone else (i.e. not much), and are fueled by greed in different forms. Good and bad are simply different points of view; Bin Ladin is/was considered evil by some people, a hero to others. George Washington is/was considered a traitor by some, a hero to others. Humans are a terrible species which should never have existed.

I'm not trying to be a bastard, but it seems that your first and last statements are in conflict.

Help me understand what you mean by terrible.

I'm not trying to be a bastard, but it seems that your first and last statements are in conflict.

Help me understand what you mean by terrible.
Simply that while people are not good nor bad, we are destroying the planet, which is kinda terrible. I guess that's stupidity, ignorance or bad luck, but either way it isn't positive.

Hmmm, wherever should I get my sense of morality from: carefully considered rational judgement, or a 2000-year old crackpot, self-contradictory storybook?
It's a complete toss-up.
Your basic sense of morality doesn't come from either of those places. It's instinctive, buried deep in your evolutionary biology, and was necessary to the survival of the human species. It's driven by altruism, love, guilt and other feelings which allowed our ancestors to function as social groups.

What both rational judgement and religious teachings do is to translate those basic instincts into things we can consciously think about and extend to the vastly more complex circumstances of an advanced intelligent species. But I agree that there is no question that rational judgement and the willingness to define morality in the context of today's circumstances, and today's knowledge of ourselves and the world, is vastly superior to following a moral code designed for very different circumstances by very different and less knowledgable people.

The Basis of human moral framework (indeed, the term is best suited as Moral Ecology) is derived from an evolutionary process of thought. This is different from biological evolution but stems directly from it. It is the combination of our rote social behavior combined with higher learning functions that developed out of larger mental compacity. The basis of this is reciprical altruism (pursuit of both individual and common good, based upon reciprication).

Certain moral strategies have stuck because they work. Moral prohibitions on murder, theft, etc. are all quite common because they work very very well. Other more strange things (thou shalt not use thy lord's name in vain, or thou shalt not carve unto thee any graven images) emerge within specific groups because for whatever reason they help reinforce that group's cohesive elements. Or they tend to get ignored with time, as they become more absurd. This is how you get rather funny situations where people believe that their given holy book is inerrant and should be followed to the letter, but eat pork and shellfish, and presumably consider Pi to be exactly 3.

It is perfectly possible as a rational being to determine morality independant of any religious thought, much of morality is simply pervasive through human social interaction.

First of all, let's get a few things out of the way:

I am not one of your Pat Robertson-god-will-smite-you-if-you-don't-do-exactly-as-the-bible-says types.

Secondly, I am a devout Christian, although I have no intention whatsoever of forcing atheists or agnostics to follow my religion.

Thirdly, this isn't meant as a flame on atheists/agnostics, so please DONT FLAME ME.

Now let's get down to business.

I believe in God and what the Bible says because it provides a moral framework for my life and it gives me hope and self-awareness. The fact that I will be rewarded for good deeds is a positive feeling that can come only with religion. (this includes all regions, I just choose to follow Christianity:)

I think God is a benevolent, forgiving father figure who deserves respect and attention, ie. going to church, praying, repenting.

THE REASON why I think non-believers are wrong is because they simply refuse to recognize the positive presence in their lives and they choose to explain away things with science and psychology, et cetera, although these things just aren't able to explain many things.

However, this doesn't mean that I think that believers can't achieve salvation, just like some Christians can't. I just think that religion provides a route towards that salvation and increases one's chances of achieving.

I know there are a lot of atheist/agnostic types out there, and I will be more than happy to debate this with you, but if you insult me, I just won't respond.:cool:

Thank you for your time :)
You havent actually made any kind of argument as to why atheists / whatever are wrong. You've said why it would be nice if they were wrong, but you havent said why they actually are.

Yes, I think so. It may seem as though all the world is cruel, but, truthfully, it's just a matter of poor education and living conditions. Excepting those who are mentally ill, most people who do "bad" things are good people who make mistakes. The best way to stop that is rehabilitation and education. No one is born evil, and no one is without the potential to do good with help and support.

I think you're right that no one is "born evil". People choose which way they're going to go in life. I would further posit that someone who is mentally ill to the extent that they don't know right from wrong can't be called evil, in any serious sense, because they lack the culpability for their actions. However, having said that, I don't think you can discount evil actions as "mistakes" people make, because there are certain actions people commit on an ongoing basis, despite evidence that they cause suffering in other people. Consider a few historical figures:

1) Adolf Hitler (who should probably go on the top of any such list)
2) Joseph Stalin
3) the Marquis de Sade


These aren't people who didn't know what they were doing. They did their evil willingly, with a great sense of purpose and malice.

I also think that it's not correct to call evil actions "mistakes". Unintentionally executing an innocent man is a mistake. Intentionally executing one innocent man, let alone millons of people is evil.

To cite the examples I gave before: Unless a person is a complete idiot, they know that it's wrong to derive enjoyment from the suffering of others. But when they're in their homes watching TV, or in their cars on the highway, in relative privacy, they know they can't be seen, and their true natures come out. It's certainly not everyone, but people in general seem to be enamored with the suffering of others.

Did you not here me. I said a univesal idea of morality. This does not mean that everyone obeys it, it means they know about it. If you read C.S.Lewis's Mere Christianity you will understand. Also, our sense of morallity was forever damaged by sin entering the world. Which means that now people have other ideas which compete with their morality for their attention. Like greed, arrogence etc. And if you really want to know about slavery in the Bible, read these

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslavent.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html

You're willing to propose that the ku klux klan of the turn of the 20th century really did know what they were doing was wrong, but were greedy prigs and therefore went along with it anyway? You think that millions died in a civil war even though they knew the practice they were defending was, deep down, abhorrent? You think that the people really thought that generations upon generations of women were denied the basic right to vote was truly a bad thing...and just...didn't get around to changing it for 140 years?

Bull. I'll ask again, so you can answer clearly. If morality is universal, then why has our view of what is moral changed dramatically over hundreds of years. Why have institutions that were defended by religion (slavery, burning of witches etc) now abhorrent? Is it because we got it wrong for SOOOOO long, and now, finally, after thousands of years, just NOW beginning to stumble towards what god wants from us?

You know, except for that slavery thing...

And before you quote me some more self serving christian rights links, let me point out one thing. It has been mentioned that the slavery at least....described (I wont say practiced at the time) in the bible is a gentler form of slavery. Doesn't advocate truly abuse, or generational perpituity, and all that so people on the far right can dress it up, laugh about it, and say "well, it's not really BAD slavery".

Problem is, it still advocated slavery. It still, at it's very core, said it was a'ok to OWN ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. The true abhoration of slavery was not the abuse really, it was not the humiliation and the threats and the violence (don't get me wrong, those are horrible things), it is the fundamental basis of slavery, that one person can keep, as his property, another person. You were supposed to try really REALLY hard not to beat them, but you still owned them.

The same god that supposedly grants us UNIVERSAL AND UNCHANGING morality, the one that grants us, by divinity, our rights as people is the same god that says it's alright under certain circumstances to strip people of those very rights and to own them.

Now, explain that one. And don't push those same links back at me, I've seen all those arguments made, by people brighter than whomever wrote that. They're all the same "oh, but you could set them free" "oh, but you weren't supposed to harm them" repeated ad nausium. No matter how many times the religious right tries to dress it up as "really not so bad slavery" the fact remains, the bible, our "handbook for universal morality" advocates owning another person. And there's NOTHING you can say to disprove that.

I think you're right that no one is "born evil". People choose which way they're going to go in life. I would further posit that someone who is mentally ill to the extent that they don't know right from wrong can't be called evil, in any serious sense, because they lack the culpability for their actions.

Arguably they are even more accurately described by the word "sane" than the word "evil". Especially if they decide to derive or create an internally consistent moral system that tells them what "right" and "wrong" are to them - instead of only relying on "gut feelings" or the dozens of other terms for "I don't know why I call it wrong".

To cite the examples I gave before: Unless a person is a complete idiot, they know that it's wrong to derive enjoyment from the suffering of others.

Then I am an idiot - because I do not "know" this. I came to the conclusion it is in my moral system for various reasons and live accordingly - but was not told it by some supreme being or a deep instinct in my bones.

Dude... christianity was based on the New Testement yeh?
Haha... do you know when it was written and who by?
I laugh at christians EvERYwhere cos of that fact. If you look it up it'll turn you atheist faster than anything ;p

THE REASON why I think non-believers are wrong is because they simply refuse to recognize the positive presence in their lives and they choose to explain away things with science and psychology, et cetera, although these things just aren't able to explain many things.

What positive presence?

And if we do recognise it, then proof denies faith.

Maybe you just explain it away with the Bible, religion etc.?

God, if he exists, is unfathomable due to his Omnipotence; and unimaginable due to his Omnipresence : Therefore, there is no way to understand or sense him; therefore, a belief in the healing power of strawberry and mayonaise sandwiches is equally as rational; due to there only being science and psychology etc. to explain it away.

I'm not saying he doesn't exist; but if he does; we are unable to even sense his presence without either attaining Godhood ourselves or him becoming Finite; and therefore not God.