NationStates Jolt Archive

teaching your children at all is bad


And so says MarkTwain?

Does that even qualify as proof? Surely you could have been imagining things?
Can you prove otherwise?

And I dont look dont on religious types, as long as they hold reasonable beliefs. If they believe in 6 day creationism, I feel free to think them a moron, for example. If they thing homosexuality/sex outside marriage/being a woman/limping is a sin, then I also think them a moron.

If they dont... then I can accept their belief in a higher power.

Heh yes I guess you are right you could have been imagining it. But if you can't except the proof of your own senses then I guess your really fucked any way huh!?!

...it is a belief that there is no God, and that is exactly what an agnostic is...

that's not what an agnostic is

I would indeed answer the call of my country. I would NOT however obey commands that I felt were wrong. Some may call them "Crimes Against Humanity" but I would hate to say that those would encompass all of the actions that I would not be prepared to do.


Would you say that your religion ( or lack of it ) would influence your decision much?

Unthinking obedience IS a virtue - but hardly an absolute one. Or perhaps I should state that I would accept unthinking obedience as a seriously mitigating circumstance, but not as white-wash excuse.

I expect officers and soldiers to use their nuggins - I don't expect them to believe because I do.

that's not what an agnostic is


And that is not what I said.

I expect officers and soldiers to use their nuggins - I don't expect them to believe because I do.

You're going to have the worst-trained, least effective army in the world.

You're going to have the worst-trained, least effective army in the world.


Or the best trained small team special forces in the world.

Or the best trained small team special forces in the world.

*grins*

S.A.S. - Who Dares Wins!

heh you jest surly so to teach my kids not to be racist is bad?

"Teaching" and "indoctrinating" are not really the same things.

I'll not deny the strength of learned behaviour but nor should you underestimate genetics and what they do to our minds. They have been many, and I mean many twins studies where identical twins growing up apart are like minded not only in the way they dress or wear their hair but the ideals and principles they hold also. Our genes I belive are very instrumental in the way in which we shape our wolrd view and it is well know that people with certian genes are more likely to order their ideas in this way rather than the other. Yes to a degree all sorts of behavior is learned and cultural, but the differance in our genes means that some people are more prone or suscepible to certian modes and methods of thought.

If no one told a group of ten children about god, racism or homosexuality, statistically one of them would still be homosexual. Statistically, what are the odds that one of them would invent a god? If TOLD about god, perhaps there might be some genetic predisposition to believe it, but if that were the case, telling them about the Flying Spaghetti Monster instead of one of the mainstream gods would be just as effective.

That being said, if, for the next few generations, we removed every single trace of any god or religion at all, making sure that no one knew anything about our ideas of god, what are the odds that in 500 years we could come back and find that the concept of Jesus had been reintroduced by genetics? I am guessing the odds would not be good.

What if I want to indoctrinate my children into the school of anit racist thought? Is that bad?

Indoctrinate? Yes, that is bad, as it means you are forcing your beliefs on them. Even if your beliefs are good, as humans, they should still have the right to make up their own minds. So teaching them about your beliefs is a good thing, especially if your beliefs are ethical. Forcing your beliefs on them is a bad thing, even if your beliefs are ethical.

But if you have raised them to be ethical and able to think for themselves, then they should be equipt to make the better choices, and you have done your job well.

I can't vote for any of the four options because I'm agnostic-- not atheist, per se, because I don't deny the possibility of the existence of a god-- but I'm not religious, because I think dogmatic 'religions' with people imposing rules and beliefs on each other and the commodification of spiritualty are generally bad. I don't mind people having spiritual beliefs and faith, but I think every individual should figure out for themselves what they believe without being indoctrinated. Letting someone else tell you who or what "God" is is silly, because no finite being could ever hope to understand an infinite, divine being well enough to tell another finite being what to believe. Which is why I think that folks who go around teying to tell you what the divine wants (*generally* the 'evangelical' or 'fundamentalist' types, or whatever you want to call them) are more arrogant than anything else. And unfortunately, as a side-effect, arrogance tends to produce "backwards" narrow-mindedness.

Long answer short, I don't have a problem with those who hold religious beliefs, so long as they don't try to impose them on anyone else. They want to be respected for having found a 'truth' that's very personally meaningful for themselves, they should afford others the same.

Just out of curiosity, how is everyone defining "impose"? I've been accused of imposing my religious beliefs on people because they asked me what I believed and I told them.

There seems to be a large number of athiests who extremely dislike anyone who shows the slightest inkling towards being religious, while many religious seem to despise the atheist (i say they need to be shown the light somehow, but thats another post). So, where do you stand?

Note: Not sure where agnostic counts, maybe other?
It makes sense. Religious types despise atheist for being ignorant of their fictional subjective moral 'truth'. Atheists despise religious types for being ignorant of their scientifically backed so-called 'reality'.

By that logic, an agnostic would be someone who would not be sure of God as they had not had any experience with God.
Kind of, though I don't really care for that phrasing.

An agnostic is a person who believes it is not possible to know whether or not there is a God.

Some agnostics are theists; they believe it is not possible to know whether or not there is a God, but they choose to believe that there is a God.

Some agnostics are atheists; they believe that, because it is not possible to know if God exists, it is best to not believe in God. This is distinct from an atheist who believes THERE IS NO GOD. An agnostic atheist lacks belief in God specifically because she believes that it is not possible to know if God exists or in what form God might exist.

Many atheists are not agnostic, and many agnostics are not atheists.

Many people portray agnosticism as "wishy-washy" or "indecisive." It is not necessarily either of these. I am an agnostic, and I am quite sure that it is not possible for me to know whether or not God exists. I am quite sure that it would be inappropriate for me to follow any human conception of God, since I cannot even know whether God exists, let alone if He/She/It has the properties of any human superstitious vision.

Not really, no.

An agnostic is a person who believes it is not possible to know whether or not there is a God.

Some agnostics are theists; they believe it is not possible to know whether or not there is a God, but they choose to believe that there is a God.

Some agnostics are atheists; they believe that, because it is not possible to know if God exists, it is best to not believe in God. This is distinct from an atheist who believes THERE IS NO GOD. An agnostic atheist lacks belief in God specifically because she believes that it is not possible to know if God exists or in what form God might exist.

Many atheists are not agnostic, and many agnostics are not atheists.

Technically, the agnostic part could have nothing to do with the atheist, and they could still be Agnostic Atheist. It doesn't mean they don't believe because they're agnostic. And most people that call themselves Agnostic are probably Atheist as well, but I figure those can slide, as they'd likely see the Agnostic part more defining of themselves than the Atheist.

Personally, as an Athiest, I have no problems with religion in general. Yeah, it can become corrupt, but thats a horrible, horrible arguemtn against not just religion, but against anything in general. Anything can be corrupt if the right minds are working at it.

But what pisses me off about the religious types, and this isn't saying that all religious and heavily spiritual people do this, but that they indoctrinate and push thei rideals down other peoples throats. I have no problem with you trying to convert a friend, but theres a point where conversion turns into coercion.

Same goes for the Athiest types who bash anyone who shows even a slight hint of spirituality. Tolerance, my friends. You might think something is stupid, but you don't have the right to take it away from others.

Technically, the agnostic part could have nothing to do with the atheist, and they could still be Agnostic Atheist.

For the word "agnostic" to apply, an individual must believe that it is not possible to know whether or not there is a God. This may or may not have anything to do with the rest of their beliefs (though it is hard to see how it wouldn't influence those beliefs in some way :)).


It doesn't mean they don't believe because they're agnostic.

That is true; agnosticism could be just one of the many reasons an atheist disbelieves in God. It does not have to be the sole reason.


And most people that call themselves Agnostic are probably Atheist as well, but I figure those can slide, as they'd likely see the Agnostic part more defining of themselves than the Atheist.
Actually, I think it's about 50-50 between theistic agnostics and atheistic agnostics. A great many religious people freely admit that they cannot know whether or not God exists.

Hell, one of the central tenets of certain Christian branches is that we can never know, nor should we try, but rather we should simply have faith that God exists. That is a belief compatible with the label of "agnostic," because it still admits that there is no way for humans to KNOW whether or not God exists.

Actually, I think it's about 50-50 between theistic agnostics and atheistic agnostics. A great many religious people freely admit that they cannot know whether or not God exists.

Hell, one of the central tenets of certain Christian branches is that we can never know, nor should we try, but rather we should simply have faith that God exists. That is a belief compatible with the label of "agnostic," because it still admits that there is no way for humans to KNOW whether or not God exists.

True, the people who are agnostic is probably an even split, it's just that generally the theist/religious ones call themselves by their religion, while only the atheistic ones refer to themselves as agnostic.

True, the people who are agnostic is probably an even split, it's just that generally the theist/religious ones call themselves by their religion, while only the atheistic ones refer to themselves as agnostic.
Good point. I don't know that I've ever met a religious person who identifies as agnostic. I've actually encountered quite a few religious people who are agnostic (as defined by their stated beliefs) but who have become offended when I pointed this out. I don't mean it as an offense, especially since I myself am agnostic, but I think there are a lot of misconceptions about what "agnostic" actually means.

If you define "agnostic" as "not knowing for a fact whether or not God exists", I guess that makes me one.

Good point. I don't know that I've ever met a religious person who identifies as agnostic. I've actually encountered quite a few religious people who are agnostic (as defined by their stated beliefs) but who have become offended when I pointed this out. I don't mean it as an offense, especially since I myself am agnostic, but I think there are a lot of misconceptions about what "agnostic" actually means.

I have no problem referring to myself as an agnostic theist, or, more to the point, an agnostic Christian. Most often, I leave the "agnostic" part off, because of the misconceptions associated. But in threads like this, I'll generally be explicit about it

I would hardly claim that one can truly know that God does or does not exist, or truly know anything about said God. We can only try and work towards that knowledge.

((So now you have =))

If you define "agnostic" as "not knowing for a fact whether or not God exists", I guess that makes me one.

I think it's more a statement that you cannot know for a fact.

I'm religious - a Christian - and I don't mind atheists at all. Most of my friends are either atheists or agnostics and we have some very spirited dinner-table conversations. They may think my decision to go into the priesthood is absolutely nuts, but other than that, we all have a lot of respect for each other.

I think the fact that the majority of poll respondents said they're tolerant of the 'other side' is frankly awesome.

GAAAAAAAAH.

Okay. Look. "Atheist" and "religious" are not opposites. Atheist is the inverse of theist. Agnostic is outside both of these terms; it is possible to be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

From Dictionary.com:

ag·nos·tic Pronunciation Key (ag-nos'tik) n.
1. 1) One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2) One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

I added the bold - you can't be an agnostic atheist.

I have no problem referring to myself as an agnostic theist, or, more to the point, an agnostic Christian. Most often, I leave the "agnostic" part off, because of the misconceptions associated. But in threads like this, I'll generally be explicit about it

I would hardly claim that one can truly know that God does or does not exist, or truly know anything about said God. We can only try and work towards that knowledge.

((So now you have =))
Lol, works for me!

You were actually one of the religious agnostics that came to mind as I was writing one of those earlier posts. You've always been quite honest about your lack of "knowing" when it comes to God, and seem comfortable admitting that it is a matter of belief/faith. I didn't know if you would identify yourself as "agnostic," however. As you say, there are so many misconceptions about agnosticism that it can be more trouble than it is worth to tack "agnostic" onto your religious identity.

In some cases, one might even argue that it is superfluous to do so...as I said before, there are religious sects that contain agnosticism within their belief system, and thus it might be redundant to specify that you are agnostic.

From Dictionary.com:

ag·nos·tic Pronunciation Key (ag-nos'tik) n.
1. 1) One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2) One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

I added the bold - you can't be an agnostic atheist.

Only for the bold...What if you fall under meaning 1.1?

From Dictionary.com:

ag·nos·tic Pronunciation Key (ag-nos'tik) n.
1. 1) One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2) One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

I added the bold - you can't be an agnostic atheist.
Read your own definition. It is quite possible to be an agnostic atheist.

ONE DEFINITION of agnostic is "a skeptic who doesn't profess true atheism." Another definition is "one who is doubtful or noncomittal," and we've established that plenty of atheists are not at all doubtful or noncomittal about their beliefs. It is possible to be a "definition #1" agnostic without either of the other two definitions applying to you.

From Dictionary.com:

ag·nos·tic Pronunciation Key (ag-nos'tik) n.
1. 1) One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2) One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

I added the bold - you can't be an agnostic atheist.

My dear, let me add the bold that you actually need:

ag·nos·tic Pronunciation Key (ag-nos'tik) n.
1. 1) One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2) One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

I always find it interesting when one proves one's own point to be wrong by quoting a dictionary.

My dear, let me add the bold that you actually need:



I always find it interesting when one proves one's own point to be wrong by quoting a dictionary.
Seriously. Cripes. :P

I think it's more a statement that you cannot know for a fact.

Yeah, I'd agree with that.

Yeah; but the reason they can't do that is because they care for others.

oh, yeah - by "saving" others and implying atheists dont care for others?:headbang:

I don't think that's the implication at all.

Tolerance, my friends. You might think something is stupid, but you don't have the right to take it away from others.

hear-hear... practice this on a daily basis and you're on your way to Heaven even if you have to pass through Hell before and even if you don't believe in God at all.

Confused? I am Agnostic and I do not believe or disbelieve in God, even if I do believe in men like Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad and even Gandhi. I hold a belief that, if there is a God, we will not be judged for our beliefs as much as we'll be judged by our actions. I also believe that, even if there isn't a God, most of what prophets told is still very valid.

This is one of the most amazing sayings attributed to Jesus, but unfortunately was deemed as CONFIDENTIAL by the early Christian Church authorities.

"If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits. When you go into any region and walk about in the countryside, when people take you in, eat what they serve you and heal the sick among them. After all, what goes into your mouth will not defile you; rather, it's what comes out of your mouth that will defile you."
From the hidden Gospel of Thomas


Jesus didn't want us to waste time praying but instead put his teachings into practice. He spoke of tolerance, clemency, love, charity and he always insisted on adopting non-violent forms of protest. He said that if the whole humanity was one, in practising these values, we would be able to move mountains.

These are all very powerful, revolutionary and threatening ideas to any form of oppressive power, whether political, military or even corporate. Unfortunately, very few people understand that this amazing man spoke much more about practical values than about angels and paradise. Most atheists don't bother reading Jesus. I was one for many years...

The problem with all religions is not in the knowledge that the prophets passed to us but HOW the claim for possession of such knowledge (religious authority) was used.

Confused? I am Agnostic and I do not believe or disbelieve in God

Most atheists don't bother reading Jesus. I was one for many years...


See, like I said. I usually let 'em slide, because even if they knew they were agnostic and atheist, the agnostic part would still be the important one to them. But then there's these...While admittedly not as...overt as some others, I still get that "above the others" mentality vibe.


P.S. Don't take this the wrong way. That was a very good post all-around.

See, like I said. I usually let 'em slide, because even if they knew they were agnostic and atheist, the agnostic part would still be the important one to them. But then there's these...While admittedly not as...overt as some others, I still get that "above the others" mentality vibe.

P.S. Don't take this the wrong way. That was a very good post all-around.

Don't worry... I won't. But I believe you misunderstood me, though it's my own fault. The only reason why I am half-skeptical half-believer is because there is no way for me to know whether God exists or not. While in my teens I was a complete atheist (denied the existence of God) today I don't deny it, because I cannot know. I do not consider myself an agnostic theist or atheist; just agnostic (right in middle). I do not think it's necessary to believe in God.

or... maybe it was me who misunderstood what you meant?.... hehehehe We agnostics are very confused people..... hehehehehe

p.s. what do you mean with "above the others mentality"?

Personally, as an Athiest, I have no problems with religion in general. Yeah, it can become corrupt, but thats a horrible, horrible arguemtn against not just religion, but against anything in general. Anything can be corrupt if the right minds are working at it.

But there ARE certain groups that appeal to our evolutionary ancestry, namely nationalism, racism, and religion. What they all have in common is an us vs. them dichotomy filled with systemic assurances of rightiousness. It's impossible to find a successful religion that teaches "we're probably wrong about all this, because we have no real proof or evidence" (which is, of course, what an agnostic believes). Racist, nationalist, or religious institutions arise because in the past, it would have been suicide to NOT be part of some sort of peer group that tries to extract personal benefit by taking advantage of people who are not in the group. It's no mistake that your brain is set up in such a way as to be happy when you increase your chances of survival, prestige, and because of those two, reproductive success, even through immoral means. These institutions bring out the worst in people. This is ironic, because much of the teachings and most of the people are really quite good! I know christians are tired of being given a bad name because the simple minority, but the truth is that this minority is vocal enough and powerful enough to sway the religion as an organised corporate identity. Again, this has psychological explanations - people within a group that all agree with one another tend to try to be just a little more extreme than the rest.

or... maybe it was me who misunderstood what you meant?.... hehehehe We agnostics are very confused people..... hehehehehe

p.s. what do you mean with "above the others mentality"?

It's that Theism/Atheism is a dichotomy, and being agnostic isn't somewhere in the middle. It's a different type of philosophy. As for being in the middle, I'd ask, do you believe in a god?

I always find it interesting when one proves one's own point to be wrong by quoting a dictionary.

Perhaps you could try to understand my point before jumping to the conclusion that it's incorrect. When you look at the two applicable definitions, 1.1 and 1.2, 1.1 is not incompatable with 1.2 - 1.2 is more specific. For example, the word "couple" has the definition of "A few; several" as in "a couple of days". It also has the more specific definition of "two" or "pair". The first is a "loose" or informal definition, probably arising from slang, misuse, or misunderstanding. 1.2 implies that "agnostic" is an "almost-atheist", and strictly states that the two are not compatible. 1.1 doesn't mention atheist at all, though this loose definition is quite compatable. Our argument is much like that between a strict interpretation of the US constitution or a loose one.

It's that Theism/Atheism is a dichotomy, and being agnostic isn't somewhere in the middle. It's a different type of philosophy. As for being in the middle, I'd ask, do you believe in a god?

I really cannot answer that question, because there is no consensus on what the word "God" means. So my problem isn't so much about whether God exists or not but how do I define "God". Some people portray God as a self-conscious entity, while others portray God as the universe. This is how plenty of modern Catholics think. They don't believe in a Heaven or Hell after death, instead choosing to interpret these concepts as the two options we were given to transform Earth into.

If you ask me do I believe in God (Cosmos) obviously I say yes. If you ask me do I believe in an Architect of the Cosmos, I find it hard to believe, yet I cannot say there is one or there isn't.

If there is one, I'll probably find out when I die. If there isn't one, then it won't matter...

Perhaps you could try to understand my point before jumping to the conclusion that it's incorrect.

you can't be an agnostic atheist.

What's this about conclusion-jumping? That's your point, and it's incorrect, as clearly demonstrated by the definitions provided.

Perhaps you could try to understand my point before jumping to the conclusion that it's incorrect. When you look at the two applicable definitions, 1.1 and 1.2, 1.1 is not incompatable with 1.2 - 1.2 is more specific. For example, the word "couple" has the definition of "A few; several" as in "a couple of days". It also has the more specific definition of "two" or "pair". The first is a "loose" or informal definition, probably arising from slang, misuse, or misunderstanding. 1.2 implies that "agnostic" is an "almost-atheist", and strictly states that the two are not compatible. 1.1 doesn't mention atheist at all, though this loose definition is quite compatable. Our argument is much like that between a strict interpretation of the US constitution or a loose one.

When a word has more than one definition, they are not dependent upon one another. They are stand-alone definitions. Thus, we can use the word taking any single definition as the whole definition.

It is interesting, however, that since you don't like one of the definitions, you assume it must be the "slang" or "misuse" definition. You seem to forget that dictionaries are merely descriptive, not prescriptive. If a word is generally used in a certain way, then the proper use of that word is to use it that way. The term "misuse" can only apply in a specialized context (ie. using a non-scientific definition in a scientific discussion) or when a completely non-standard (ie. no one else recognizes it) definition is used.

"Teaching" and "indoctrinating" are not really the same things.


You think so? When it comes to kids they may as well be. If I teach my childrent to be anti racist from birth have I not indoctrinated them? If I teach my childen to be good Christians from birth have I not indoctrinated them? If I teach my childrent to hate black people from birth have I not then indoctrinated them?

How does one get indoctrinated without being taught?

If no one told a group of ten children about god, racism or homosexuality, statistically one of them would still be homosexual. Statistically, what are the odds that one of them would invent a god? If TOLD about god, perhaps there might be some genetic predisposition to believe it, but if that were the case, telling them about the Flying Spaghetti Monster instead of one of the mainstream gods would be just as effective.

That being said, if, for the next few generations, we removed every single trace of any god or religion at all, making sure that no one knew anything about our ideas of god, what are the odds that in 500 years we could come back and find that the concept of Jesus had been reintroduced by genetics? I am guessing the odds would not be good.


I don't understand how you can say that Homosexuality is genetic, and not religoun, when we have found what people are allready calling the religion gene? Also there are many people whose brain chemistry makes it so that they descern patterns more easily, is it accidental then that these people have a propensity towards religion? Everythink you think, is because of the way in which you are physicaly built. Do you disagree with this?

Indoctrinate? Yes, that is bad, as it means you are forcing your beliefs on them. Even if your beliefs are good, as humans, they should still have the right to make up their own minds. So teaching them about your beliefs is a good thing, especially if your beliefs are ethical. Forcing your beliefs on them is a bad thing, even if your beliefs are ethical.

But if you have raised them to be ethical and able to think for themselves, then they should be equipt to make the better choices, and you have done your job well.

That is my point, how can I raise kids without putting my own thoughts into their heads? How can a person raise kids to be ethical and free thinking without teaching them that that way is correct? Kids left alone without adult help will not develop properly, we are all product of adult interferance and indoctination.

It makes sense. Religious types despise atheist for being ignorant of their fictional subjective moral 'truth'. Atheists despise religious types for being ignorant of their scientifically backed so-called 'reality'.
Some religous types, and some atheists are like this yes.

I don't understand how you can say that Homosexuality is genetic, and not religoun, when we have found what people are allready calling the religion gene?

Um, please provide a citation. Frankly, the very idea of a "religion gene" is even MORE laughable than a "gay gene." Traits as complex as human sexuality or human religiosity are NOT going to be controlled by a single gene, and anybody who entertains that idea for even a tiny moment needs to take an intro genetics course before them embarass themselves further.


Also there are many people whose brain chemistry makes it so that they descern patterns more easily, is it accidental then that these people have a propensity towards religion?

Again, citation please.


Everythink you think, is because of the way in which you are physicaly built. Do you disagree with this?
I don't know about anybody else, but I disagree with it, and I've been studying human neurobiology and neuroanatomy for a decade.

Yes, the physical structures and physical processes in our brains are what give rise to human thought. However, research has long since established that what we think/feel/experience can actually change the organization and structures in our brains. It's not a one-way street.

You think so? When it comes to kids they may as well be. If I teach my childrent to be anti racist from birth have I not indoctrinated them? If I teach my childen to be good Christians from birth have I not indoctrinated them? If I teach my childrent to hate black people from birth have I not then indoctrinated them?

How does one get indoctrinated without being taught?

If you teach your children to be anti-racist thats indoctrination. Teaching is creating a sense of knowledge and awareness, not forcing a belief.

I always heard teaching your kid a certain code of ethics called "instilling values", and it's typically regarded as a good thing.

I always heard teaching your kid a certain code of ethics called "instilling values", and it's typically regarded as a good thing.

Not when your children dont agree with your "values". Then they turn into rebellious problem children and shoot up schools. Now I dont necessarily know that, but forcing an idea on someone who naturally rejects it is most likely harmful.

You think so?

Yes.

When it comes to kids they may as well be.

I disagree. I think we teach kids things all the time without indoctrinating them.

If I teach my childrent to be anti racist from birth have I not indoctrinated them?

No, not if you teach them the reasoning behind it and encourage them to question your teachings and see for themselves.

If I teach my childen to be good Christians from birth have I not indoctrinated them?

Only if you discourage them from questioning and try and force them to believe that being a "good Christian" is the only way to live.

If I teach my childrent to hate black people from birth have I not then indoctrinated them?

Considering that there is no logical reason for you to give them to back that up, most likely, yes.

How does one get indoctrinated without being taught?

Your question is backwards. One cannot get indoctrinated with getting taught, at least to a point. However, one can be taught without being indoctrinated.

I don't understand how you can say that Homosexuality is genetic, and not religoun, when we have found what people are allready calling the religion gene? Also there are many people whose brain chemistry makes it so that they descern patterns more easily, is it accidental then that these people have a propensity towards religion? Everythink you think, is because of the way in which you are physicaly built. Do you disagree with this?

Religion gene??? I have to confess to having never heard of such a thing. Do you have more info, and or a link to same?

Pattern recognition? I have always tested very high in pattern recognition, but do not have a propensity towards religion. Again, I would like more info before I comment further, as I have never heard of this.

Everything I think is because of the way in which I am physically built? No, I do not agree. I know people who have the same physical build that I do who think vastly differently. Why? Because they were taught differently, brought up differently, know different things than I do... I am not sure how the idea that physical build might some how relate to what I think has anything to do with the idea of religion being genetic... other than physical build is a genetic trait. But if that had any bearing, all people who are (for instance) tall and overweight, would tend to be liberals? It does not work that way.

That is my point, how can I raise kids without putting my own thoughts into their heads? How can a person raise kids to be ethical and free thinking without teaching them that that way is correct? Kids left alone without adult help will not develop properly, we are all product of adult interferance and indoctination.

To raise them ethically? You teach kids that it is bad to hurt people. That is the basic bedrock. You then help them to think through things to see if a particular choice will hurt someone, and eventually to evaluate different choices to find which of a spectrum causes the least harm. If your child says she wants to become an ax murderer, you help her to see why it is ethically wrong.

You will, of course, put your own ideas in their heads. It cannot be helped. But part of your responsibility is to allow them the opportunity to reject those ideas when they are old enough to understand them. You also respect their choices, so if you are a republican, for instance, and your child, after considering her options becomes a democrat, you support that choice even though you may disagree with it.

Im neither religious nor atheist and Im kinda tired of jehovahs witnesses and mormon missionarys knocking on my door. But Im sick to death of smug atheists trying to cram their ideology down my throat on fora like this. Between devout religious peeps and atheists Id have to say that the religious ones are more omnipresent and the atheists are more in my face and insistent that theirs is the One True Way. If I could get rid of one side or the other Id probably dump the atheists because they do less to make my world a better place to be. The religious ones at least espouse a more or less universal (around here) judeo christian ethic/systems of value. Based on written documents and their god's wishes. Atheists lack this or really any universal system of ethics. Right and wrong is on a per individual basis. Which sounds as good as socialism or communism on the surface yet seems to break down in practice.

Also I see a fair number of religious types who seem genuinely happy, and a great large lot of atheists who seem genuinely hostile.


Anyway keep your churches and lend me your values please religion. And keep your anger and smugness and give me your logic atheists and I'll be happy.

I am Agnostic and I do not believe or disbelieve in God, even if I do believe in men like Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad and even Gandhi. I hold a belief that, if there is a God, we will not be judged for our beliefs as much as we'll be judged by our actions. I also believe that, even if there isn't a God, most of what prophets told is still very valid.

My hat off to you sir (or madam? No offense, but I have no way of telling here.:p ).

The problem with all religions is not in the knowledge that the prophets passed to us but HOW the claim for possession of such knowledge (religious authority) was used.

An excellent point. That parable of the two men who were given money exemplifies it, and that actually made the editorial cut! (If you don't know, two sons are given money. One burries his share, the other goes out and uses it. They return to the father, the first one has the exact same amount of money. The father is annoyed with him but happy with the second son, becuase that son used the money, and made more than he started with. In the parable, "money" is supposed to represent "talents.")

I define myself as independently spiritual. I don't really believe any religion has got it right, and I see the word "religious" as "belonging to/adhering to/believing in a specific religion/religious group." So, I go about my merry way, trying to be a good person. I don't really think you necessarily have to even believe in a creator of any sorts, so long as you're good to your fellow human beings. We're on Earth for such a short amount of time, what use is it to be a jerk to people?

And so, I leave you with one of my favorite lines about religion. It's not my specific outlook, but I think it's pretty funny nonetheless.

The bravest are the Christians, who are gambling that they're wrong and that there is no hell. The least brave are the atheists, who know the end is just the end. In between comes the likes of me, who suspects that I'd just have to do it all over again.

Alright, let me break it down like lactase real quick...

So...I'm atheist...You're a theist (of whatever type)...

Who cares?

Excuse me for making a generalization, but 'generally' any atheist will not form a group of three and bring pamphlets to your door...'generally' they wont try to convert you to their beliefs because, quite honestly, they don't care if you want to be like them or not.

There is NO way to settle the atheist vs monotheist vs polytheist arguement...There just isn't enough tangible proof. Either way...why does one care so much that the other agrees/believes them? Maybe you don't agree with me, but you know what? I don't give a shit. It's not my life. Religion/s are sort of like tattoos. Some people don't like them, as they see they are offensive...Some people like them alot and try to convince you, too. Some people have theirs right in the most obvious places, whilst others are more secretive. It doesn't matter, though, because it's THEIR body to do whatever with.

Also, damning an atheist to hell is pretty lame. If you forget, we don't believe in that sort of thing. Damn me to YOUR hell all you want, I honestly am not offended in any way because I think that your hell doesn't exist.

If it doesn't offend you and you openly say "do it all you want", what's so lame about it?

Lame for you. Maybe I should use a different word...

Damning an atheist to hell is pretty much a waste of your time.

I'm just trying to help a brotha out.(<<<speaking of lame :/)

If it doesn't offend you and you openly say "do it all you want", what's so lame about it?

Would you think that if I insisted that you, as a Christian, were going to spend eternity wrapped in a six foot deep cocoon of silly putty at the bottom of an eternally deep swimming pool that was filled with marbles unless you immediately gave up your Christianity and took up naked pogo stick jumping to be lame? (or stupid or nonsensical or any other appropriate adjective, if it is just the word "lame" that bothers you)

Probably you would, because you don't believe in eternally deep marble pools and don't want to be a naked pogo stick jumper . An atheist doesn't believe in hell and doesn't want to be a Christian.

That is why it is lame.

I concur

Religion gene??? I have to confess to having never heard of such a thing. Do you have more info, and or a link to same?

Pattern recognition? I have always tested very high in pattern recognition, but do not have a propensity towards religion. Again, I would like more info before I comment further, as I have never heard of this.

Everything I think is because of the way in which I am physically built? No, I do not agree. I know people who have the same physical build that I do who think vastly differently. Why? Because they were taught differently, brought up differently, know different things than I do... I am not sure how the idea that physical build might some how relate to what I think has anything to do with the idea of religion being genetic... other than physical build is a genetic trait. But if that had any bearing, all people who are (for instance) tall and overweight, would tend to be liberals? It does not work that way.


Hey Bottle and hey Upper Botswavia,

Okay citation here ya go.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/And-genes-created-religion/2004/11/14/1100384432238.html?oneclick=true


The gene in question is VMAT2, and yes of course I know that one gene does not make a man religious nor does 1 gene make a man Gay, but we a product of both our upbringing and our genetics, all I say is there is a strong possibility that religion is in the genes.

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/bloom061105.html

Which is about how a certian chemical makeup in the brain can be responsible for seeing and reconising patterns which other may not see, which in turn can lead one to religous thought.

When I said everythink you think is because of the why you are phyiscaly built I did not mean stature, but the physicality of your your brain, the certian chemical balance that you have that may be slightly differant from others.

Yes I also understand that we can consiousely change the way in which we think, I.E. make a physical change in our brain chemistry. What does this though? If you don't belive in God nor a soul what part of the brain is then responsible for makeing changes to itself?

Would you think that if I insisted that you, as a Christian, were going to spend eternity wrapped in a six foot deep cocoon of silly putty at the bottom of an eternally deep swimming pool that was filled with marbles unless you immediately gave up your Christianity and took up naked pogo stick jumping to be lame? (or stupid or nonsensical or any other appropriate adjective, if it is just the word "lame" that bothers you)

Probably you would, because you don't believe in eternally deep marble pools and don't want to be a naked pogo stick jumper . An atheist doesn't believe in hell and doesn't want to be a Christian.



Wait, are we talking about holding/expressing the belief that Person X will go to hell, or persistently harassing Person X with that belief? I certainly wouldn't think it lame that you held a sincere conviction that naked pogoing is the only true path in life (although I might consider that belief to be false or even ridiculous), but it WOULD be pretty lame for you to be a douchebag about it.

Religion is not in the genes. A personality that accepts a certain religion maybe.

I think it's lame that someone who very well ought to know that I, being an atheist, do not believe in hell, would go out of their way to remind me that, according to their book (I'm not implying the bible...simply proverbial) I am going to eternally burn in some place that their God that they worship will send me. If you honestly believe in that hell, I don't think you're lame at all. It's healthy to have beliefs and faith...but don't take it upon yourself to assume that your beliefs apply to me. They don't.

Once again, it doesn't offend me. You might as well use the breath to make a balloon animal. They're much more fun, and a slightly more productive use of your time.

Religion is not in the genes. A personality that accepts a certain religion maybe.


Somebody somewhere said and it may have been here I don't know, but they said in reply to a question asking what do genes do for you:

'If your father never brushes his teeth after meals, then it is likely you don't either'

Genes may not make you religous but I belive that they may increase the chance of you being so, give you the propensity to be so.

If what and who we are was down to just our upbringing or culture, then surly those of us from one place would all be exactly the same, but we are not.

Talk to any ten people on their views on anything. Chances are you will get a few agreeing with each other and a few that almost agree, and a few that feel completely differant. Why?

Where does this differance come from? More importantly why? Heh some people are not even concerned with the why, and will just say it don't matter or find other ways to disagree with me, but this just emphasises my point, that we are differant, there are major differances between people.

Some do not belive God exists, some do, and it seems to me that no matter how hard we try to explain our points of view, or what logical arguments we use to try and change each others minds, it's not going to work. Agian why?

Why are we so set in our ways that we cannot change our minds on certian things? The only answer that I can think of is because we are built this way. For the non beliver to belive in God seems ludicrus, and for the beliver to not belive seems, well to me I realy don't care if you don't belive. Again though why do I think this way when so many other belivers would rather condem the non beliver to hell?(or what ever)

I have had no higher education,I have not studied faith nor philosophy I've just reasoned out what seems right to me. I actualy come from an atheist family, from a wee small age I have been the odd one out in my family, since even before I was old enough to learn such behaviour from else where. Do not discount that the way your are is largely because of genetics, nor the physical makeup of your brain, because really from my personal experiances I can't see any other answer.

A true test of genetics is hard to come by. If you are raised by the persons sharing your genes, it's too skewed to tell how much 'genes' really influence the way you think/act. Of course you act according to how your parents raised you...(not only by how they raised you, but obviously they make a large impact)

So, if you were adopted, and your biological dad doesn't brush his teeth after meals...and your adoptive one does, where are you're 'genes' when you happen to brush your teeth after meals???

ah ha!

I don't hate people who are religious; I am good friends with Christans to Pagans. But I'm astonished that anyone can believe in those archaic superstitions. Those beliefs make the individual very pathetic; the individual is someone who can't take things into his own hands, but instead he has to pray to a god to do it. The biggest blasphemy is sin. How can one sin against something that transends all human imperfection?...It is impossible. There is no such thing as hell, because there is no such thing as evil; people only do things that evolve them or don't evolve them.

I don't hate people who are religious; I am good friends with Christans to Pagans. But I'm astonished that anyone can believe in those archaic superstitions. Those beliefs make the individual very pathetic; the individual is someone who can't take things into his own hands, but instead he has to pray to a god to do it. The biggest blasphemy is sin. How can one sin against something that transends all human imperfection?...It is impossible. There is no such thing as hell, because there is no such thing as evil; people only do things that evolve them or don't evolve them.

You demonstrate some fairly bigotted views of religious people. What on Earth makes you think that prayer precludes doing for oneself? If I ask my mother for advice, does that mean that I am pathetic and can't do anything for myself? Or does it mean that I wish to consult someone who may be wiser than me before taking action?

There is no hell because you say so? Alright, cheif...I'm in! Let us both hope that your shitty logic can convince some other people, too.

Do everyone a favor and spare us the 'I am right' talk. Believe in what you want, but don't talk to me like what you believe is fact...Because,quite honestly, you have no idea.

I don't hate people who are religious; I am good friends with Christans to Pagans. But I'm astonished that anyone can believe in those archaic superstitions. Those beliefs make the individual very pathetic; the individual is someone who can't take things into his own hands, but instead he has to pray to a god to do it. The biggest blasphemy is sin. How can one sin against something that transends all human imperfection?...It is impossible. There is no such thing as hell, because there is no such thing as evil; people only do things that evolve them or don't evolve them.

I'm praying for your logic to improve.

I don't hate people who are religious; I am good friends with Christans to Pagans. But I'm astonished that anyone can believe in those archaic superstitions. Those beliefs make the individual very pathetic; the individual is someone who can't take things into his own hands, but instead he has to pray to a god to do it. The biggest blasphemy is sin. How can one sin against something that transends all human imperfection?...It is impossible. There is no such thing as hell, because there is no such thing as evil; people only do things that evolve them or don't evolve them.


That my friend is a one sided narrow view of religous people. I'm religous not because I'm weak and need God in my life, nor do I feel particularly pathetic for holding such belifes. Come on now how angry would you be if I suggested that all Atheists where ego freaks who thoguth the world revovedl around them, and that they are waaaaaaay more fundementalist, insulting, and violent in their manor towards people that don't agree with them than any God botherer?

Man I get called stupid on a daly basis because you can't understand ME? but I can't remeber the last time I heard a God freak do the same to an Atheist

This poll is horribly skewed.

I think athiests are going to hell, but I don't hate them.
I'm agnostic but I'm pretty sure that you're going to rot in the ground.

That my friend is a one sided narrow view of religous people. I'm religous not because I'm weak and need God in my life, nor do I feel particularly pathetic for holding such belifes. Come on now how angry would you be if I suggested that all Atheists where ego freaks who thoguth the world revovedl around them, and that they are waaaaaaay more fundementalist, insulting, and violent in their manor towards people that don't agree with them than any God botherer?

Man I get called stupid on a daly basis because you can't understand ME? but I can't remeber the last time I heard a God freak do the same to an Atheist

I can, but whatever.

pwnt.

By the way, I really can't undertand what you're talking about Peepelonia. Sorry.

i dont look down or hate people that believe in god. or believe anything.

I DO hate people that try and ram it down your throat and make you believe the same as them. As a satanist (no i dont believe in the devil or worship him.... look up satanism) i believe you shouldnt give your opinion on such things or many things unless asked. and i always respect others decisions :)

I don't think you should only speak up when asked, but I agree that there are many times when it is inappropriate to try and preach or whatever.

Nah, if you were going to change, it ought to be because your belief system is inconsistent. Either God is the personification of love, or he's a torturing bastard, according to the dichotomies set up by the christian belief system, but he can't be both, not logically.


He is a God of love and Justice. When he tells you the penalty and you disobey, you recieve the Just and fair Consequence. It's logical.

I'm agnostic but I'm pretty sure that you're going to rot in the ground.

don't be so sure... he/she may be cremated. :D

don't be so sure... he/she may be cremated. :D

And then have the carbon compressed into jewelry.

And then have the carbon compressed into jewelry.

And end up being used as a wedding ring, in an atheist wedding.... :headbang:

I DO hate people that try and ram it down your throat and make you believe the same as them.

*claps*

I think that what we should do is take all the fundamentalists on this planet, of every single religion, and get rid of 'em. Send them to the bottom of the ocean, shoot them into space, I don't care, just get rid of them. Then, maybe, those of us left could sit down and have us a fuckin' discussion. I've heard some brilliant philosophical points on both sides of the God debate, from all different walks of religious beliefs and non-beliefs. It's fundamentalists that screw it up for the rest of us, usually. Fuckin' war mongerers...

Oh, and Scientology. I'm sorry, normally I'm very tolerant of a person's views, but those views are just flat out stupid. So we'll toss out the Scientologists, too. Sound good? ;)

by the way, this debate has been v interesting so far,
I guess i think that there might be some higher power, but I dont think I or anyone else can claim to know what it is, and I seriously doubt that it is the god of classical thesism from the christian religion(especially the old testament)Even though God is supposed to be unchangeable and constant then why is the God of the old testament so different from that of the new testament.
there are so many problems with it, for instance is god is all loving then how can he allow bad to happen(i know free will)if he allows bad to happen is this becauase he is not all powereful,or not all loving, yet the christians believe that God is all powerful and all loving?If god knows everythings, why do we need to pray?If God is not capable of evil then how can he create a world with evil in it-some may say evil came from humans-but if god created humans then he created evil and therefore cannot be incapable of evil.Why allow evil and suffering.How can God watch us suffer?Why does evil go unpunished?If god is all loving and our moral source then surely we would not be capable of sin.If we are made in God image why are we not more loving as god is supposed to be.If he is omnipresent(present in all places at once)then he must be present in evil.If he is all powerful why not create a flawless universe where there is no cruelty-many say there is bad so we can appriciate the good but if all was good we would not know any different and maybe be just as happy if not more so.How can he be omnipresent and a personal God.
Also if God is infinate, or uncaused-this means he either always existed or brought himself into it,then why could the universe also be uncaused.If God was uncaused then why did he create a world of cause and efect.How do we know that God was not created(if he exists) with the big bang!
Another arguement people use for the existance of god is that the earth is perfect distance from the sun, earth is perfect for life ect ect,but if you think about it, considering the scale and size of the universe it is likley that a few planets out of the billions that exist will contain life.
One of the arguements that I have read during this debate is that because humans have had the concept of God, or a creator for centuries that there must be some reason for it and that if it was not true,evolution would have bred it out of us.This is wrong for two reasons,we have always had the tendancy to try and explain our own existance and God seems like an easy way of explaining it.Secondly you cannot say that because we have a concept that we have kept for centuries that it must have some truth in it.For centuries we have had ideas and stories about pixies and dragons-does this make them real -or any more real than God?Part of the human talent for storywirting is that we can imagine things that do not exist.You will find many christians who will say 'faires pixies-dont be so stupid'but there is no more proof for their existance than there is proof of god's existance.Furthermore in respore to a person ion this discussion that has claimed to have had empirical experiance of God-no experiance of God is empirical-it is subjective-you cannot prove his existance-there are great difficulties in proving this 'experience' is from God rather than some other source.Also ,as shown in a recent study, faith healing is linked very closly to the placebo effect, if a person believes strongly enough that they will be healed, just as if a person believes that a dummy pill will make them better, will show signs of improvement.The whole point of faith is that you believe in something without having empirical proof for it.
There is no doubt that faith makes people happy-and people have a right to be happy-that is why people try to convert others -becaus it makes them happy and they want others to be as happy as they are.The concept of God gives people hope that there will be some kind of divine justice, that people not punished in this life will be punished in the afterlife, and that there is some hope for the after life and that their relatives live on and can be met again.
People have every right to believe in God, if they can discuss all these inconsistencies and still believe they are justified in their belifs.If a person refuses to listen to these arguements then their faith is obviously not strong enough to sustain questioning.
I have every respect for a religious person who can question their own belifs without telling everybody they are going to hell for not accepting Jesus christ as their own personal saviour.We should always respect others belifs and listen to their veiws.As js mill says each arguement has an element of truth in it-the only difficulty is distinguishing the truths from the untruthes.Religious people should also accept that not everyone can believe in something without having empirical evidence;as any will, whether religious or not, that imposes itself on another is tyrranical.You can give your veiwpoint without telling the other he/she is stupid for not agreeing with you.(this goes for people on both sides of the divide)[/FONT]

oops didnt realise that post was so long, sorry about that people.I got carried away.:p

oh, and by the way no one can justrify a belif in scientology, it was set up by a man who said that all the best money can be made by religion-and then promptly set up a religion.:upyours:

I don't understand why people find the Abrahamic religions so plausible, but they find Scientology ridiculous...Could someone 'enlighten' me?

I voted other. but I am religous and Athiest don't bother me at all.

so I couldn't vote, in good consience on the option that they don't bother me much.

I don't understand why people find the Abrahamic religions so plausible, but they find Scientology ridiculous...Could someone 'enlighten' me?

Well its even more ridiculous isnt it? and it doesnt answer the "big questions", it just has loads of crap about aliens. funny though.

I typically look down on both the religious and atheists, primarily because I'm an inch or two taller than most of them in most cases.

Wow... i am surprised that the giant post has not been answered yet. Fairly basic questions for the most part... I am not gpoing to do a complete answer of them, cause i broke my right hand, but i can cover the "why does evil exist" question.

First up is an understanding of what evil is. You say that God cannot be all knowing/all powerful/benevolent (hereafter called omnimax) and create evil in the world. However, a different perspective. When you look at evil as merely an abscence of good, it is not actually ever created. A fine point, but important. That means that the amount of evil, or non-good, is determined by us, and our actions. "But why can an omnimax being not know those actions and prevent us from doing evil?" The answer here is the need for free will. A world without free will, from the Christian perspective, would be worse than the world that we have now, because free will is a fundamental need. An assertion, but it is an explanatory viewpoint, explaining how the world works from a certain point of view where that is considered true. Because we need free will, evil is almost guaranteed as a result. We were created flawless, but everyone of us screws it up and some point, leading to the next step. Bad things happen to good people because there is no good person, just a less bad one. Therefore, the evil is deserved, and is a form of justice in and of itself. Also, evil happening to us allows for growth. If nothing bad ever happened to anyone, no one could ever grow and learn, making evil a tool for good. I think that about covers it.... might post more later if there are issues.

For the prayer question, really quickly, we need to pray to demonstrate our faith to ourselves, ant let ourselves grow in faith. God does not need to here the prayer to know the desire. Other responses later

Right, responses to the rest.

“How can he be omnipresent and a personal God.”

All powerful covers that. If you can understand all that is happening at once, you can react to it on a personal level to everyone

“Also if God is infinate, or uncaused-this means he either always existed or brought himself into it,then why could the universe also be uncaused.”

The answer to this is that God exists outside of time, where causality breaks down, and things can cause themselves. The universe is in time, so it cannot make itself since it is bound by causality.

“If God was uncaused then why did he create a world of cause and effect”

Fail to see the contradiction here… why would he not?

“How do we know that God was not created(if he exists) with the big bang!”

Because then there is no cause for the big bang. It needs matter to already be existing in order for compressed matter to explode.

After this the point seems to start countering arguments that I do not see the need to use to defend the faith. If there are any major ones, post to show me what I missed.

Looks like there was less to cover than I thought.

Well its even more ridiculous isnt it? and it doesnt answer the "big questions", it just has loads of crap about aliens. funny though.
Still, people look at Scientological things like Xenu brainwashes souls (or whatever) and then look at Jesus rising from the dead and say "I'd say dead guy coming back to life, as well as healing the sick and walking on water, makes more sense." :headbang:

Still, people look at Scientological things like Xenu brainwashes souls (or whatever) and then look at Jesus rising from the dead and say "I'd say dead guy coming back to life, as well as healing the sick and walking on water, makes more sense." :headbang:

Christianity's had 2000 years for that. Just wait, eventually "Greek Mythology" class is replaced with "Christian Mythology", and the majority of people are Pastafarians.

Being religious dosn't make a person dumb, however many people are dumb because of how they use religion.

I am religiously atheist and look down on God.

(You figure that one out)
Welcome to NS, Chuck Norris!

Actually .... chances are more likely you're going to hell for one of two things:

1] Claiming to believe you know who's going to hell and, thus, knowing the mind of God.

2] Doing a lousy job at making sure atheists convert to your way. Hell is chock full of people who didn't meet quota.

I would suggest this: Don't deal in absolutes. You do not know who is and who is not going to hell, who is and who is not saved, who is and who is not going to spend eternity picking fruit on the slave planet, etc.

Tend to the mote in your own eye.
You're damn right Chuck. American Evangelical Christians think they have a direct line to God.

American Evangelical Christians think they have a direct line to God.

What it sounds like to me. Certainly posters like Shoo Flee don't help to convince me otherwise.

First up is an understanding of what evil is. You say that God cannot be all knowing/all powerful/benevolent (hereafter called omnimax) and create evil in the world. However, a different perspective. When you look at evil as merely an abscence of good, it is not actually ever created. A fine point, but important.

An idea which the Bible directly contradicts.

"I am the Lord and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil. I, Lord, do all these things." Isaiah 45: 6-7

An idea which the Bible directly contradicts.

"I am the Lord and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil. I, Lord, do all these things." Isaiah 45: 6-7

A book which is full of both metaphor and parable. God creates humans, God hands them free will, God (knowingly) indirectly creates evil. If free will keeps the door open for evil to exist, then on some level, God would have created evil, but not in a direct sense, as the way He creates humans, animals, the sun, et cetera.

Look on the bright side: God knows He let evil into the world, and he's taking responsibility for it. It's a good thing that the power of good has a habit of winning out, ultimately...

well, you could say this:

God created Man
Man created the atomic bomb
The atomic bomb destroyed Nagasaki and Hiroshima
Therefore, God destroyed Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

It's a good thing that the power of good has a habit of winning out, ultimately...


Clearly you're not watching the right TV channel. I'm curious to see what sort of statistic you're basing that belief on.

Also, with the poll. I'm an atheist that dislikes theists quite strongly; however, unlike your poll insinuates, I don't think they're stupid/naive/Tom Cruise. In my personal experience, I've just found them insulting to those of other beliefs, whether purposefully or accidentally. And I've never referred to them as backwater hicks in my life. So the phrasing of that is more than a little corrupted.

Clearly you're not watching the right TV channel. I'm curious to see what sort of statistic you're basing that belief on.

I'm not quoting any statistic in particular, and it's not the TV channel I'm watching. I'm not watching the wrong one, I'm not looking at the wrong things, necessarily. There is a huge amount of evil and bad out there, and it's ever present (the war in Iraq and the genocides in Africa and the Middle East, for instance). I'm attempting to look in a historical aspect of things. No matter how hard alot of the more evil people (the war-mongers, for instance) work, or how well their objectives are met for a time, it seems like they ultimately fail. Whatever they built falls apart, as it can't stand against what people ultimately lean toward. The Cold War ended, WWII saw Hitler comitting suicide, the Romans couldn't keep up their conquest, etc, etc. Meanwhile, agencies and groups like the Red Cross and Peace Corps continue to help attempt to make massive strides in helping the downtrodden. Millions of people turn out for walks and events to support the hunt for cures for diseases, and millions constantly band together to stand up for each other (every civil rights movement in history, for instance). There was even a huge, world-wide protest on the eve of the official start of America's war on Iraq. None of the major American news channels wanted to admit to it, of course, but 11 million worldwide (http://www.ccmep.org/2002_articles/Iraq/102702_pictures_of_anti.htm) is a bit hard to hide.

So, yeah, no direct statistic outside of that one, but a historical perspective on things seems to lend me that perspective.

Sorry for the double post, but I figured I'd send links to articles. At the top of the pages of the articles, if you go to them, make note of the papers/agencies the articles come from. Reuters, New York Times, stuff like that.

So, head on over to see & read about protests in New York (http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/iraq/082904_huge_anti.htm), Iraq (http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/iraq/040804_iraqi_marchers_break_through_us.htm), India (http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/iraq/012104_world_social_forum_ends_with_hug.htm), Scotland (http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/111903_scots_hold_day_of_anti.htm), Australia (http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/102303_protesters_to_bush_how_dare_you.htm), San Fransisco (http://www.bohemianmasquerade.com/peace/peace.html), and New York (http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/021503_311_arrested.htm) again. I'm not trying to spout leftsit peace propaganda (if any of you reading this are in favor of the war), I'm not trying to turn anyone's opinion of it. I'm just using it as an example about the good vs evil stuff. And if anyone thinks "Oh, well we're still there, so clearly you're wrong," take note: Bush's approval ratings have plummeted, historians are almost unanimously referring to him as the Worst President in History (Rolling Stone magazine had an article on it), and the war over there can't hold forever. The facade has cracked, and it might take decades, but I think some force of good will eventually take the entire situation over.

I sure as hell hope so, anyway.

Sorry again for the double post, I just thought it was necessary to back myself up.

I think athiests are going to hell, but I don't hate them.
And i think the religious are going to hell, seeing as how they invented it and all. No reason to hate them - they have enough hate to keep themselves going, both of themselves and those they're intolerant of.

the way i see it: believe what you want. i have seen *nothing* to make me believe in any kind of religion : therefore im atheist, but i respect others religions. If you want to believe that there is a god of shoes, go for it. I'll be over here, playing games and generally being kickass.

I generally hate all religion. But, so long as people don't talk to me about their beliefs I'll be happy.

...so long as people don't talk to me about their beliefs I'll be happy.I believe you.
...erm, :eek:

I believe you.
...erm, :eek:

:p

It's disturbing the number of tolerant Christians vs. Intolerant Christians versus The Tolerant Atheists and Intolerant Atheists.

This poll seems to indicate Christians are... more rational?

Did I miss something?

Anyhow, I vote other, because I'm pretty sure there's something up there, but I don't know what.

Let's just hope that I'm barking up the right tree and mostly everyone goes to the afterlife.

Religion has caused more death, hatred and violence than any other single issue in the world (with the possible exception of money).

I am atheist or rather more agnostic (keep your options open) but what I really don't like are all the contradictions in the various churches but most notably the various forms of christianity (I know slightly more about that than most other organised religions).

How can your number one law be thous shalt not kill and then have crusades against other religions, chaplains in the army, torture people to death, massacre native populations becuase you have to "convert" them to your own god etc etc etc

Now admittedly the crusades and spanish inquisition were a few years ago now but look at all the violence and troubles in Northern Ireland which still have not completely gone away and that is arguments between two different versions of the same basic religion.

I'll never understand it. Non religious people can act in a "christian" way but some "christians" are very nasty pieces of work...... go figure. In answer to your question no I don't hate them but nor do I fully understand them either.

well yes, that is because the 'catholic church' is more politically inclined than religious, as they claim to be.
I am a christian and I don't mind atheists, I have been taught to respect others beliefs and I will. Christians who tolerate violence, and throw nasty insults to those who doesn't agree with them are a shame and a disgrace.

I'm attempting to look in a historical aspect of things. No matter how hard alot of the more evil people (the war-mongers, for instance) work, or how well their objectives are met for a time, it seems like they ultimately fail. Whatever they built falls apart, as it can't stand against what people ultimately lean toward.

Maybe the ones who lose get written into history as evil?

I'm an atheist, but i've no problem with other's beliefs. It's not my business. That is, unless someone makes it my business by shoving it down my throat and making their relative morals law.

I'm somewhere in the middle, and I'm equally unnerved by both extremes. Of course, when I put forth a certain amount of respect for someone's ideas, I simply cannot deal with that same person jumping down my throat yelling "YOU'RE WRONG, YOU'RE GOING TO HELL, YOU'RE A HEATHEN BITCH!!"

My big deal is this -- if you're going to sit there and fight that your religion is the be-all, end-all perfect answer to everything -- read your fucking religious texts and UNDERSTAND THEM!! Don't go about condemning everything you don't understand or like.

I don't really fall into any of the catagories. I don't really believe in any organized religion, but, I still believe there is a God that just hasn't spoken to us yet. I came to this conclusion by opening my mind (Btw, Some of you may remember me as "Mich Selbst Und Ich", the far right wing religous nut job) and reading athiest arguments. I realized that most of them made sence, but were against the Bible and not religon in general, hence which made me come to my beliefs.

I really don't look down on either though. People are entitled to believe what they want. Just as long as they aren't arragont about it. Basically, I don't look down on anyone who voted "I'm an athiest and I'm fine with other religons" or "I'm a religious person, but I don't mind the athiests."

Yeah...yeah, I was in the "other" category. Not really a fan of the overall options in the poll...

For anyone who voted "Athiest and the religious are backwater..." I just wanted to let you know I come from New England, and that I went to a pretty big Catholic high school (services most of my state and pieces of nearby states, more or less). The religion teachers there - some of who were Christian Brothers de La Salle - made sure to spend lengthy amounts of class time making sure that we all knew that 1) Catholicism was absolutely nowhere near perfect, but that it's not necessarily wrong at its core, 2) there are plenty of religions out there, and though we may feel more comfortable in one of them (believe it or not, they told us this, and taught us some basics of others), they don't have it anywhere near perfect, either, though they're not necessarily wrong, and 3) the only way to really come to terms with life and some sort of peace with the world is to never stop questioning and searching. I realize that this may or may not be the norm in this country, but I just want people to know that there are incredibly bright religiously devoted people out there who try to make sure that some of the atrocities of the past are not revisted.

Just a point of interest for anyone who might think that those sorts of institutions were brain-washing factories with grades. In my experience, they're the complete opposite. I've found my non-religiously affiliated college to have been far more close minded than my high school ever was.

Okay I'll admit it. I am an atheist, and yes I do look down (secretly) on you religious types. It's not something I've told anyone before. I dislike people forcing their beliefs on me and so I don't go insisting that I think that they are totally wrong. I went to a religous primary school. The bible was read to us on a regular basis, but I thought it was just a load of fictional stories. I still do, but back then (I was 6 when I moved to this school) I thought my teacher was joking when she said people actually belived it was true. We had to pray twice a day. Once I mentioned God in front of my mother. She told me God didn't exist. That seemed more likely than some all powerful being who created the universe. As I got older I managed to understand that people really do believe in God but I still don't understand why? We're all well educated people, some more than others. Okay, I have A'levels in physics and geology. I studied the big bang theory (yeah it could be wrong but it was never taught as THE TRUTH, just a theory) and evolution. But even before I learnt this I knew that God dosn't exist. So why are other well-educated people still religious in these modern days? Brainwashing? I don't honestly know. You tell me.

Right, responses to the rest.

“How can he be omnipresent and a personal God.”

All powerful covers that. If you can understand all that is happening at once, you can react to it on a personal level to everyone

“Also if God is infinate, or uncaused-this means he either always existed or brought himself into it,then why could the universe also be uncaused.”

The answer to this is that God exists outside of time, where causality breaks down, and things can cause themselves. The universe is in time, so it cannot make itself since it is bound by causality.

“If God was uncaused then why did he create a world of cause and effect”

Fail to see the contradiction here… why would he not?

“How do we know that God was not created(if he exists) with the big bang!”

Because then there is no cause for the big bang. It needs matter to already be existing in order for compressed matter to explode.

After this the point seems to start countering arguments that I do not see the need to use to defend the faith. If there are any major ones, post to show me what I missed.

Looks like there was less to cover than I thought.

In response to your arguements, I am glad that you have found your own answers. I was just asking questions-questions that cover many of the reasons why people find it difficult believe in God. I do not claim to be right or know any of the answers to these questions-I was merley asking them.

I am not even claiming that God doesnt exist-just that he probably doesnt exist in the way some religions think he does-I just dont think anyone can claim to know the 'divine will' of any deity.

I'm atheist. I believe that god does not exist. I do not look down upon any religious people except the ones who believe simply because others tell them they should; but to be fair, I look down upon any person who follows any doctrine like a good little lamb, be it religious, political, social, or whatever.

As far as believers go, I sort of envy them. There are times lately when I see things that make me want to belive in God, little things that move me. I just can't do it. I can not believe there is any kind of a god.

Depends how much they don't like me. Atheists who oppose religion in any form (and there are a few on here), I hate. Those who simply do not believe in G-d, I don't mind. And agnostics, who are "undecided" (particularly if they don't see any evidence one way or the other), I quite like. They're scientific.

People who claim that religious people are closed-minded, those guys are generalizing. Judaism is a religion that encourages questioning and discussion. We have a truly colossal body of religious writings.

So?

Would you rather offend someone by telling them they're going to fall off a cliff or just let them fall of the cliff? (hint, if you hate them you'd probably choose the second option because it's easier).

Be very careful, you're about to spontaniously combust. What, you don't believe you're going to spontaniously combust? But it's my strongly heald belief that you will. It doesn't matter if there is logic or fact behind it. Get yourself some protection man, lie down in a bath full of cold water.

...

Religion only warns people against a fate that people can only be sure of though something called "Faith." Warn me about problems in this world, don't worry about the next. No matter what you believe, at least half the people in the world think you're wrong, so don't worry about it. Live your life how you will, if you're right, you'll have your reward in the next life, I'll have my reward in this one, right or wrong, so no skin off my nose.