NationStates Jolt Archive

I am astonished at how much rampant religious bigotry is expressed here daily, on a routine basis. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, Christians have been bashed for centuries, it is fairly common practice. Because of the nature of Christianity, the teachings of Christ to "turn the other cheek", it leaves the door wide open for anyone to take a pot shot whenever they feel compelled to do so, and no Christian is going to ever retaliate.

Still, the practice of bashing Christians, and religion in general, is at an all-time high in my lifetime. I am sure there have been greater religious persecutions, but you would think we had evolved beyond such bigotry and hatred. Reading through the various attacks, it is clear, there is a lot of deep-seated contempt and revile for those who practice religion.

Often, I am mistaken for a "religious nut" or 'told off' by some angry agnostic who assumes I am a Christian. I am a spiritualist, there is a difference. I believe in a higher power than self, I don't comprehend how you can make it through life thinking otherwise, it defies logic and renders life pointless. Nevertheless, I have tolerance for those who choose not to believe in anything greater than themselves. My standpoint comes from my convictions and principles, to stand up against bigotry and hate. Whatever you believe, you shouldn't be hated for it, nor should you be persecuted or ridiculed.

What is interesting to me, is how the religious bigots don't see themselves being bigoted at all. Of course, this is typical with any kind of bigotry, not too many people will readily admit they are bigoted. But when you get to the root of what bigotry is, those who constantly belittle and berate Christian beliefs, are bigots. There is no other way to define it, except religious bigotry.

I am sometimes treated to the complaint that Christians want to "shove their morals down my throat!" Yet, what we often see, is just the opposite. Anti-Christians want to shove their immorality down the throats of the religious. At age 48, I have never seen any proposal or initiative to require people to worship Christ, read the Bible, go to Church, or pray. It's never happened to my knowledge. However, we are constantly bombarded with measures and initiatives to abolish prayer in public, remove religious icons, destroy the religiously-based moral fabric of society, and deny religious freedoms. Christianity in particular, is a religion of acceptance, meaning, you must (is required) accept Christ as your personal savior. It can't be forced on you, and no one can make you do this, regardless of whatever law could be passed, this is something you have to accept in your heart, and there is really no other way to become a Christian.

I once had an interesting debate with an Atheist about Morality. He argued that morals were not rooted in any religious or spiritual belief, that people could be moral and not be religious or spiritual at all. I was skeptical, because I think that morality is rooted in a belief of some higher power which will ultimately hold you accountable for betraying morality. Otherwise, there is really no intrinsic reason to behave morally. Just as 'responsibility' can only be maintained if there is someone to hold you responsible.

In arguing with this Atheist, I asked a series of questions which seemed to baffle him, but there was a valid point to be made. I asked if he was okay with the idea of making pedophilia legal? Why not reduce the legal age of consent to... oh, say... 10 or 12 years old? Of course, he was appalled at the idea, as most of us would be, but the thing is... aren't we imposing our "morality" on others? Why do we have public indecency laws? Isn't this imposing our own moral standards on others? Why can't we all run around naked in the streets and masturbate openly in public? Masturbation isn't hurting anyone, neither is being naked, so what is the problem? Aren't we simply imposing a "moral value" on the rest of society?

The trouble with religious bigots is, they want to draw lines based on their own comfort zones, but they don't want any such line imposed on them. They clearly have limits and 'morals', but these are excused and rectified as appropriate, while other moral views are condemned and scorned. Again, go look up the word "bigot" and see what it says, you'll find that fits the definition to a tee.

To me, a bigot is a bigot is a bigot. They are all the same. It doesn't really matter if you are a racial bigot, a sexist bigot, or a religious bigot, you are still a bigot at the end of the day. To avoid bigotry, you must be willing to understand other viewpoints and respect the beliefs and values of others, and religious bigots can't seem to do this. We've established, they don't have to be afraid of Christians turning them into religious people, that simply can't happen. So what is the problem? I believe it is rooted in hate and greed. Non-religious people have a compelling reason to despise and hate those who practice religious beliefs, they are jealous of their relationship with whatever God they worship, and since they have renounced God, this relationship is not possible for them. Since they can't have that, they don't want anyone else to have it either. Thus, they lash out at anything religious, in complete ignorance of their own bigotry.

Now, before you bash me, let me say again, I am not a "religious" person, I don't belong to any church or denomination, and I actually reject organized religions because I think they all have flaws and misconceptions. I have my own personal beliefs, and I respect the beliefs of others. I am open-minded, and I don't mind standing up for the underdog, especially in the face of blatant bigotry and hate. The purpose of this thread is to open eyes to bigotry within the hearts of my fellow man, and reach understanding. If I can cause one anti-Christian bigot to think before he starts bashing someone for their religious beliefs, it will have been well worth the time it took to write this.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e142/leftyflecken/100.gif

Why do we have public indecency laws? Isn't this imposing our own moral standards on others? Why can't we all run around naked in the streets and masturbate openly in public? Masturbation isn't hurting anyone, neither is being naked, so what is the problem?

I don't believe that that hurts no-one.

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/8263/net02ef6.gif


I believe in a higher power than self, I don't comprehend how you can make it through life thinking otherwise, it defies logic and renders life pointless.

In my opinion, believing in a higher power is illogical, I can still comprehend it though. I've also managed to get over the fact that my life is worthless in the grand scheme of things.

The trouble with religious bigots is, they want to draw lines based on their own comfort zones, but they don't want any such line imposed on them. They clearly have limits and 'morals', but these are excused and rectified as appropriate, while other moral views are condemned and scorned. Again, go look up the word "bigot" and see what it says, you'll find that fits the definition to a tee.

Bigot: One strongly loyal to one's own social group, and irrationally intolerant or disdainful of others.

I can sorta see it, but I disagree with your description fitting it to a tee the way you typed it.

Also, that's interesting, I never knew my reaction to the unwashed masses was classified as bigotry. In fact I'd say it fits that definition word for word better than your example... that's no good :(

Non-religious people have a compelling reason to despise and hate those who practice religious beliefs, they are jealous of their relationship with whatever God they worship, and since they have renounced God, this relationship is not possible for them. Since they can't have that, they don't want anyone else to have it either. Thus, they lash out at anything religious, in complete ignorance of their own bigotry.

But if they're non-religious doesn't that imply that they don't want or don't care about that relationship... why would they be jealous of it?

I've no come to the end of my reply, and realised that it doesn't really have a point. But I'll post it anyway just because I can :)

Also because it's 1:25, and when you're up late typing for five minutes you want to feel like you achieved something. I'm going to bed.

Whether someone can or cannot be forced into christianity isn't really important, what is important is that various christian groups go door to door trying to force people into christianity.

And things like the pledge of allegiance (..one nation, under god,...), your money (in god we trust), trying to get science classes to teach creation myths, the 10 comandments outside courthouses e.d. do force people into accepting christianity. Now, as a religious person, this might not seem as a bad thing to you, but, to an atheist this is indeed, very annoying.

aren't we imposing our "morality" on others? Why do we have public indecency laws? Isn't this imposing our own moral standards on others? Why can't we all run around naked in the streets and masturbate openly in public? Masturbation isn't hurting anyone, neither is being naked, so what is the problem? Aren't we simply imposing a "moral value" on the rest of society?


Actually that could hurt people. Think about it not as morals but instead about the health aspects. A public bench would become a lot less safe if naked people sat on it all day, not to mention masturbation. So in return for these people being "free", I have to give up sitting on benches or anywhere else they could have sat. So I don't think that what we get out of it is worth what we lose.

My morals have nothing to do with it.

I am astonished at how much rampant religious bigotry is expressed here daily, on a routine basis.
I don't see too much. Perhaps you have simply have a low 'bashing' tolerance. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, Christians have been bashed for centuries, it is fairly common practice.
Yeah, that whole thing where they ruled most of Europe, that was a hard time to be Christian. Because of the nature of Christianity, the teachings of Christ to "turn the other cheek", it leaves the door wide open for anyone to take a pot shot whenever they feel compelled to do so, and no Christian is going to ever retaliate.
Oh no, no Christian has EVER gone against the teachings of Christ. Not a one. :rolleyes:

Still, the practice of bashing Christians, and religion in general, is at an all-time high in my lifetime. I am sure there have been greater religious persecutions, but you would think we had evolved beyond such bigotry and hatred.
Alas, bigotry and hatred are still far too common in any group of humans. Reading through the various attacks, it is clear, there is a lot of deep-seated contempt and revile for those who practice religion.
As much as there is for those who practice no religion, or the 'wrong' religion. Crazy wackos are everywhere.

Often, I am mistaken for a "religious nut" or 'told off' by some angry agnostic who assumes I am a Christian. I am a spiritualist, there is a difference. I believe in a higher power than self, I don't comprehend how you can make it through life thinking otherwise,
Strange, I don't comprehend why one would believe in the existence of a higher power.
it defies logic and renders life pointless.
My life is pointless? :(
Nevertheless, I have tolerance for those who choose not to believe in anything greater than themselves.
Good for you.
My standpoint comes from my convictions and principles, to stand up against bigotry and hate. Whatever you believe, you shouldn't be hated for it, nor should you be persecuted or ridiculed.
Hated and persecuted, that's good. Ridicule, however, is a fun way to criticise things. Making fun of people doing silly things, highlights that you think those things are silly.

What is interesting to me, is how the religious bigots don't see themselves being bigoted at all. Of course, this is typical with any kind of bigotry, not too many people will readily admit they are bigoted. But when you get to the root of what bigotry is, those who constantly belittle and berate Christian beliefs, are bigots.
See, this is why people assume you're a Christian. Of all the religions you could have mentioned, you've picked Christianity and gone on about how they're being bashed and discriminated against. Just like a Christian would. There is no other way to define it, except religious bigotry.
It's bigotry to say anything bad about Christian beliefs? Don't be ridiculous. Why should someone pretend that they have no problems at all with Christianity or Christian beliefs? Why should religious beliefs be free from criticism?

I am sometimes treated to the complaint that Christians want to "shove their morals down my throat!"
I imagine some of them do. Just like some Jews do. Or some Muslims. Or some Hindus. Or some atheists. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Some people just think that everyone should go by their sense of it.
Yet, what we often see, is just the opposite. Anti-Christians want to shove their immorality down the throats of the religious.
Your cheap attack on anyone who isn't Christian further makes you seem Christian.
At age 48, I have never seen any proposal or initiative to require people to worship Christ, read the Bible, go to Church, or pray.
More examples from Christianity. And incidentally, there are several states in America that preclude atheists from holding office. These are laws that require people to believe in some god or gods.
It's never happened to my knowledge.
Not anymore, assuming you read the above.
However, we are constantly bombarded with measures and initiatives to abolish prayer in public
Cite your claim.
, remove religious icons,
In keeping with the separation of church and state.
destroy the religiously-based moral fabric of society,
Treaty of Tripoli. America is a secular nation.
and deny religious freedoms.
Cite your claim.
Christianity in particular, is a religion of acceptance, meaning, you must (is required) accept Christ as your personal savior. It can't be forced on you, and no one can make you do this, regardless of whatever law could be passed, this is something you have to accept in your heart, and there is really no other way to become a Christian.
Really, you are very fond of Christianity for someone who isn't Christian. And you might want to tell priests to stop baptising babies. Unless you think that infants who can't talk can accept Christ as their personal saviour.

I once had an interesting debate with an Atheist about Morality. He argued that morals were not rooted in any religious or spiritual belief, that people could be moral and not be religious or spiritual at all.
Which of course they can.
I was skeptical, because I think that morality is rooted in a belief of some higher power which will ultimately hold you accountable for betraying morality.
I think that one's morals should be self-justifying. One should do the right thing simply because it's the right thing, not because of a threat of punishment from some deity/deities.
Otherwise, there is really no intrinsic reason to behave morally. Just as 'responsibility' can only be maintained if there is someone to hold you responsible.
Aside from the secular version of karma(the idea is that if you do good things, then people will be less likely to do bad things to you, and more likely to do good things to you) or, as I said above, doing the right thing simply because it's the right thing.

In arguing with this Atheist, I asked a series of questions which seemed to baffle him, but there was a valid point to be made. I asked if he was okay with the idea of making pedophilia legal?
It is legal to be a paedophile, and I object to your using the term as though it was a synonym for child molester.
Why not reduce the legal age of consent to... oh, say... 10 or 12 years old?
Because at that age children's brains aren't fully developed. It's come up before in other threads, someone else would be able to explain it better. [/answertoarhetoricalquestion]
Of course, he was appalled at the idea, as most of us would be, but the thing is... aren't we imposing our "morality" on others?
That is what laws generally are, a codification of a society's morals.
Why do we have public indecency laws? Isn't this imposing our own moral standards on others? Why can't we all run around naked in the streets and masturbate openly in public? Masturbation isn't hurting anyone, neither is being naked, so what is the problem? Aren't we simply imposing a "moral value" on the rest of society?
Society is imposing it on itself. Societies change. It's my hope that eventually there will be no need for laws, and people will be content to live and let live without the threat of punishment, legal or divine.

The trouble with religious bigots is, they want to draw lines based on their own comfort zones, but they don't want any such line imposed on them. They clearly have limits and 'morals', but these are excused and rectified as appropriate, while other moral views are condemned and scorned. Again, go look up the word "bigot" and see what it says, you'll find that fits the definition to a tee.
You've basically just said that religious bigots are bigots......

To me, a bigot is a bigot is a bigot. They are all the same. It doesn't really matter if you are a racial bigot, a sexist bigot, or a religious bigot, you are still a bigot at the end of the day. To avoid bigotry, you must be willing to understand other viewpoints and respect the beliefs and values of others, and religious bigots can't seem to do this.
Respect to what extent? Should I stop eating meat on Fridays because it goes against Christian beliefs?
We've established,
Who's we? Got a mouse in your pocket? :p
they don't have to be afraid of Christians turning them into religious people, that simply can't happen. So what is the problem? I believe it is rooted in hate and greed. Non-religious people have a compelling reason to despise and hate those who practice religious beliefs, they are jealous of their relationship with whatever God they worship, and since they have renounced God, this relationship is not possible for them. Since they can't have that, they don't want anyone else to have it either. Thus, they lash out at anything religious, in complete ignorance of their own bigotry.
You do know that you're non-religious yourself, right? Are you saying that you are jealous of religious people and all that? That might explain why you have those rose tinted glasses on re:Christianity.

Now, before you bash me, let me say again, I am not a "religious" person, I don't belong to any church or denomination, and I actually reject organized religions because I think they all have flaws and misconceptions. I have my own personal beliefs, and I respect the beliefs of others.
But you're also jealous of the relationship they have with god, since you've renounced it. Strange.
I am open-minded, and I don't mind standing up for the underdog, especially in the face of blatant bigotry and hate. The purpose of this thread is to open eyes to bigotry within the hearts of my fellow man, and reach understanding. If I can cause one anti-Christian bigot to think before he starts bashing someone for their religious beliefs, it will have been well worth the time it took to write this.

Way to go. You've told us that bigots are bigots, and bigotry is bad, and that you have some kind of strange self-hating thing going on. So, are you actually going to do something to stop bigotry? Or are you just going to complain about how the poor unfortunate Christians(and no other religion, apparently) are victims of it?

Christians have been bashed for centuries? What world do YOU live in?
So what is the problem? I believe it is rooted in hate and greed. Non-religious people have a compelling reason to despise and hate those who practice religious beliefs, they are jealous of their relationship with whatever God they worship, and since they have renounced God, this relationship is not possible for them. Since they can't have that, they don't want anyone else to have it either. Thus, they lash out at anything religious, in complete ignorance of their own bigotry.
What utter bullshit. Why would I feel jealous about not having a relationship with somebody I don't believe in? I certainly don't hate and despise little kids because they believe in Santa.

I am astonished at how much rampant religious bigotry is expressed here daily, on a routine basis. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, Christians have been bashed for centuries, it is fairly common practice. Because of the nature of Christianity, the teachings of Christ to "turn the other cheek", it leaves the door wide open for anyone to take a pot shot whenever they feel compelled to do so, and no Christian is going to ever retaliate.

Still, the practice of bashing Christians, and religion in general, is at an all-time high in my lifetime. I am sure there have been greater religious persecutions, but you would think we had evolved beyond such bigotry and hatred. Reading through the various attacks, it is clear, there is a lot of deep-seated contempt and revile for those who practice religion.

That is because Christian intolerance of others is at an all-time high. Well, within the last two hundred years.

The Catholic Church became corrupt, and it became fragmented, and then it had to reconcile itself to the modern world. In the last few years the political power of the Christian right was at an all-time high in modern America. It became corrupt, and now is being consigned to irrelevance because the rest of us have seen it for what it is. Now the front-runners for the Republican presidential candidacy are a Mormon and a pro-choice, cross-dressing, divorced Catholic.

Intolerance of Christianity is so high right now because Christian organizations are so intolerable. Crank the freak switch back to 6 or 7 and we'll talk again.

And things like the pledge of allegiance (..one nation, under god,...), your money (in god we trust), trying to get science classes to teach creation myths, the 10 comandments outside courthouses e.d. do force people into accepting christianity. Now, as a religious person, this might not seem as a bad thing to you, but, to an atheist this is indeed, very annoying.

I don't find anything religious particularly annoying unless they're making me write/say it, although I don't think that's ever happened.

I had to go to Christening recently and while having to hear religious stuff recited was a little annoying, I was more annoyed by not wanting to be there in the first place, and that it was quite frankly boring. If someone was giving a speech about Ragnarok on the other hand, I would probably listen.

Christians have been bashed for centuries? What world do YOU live in?

What utter bullshit. Why would I feel jealous about not having a relationship with somebody I don't believe in? I certainly don't hate and despise little kids because they believe in Santa.

Try telling a child that. You'll get pretty much the same reaction you get out of a Christian these days when you tell him you're an atheist.

I kind of agree with Domici, but I think this trend is more apparent in American christian groups. American christian's seem to be more... Passionate, you could say about thier faith.

I am astonished at how much rampant religious bigotry is expressed here daily, on a routine basis. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, Christians have been bashed for centuries, it is fairly common practice. Because of the nature of Christianity, the teachings of Christ to "turn the other cheek", it leaves the door wide open for anyone to take a pot shot whenever they feel compelled to do so, and no Christian is going to ever retaliate.

No Christian is going to ever retaliate? Have you never seen the "You are all going to hell you evil sinner" posts?

Still, the practice of bashing Christians, and religion in general, is at an all-time high in my lifetime. I am sure there have been greater religious persecutions, but you would think we had evolved beyond such bigotry and hatred. Reading through the various attacks, it is clear, there is a lot of deep-seated contempt and revile for those who practice religion.


I honestly could not care less who practices what religion, until that person attempts to force some part of that religion on me... by insisting that I cannot purchase a beer on Sunday, or that I must listen to them pray in school, or that their story of creation be taught as science, or that a woman's choice be curtailed because of their holy book.

If the practitioners would not attempt to foist off their religion on the rest of us, I would be perfectly OK with whatever they chose to believe.

Often, I am mistaken for a "religious nut" or 'told off' by some angry agnostic who assumes I am a Christian. I am a spiritualist, there is a difference. I believe in a higher power than self, I don't comprehend how you can make it through life thinking otherwise, it defies logic and renders life pointless. Nevertheless, I have tolerance for those who choose not to believe in anything greater than themselves. My standpoint comes from my convictions and principles, to stand up against bigotry and hate. Whatever you believe, you shouldn't be hated for it, nor should you be persecuted or ridiculed.

Do you argue from the starting point that people who ARE "religious nuts" use? If you do, that may be the problem.

What is interesting to me, is how the religious bigots don't see themselves being bigoted at all. Of course, this is typical with any kind of bigotry, not too many people will readily admit they are bigoted. But when you get to the root of what bigotry is, those who constantly belittle and berate Christian beliefs, are bigots. There is no other way to define it, except religious bigotry.


And the opposite is equally true. Bigotry is just as rampant among religionists.

I am sometimes treated to the complaint that Christians want to "shove their morals down my throat!" Yet, what we often see, is just the opposite. Anti-Christians want to shove their immorality down the throats of the religious. At age 48, I have never seen any proposal or initiative to require people to worship Christ, read the Bible, go to Church, or pray. It's never happened to my knowledge. However, we are constantly bombarded with measures and initiatives to abolish prayer in public, remove religious icons, destroy the religiously-based moral fabric of society, and deny religious freedoms. Christianity in particular, is a religion of acceptance, meaning, you must (is required) accept Christ as your personal savior. It can't be forced on you, and no one can make you do this, regardless of whatever law could be passed, this is something you have to accept in your heart, and there is really no other way to become a Christian.

Your measures to PUT prayer in the schools, surround us with your religious icons and base the moral fabric of our society on your religious beliefs IS pushing your religion at us. Stop that and no one will accuse you of it any more.

I once had an interesting debate with an Atheist about Morality. He argued that morals were not rooted in any religious or spiritual belief, that people could be moral and not be religious or spiritual at all. I was skeptical, because I think that morality is rooted in a belief of some higher power which will ultimately hold you accountable for betraying morality. Otherwise, there is really no intrinsic reason to behave morally. Just as 'responsibility' can only be maintained if there is someone to hold you responsible.

In arguing with this Atheist, I asked a series of questions which seemed to baffle him, but there was a valid point to be made. I asked if he was okay with the idea of making pedophilia legal? Why not reduce the legal age of consent to... oh, say... 10 or 12 years old? Of course, he was appalled at the idea, as most of us would be, but the thing is... aren't we imposing our "morality" on others? Why do we have public indecency laws? Isn't this imposing our own moral standards on others? Why can't we all run around naked in the streets and masturbate openly in public? Masturbation isn't hurting anyone, neither is being naked, so what is the problem? Aren't we simply imposing a "moral value" on the rest of society?

If your Atheist was baffled by these easily understood concepts, I have only to believe that you have built a strawman here, but...

If masturbation doesn't hurt anyone, why is it against YOUR moral code? That is to say, turn all those questions around and answer them yourself. If you come to "God says so" as your only answer, I don't want YOU anywhere near my children, against the day you slip up and forget your God for a moment and you have no morals at all. I will, instead, let them stay with people who I know to have morals of their own.

The trouble with religious bigots is, they want to draw lines based on their own comfort zones, but they don't want any such line imposed on them. They clearly have limits and 'morals', but these are excused and rectified as appropriate, while other moral views are condemned and scorned. Again, go look up the word "bigot" and see what it says, you'll find that fits the definition to a tee.

To me, a bigot is a bigot is a bigot. They are all the same. It doesn't really matter if you are a racial bigot, a sexist bigot, or a religious bigot, you are still a bigot at the end of the day. To avoid bigotry, you must be willing to understand other viewpoints and respect the beliefs and values of others, and religious bigots can't seem to do this. We've established, they don't have to be afraid of Christians turning them into religious people, that simply can't happen. So what is the problem? I believe it is rooted in hate and greed. Non-religious people have a compelling reason to despise and hate those who practice religious beliefs, they are jealous of their relationship with whatever God they worship, and since they have renounced God, this relationship is not possible for them. Since they can't have that, they don't want anyone else to have it either. Thus, they lash out at anything religious, in complete ignorance of their own bigotry.


Re-read your last sentence. Put "not of their own" in front of "religious" and "beliefs" after it. It is now just as true as what you wrote. Consider that.

Now, before you bash me, let me say again, I am not a "religious" person, I don't belong to any church or denomination, and I actually reject organized religions because I think they all have flaws and misconceptions. I have my own personal beliefs, and I respect the beliefs of others. I am open-minded, and I don't mind standing up for the underdog, especially in the face of blatant bigotry and hate. The purpose of this thread is to open eyes to bigotry within the hearts of my fellow man, and reach understanding. If I can cause one anti-Christian bigot to think before he starts bashing someone for their religious beliefs, it will have been well worth the time it took to write this.

If I were to have written the exact same essay but swapped Christian and non-Christian all the way through it, would you still think it was just and fair? If so, we have a point at which we can continue this conversation (much later tonight perhaps, as I am off to the in-laws for turkey right now).

Have a good Thanksgiving, religious or not!

:D

Whether someone can or cannot be forced into christianity isn't really important, what is important is that various christian groups go door to door trying to force people into christianity.


LOL - door to door forcing people??? LOL.

That is because black intolerance of others is at an all-time high. Well, within the last two hundred years.

Intolerance of blacks is so high right now because black organizations are so intolerable. Crank the freak switch back to 6 or 7 and we'll talk again.
bigotry is bigotry - it does not matter which group you are targeting - as evidenced by my changing only the target of your rant.

Try telling a child that. You'll get pretty much the same reaction you get out of a feminist these days when you tell her you're a traditionalist.
Once again - demonstrating your bigotry only requires a few small changes...

I don't find anything religious particularly annoying unless they're making me write/say it, although I don't think that's ever happened.


How about getting woken up at 8am on a saturday by someone who: "is here to offer you redemption", how about being told to stand and say the pledge of allegiance, how about having to swear *on the bible* that you'll tell the truth in court (frankly, i'd be more inclined to tell the truth after swearing to on LotR then on the bible)

I think ridiculing beliefs based on superstition is a perfectly sensible thing to do. Show me some genuine evidence for the existence of your God or shut the fuck up.

LOL - door to door forcing people??? LOL.

Seriously, i must be on their "save as fast as possible" list, i get at least one of these wackjobs a week at my door.

How about getting woken up at 8am on a saturday by someone who: "is here to offer you redemption"

That's only happened a few times, and it's always when I have the nerve to wake up early on Saturdays. All they do around here though is talk about their pamphlet for a minute or two, give it to you and leave. I take the pamphlet, laugh at the badly worded title "All suffering is soon to end" and throw it out, or maybe flick through it if I'm eating breakfast and haven't bothered to get the paper yet.

how about being told to stand and say the pledge of allegiance

Don't have one, but I'm sympathetic towards anyone that has a bad story about being forced to because they disagree with the religious parts.

how about having to swear *on the bible* that you'll tell the truth in court (frankly, i'd be more inclined to tell the truth after swearing to on LotR then on the bible)

Never been in court, not sure if we swear on the bible here. Apparently in the UK you can choose between swearing on a holy book, or just give an affirmation that you will tell the truth.

EDIT: I looked it up on the federal court website, our oath and affirmation are on opposite sides of the same card. If you need to be supplied with a different holy book you need to give your lawyer 24 hours notice.

what is important is that various christian groups go door to door trying to force people into christianity.

Force? How is knocking on your door and asking you if you'd like to make Christ your savior forcing you to do anything? If you don't want to talk to them just say no thanks, close the door and they'll go on to the next house.

That's only happened a few times, and it's always when I have the nerve to wake up early on Saturdays. All they do around here though is talk about their pamphlet for a minute or two, give it to you and leave. I take the pamphlet, laugh at the badly worded title "All suffering is soon to end" and throw it out, or maybe flick through it if I'm eating breakfast and haven't bothered to get the paper yet..

Well, i'm usually asleep at this time on a saturday, so it annoys me no end. Thankfully the nearby church stopped ringing its bells on sundays though.

I think ridiculing beliefs based on superstition is a perfectly sensible thing to do. Show me some genuine evidence for the existence of your God or shut the fuck up.

at least you are willing to admit you are a bigot.

I am astonished at how much rampant religious bigotry is expressed here daily, on a routine basis. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, Christians have been bashed for centuries, it is fairly common practice.Yeah, by other Christian groups - i.e. Protestants and Catholics.

I am sometimes treated to the complaint that Christians want to "shove their morals down my throat!" Yet, what we often see, is just the opposite. Anti-Christians want to shove their immorality down the throats of the religious. At age 48, I have never seen any proposal or initiative to require people to worship Christ, read the Bible, go to Church, or pray. It's never happened to my knowledge. Try looking up anti-sodomy laws, laws against gay marriage, anti-gay adoption laws, anti-abortion laws, statements saying that discrimination is okay based on religious beliefs, etc.

Otherwise, there is really no intrinsic reason to behave morally.There shouldn't be intrinsic reasons to behave morally, there should be logical reasons to behave morally.

In arguing with this Atheist, I asked a series of questions which seemed to baffle him, but there was a valid point to be made. I asked if he was okay with the idea of making pedophilia legal? Why not reduce the legal age of consent to... oh, say... 10 or 12 years old? Of course, he was appalled at the idea, as most of us would be, but the thing is... aren't we imposing our "morality" on others? Why do we have public indecency laws? Isn't this imposing our own moral standards on others? Why can't we all run around naked in the streets and masturbate openly in public? Masturbation isn't hurting anyone, neither is being naked, so what is the problem? Aren't we simply imposing a "moral value" on the rest of society? If there are logical reasons for imposing a moral value then doing so is acceptable, such as the moral value that murder is wrong.

I think that morality is rooted in a belief of some higher power which will ultimately hold you accountable for betraying morality. Otherwise, there is really no intrinsic reason to behave morally.

So the only reason you don't, say, rape and murder other people is because you're afraid of punishment?

That's disgusting. But don't assume that your own failures are shared by us atheists. Some of us have the basic moral decency to recognize that we shouldn't rape and murder other people even if eternal damnation doesn't await those who do.

at least you are willing to admit you are a bigot.

It isn't bigotry, I do the same for any other daft idea people may have. I do not discriminate against the people just attack the daft ideas they hold.

what is important is that various christian groups go door to door trying to force people into christianity.

People tend to want to save people from opinions and views that they think are incorrect, because they think you'll end up better off. Add in the whole burning in hell thing, and it gets a little worse.

Try looking up anti-sodomy laws, laws against gay marriage, anti-gay adoption laws, anti-abortion laws, statements saying that discrimination is okay based on religious beliefs, etc.


Ummm - which of those are about forcing people to church?

... and what laws say discrimination based on religious beliefs is ok?? Maybe you will find that in Saudi Arabia, but not in developed western nations.

People tend to want to save people from opinions and views that they think are incorrect, because they think you'll end up better off. Add in the whole burning in hell thing, and it gets a little worse.

Oh no! I'm drowning in a sea of my thoughts and opinions! Someone save me! SAVE ME JEBUS!

It isn't bigotry, I do the same for any other daft idea people may have. I do not discriminate against the people just attack the daft ideas they hold.

So, according to you, someone is not a bigot for disparaging people and ideas such as women's rights, racial equality, etc. so long as they firmly believe those ideas are daft...

Ummm - which of those are about forcing people to church? None of them, they are however about the forcible imposition of morality, which was what I was responding to.

... and what laws say discrimination based on religious beliefs is ok?? Maybe you will find that in Saudi Arabia, but not in developed western nations.The Salvation can discriminate against hiring homosexuals because homosexuality violates their religious beliefs.

I wonder if Dixie is actually going to come back.......

So the only reason you don't, say, rape and murder other people is because you're afraid of punishment?

That's disgusting. But don't assume that your own failures are shared by us atheists. Some of us have the basic moral decency to recognize that we shouldn't rape and murder other people even if eternal damnation doesn't await those who do.

Even if someone is so far gone as to only be held back by fear of retribution, spreading morals can be seen as desirable. If I go around proclaiming that killing is wrong, I'm less likely to end up killed.

Oh no! I'm drowning in a sea of my thoughts and opinions! Someone save me! SAVE ME JEBUS!

It's not always religious, if I see someone purchasing something that I know is of low quality, or in the case of entertainment something I really don't think is good, for a split-second I wonder if I should tell them that they're wasting their money. Then I usually just walk away because they probably won't care

That feeling is one of the main reasons I never want to work in a shop that sells video-games, licensed games sell very well, and I wouldn't be able to go day without whacking someone over the head for trying to buy one.

So, according to you, someone is not a bigot for disparaging people and ideas such as women's rights, racial equality, etc. so long as they firmly believe those ideas are daft...

As I just said I am not disparaging the person just the daft ideas they hold. I do not consider equality to be a daft idea, though I can think of a number of religous institutions who apparently do.

It's not always religious, if I see someone purchasing something that I know is of low quality, or in the case of entertainment something I really don't think is good, for a split-second I wonder if I should tell them that they're wasting their money. Then I usually just walk away because they probably won't care.

Woohoo! SO I can buy my crappy music and you won't say anything! :D

Even if someone is so far gone as to only be held back by fear of retribution, spreading morals can be seen as desirable.

Well, if Dixieanna's "morality" weren't puritanical, bigoted, depraved nonsense, I might agree.

None of them, they are however about the forcible imposition of morality, which was what I was responding to.
No it is not. You were responding to this ;
I have never seen any proposal or initiative to require people to worship Christ, read the Bible, go to Church, or pray. It's never happened to my knowledge.
your response can have no other interpretation.



The Salvation can discriminate against hiring homosexuals because homosexuality violates their religious beliefs.

Once again you are guilty of bait and switch. That does nothing to demonstrate that there are which laws say discrimination based on religious beliefs is ok. Unless you consider sex to be a religion... Not to mention that your 'fact' is not even a valid one.

As I just said I am not disparaging the person just the daft ideas they hold. I do not consider equality to be a daft idea, though I can think of a number of religous institutions who apparently do.

You are missing the point. The fact that you consider their idea daft does not add any more validity to your denial of being a bigot. You would still consider David Duke a bigot even if he were to completely believe that racial equality is a daft idea.

The fact that you consider it 'daft' is irrelevant. Your actions are intolerant and that of a bigot.

No it is not. You were responding to this ;

your response can have no other interpretation.No, I was responding to the whole paragraph, which began "I am sometimes treated to the complaint that Christians want to "shove their morals down my throat!" If I was responding to only the last sentence, that would've been the only thing I quoted.

Once again you are guilty of bait and switch. That does nothing to demonstrate that there are which laws say discrimination based on religious beliefs is ok. If you are allowed to use your religion to discriminate, then you are discriminating based on religious beliefs, regardless of what the person who are discriminating against believes.

Whatever you believe, you shouldn't be hated for it, nor should you be persecuted or ridiculed.

I beg to differ.

I am astonished at how much rampant religious bigotry is expressed here daily, on a routine basis. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, Christians have been bashed for centuries, it is fairly common practice. Because of the nature of Christianity, the teachings of Christ to "turn the other cheek", it leaves the door wide open for anyone to take a pot shot whenever they feel compelled to do so, and no Christian is going to ever retaliate.

Still, the practice of bashing Christians, and religion in general, is at an all-time high in my lifetime. I am sure there have been greater religious persecutions, but you would think we had evolved beyond such bigotry and hatred. Reading through the various attacks, it is clear, there is a lot of deep-seated contempt and revile for those who practice religion.

Often, I am mistaken for a "religious nut" or 'told off' by some angry agnostic who assumes I am a Christian. I am a spiritualist, there is a difference. I believe in a higher power than self, I don't comprehend how you can make it through life thinking otherwise, it defies logic and renders life pointless. Nevertheless, I have tolerance for those who choose not to believe in anything greater than themselves. My standpoint comes from my convictions and principles, to stand up against bigotry and hate. Whatever you believe, you shouldn't be hated for it, nor should you be persecuted or ridiculed.

What is interesting to me, is how the religious bigots don't see themselves being bigoted at all. Of course, this is typical with any kind of bigotry, not too many people will readily admit they are bigoted. But when you get to the root of what bigotry is, those who constantly belittle and berate Christian beliefs, are bigots. There is no other way to define it, except religious bigotry.

I am sometimes treated to the complaint that Christians want to "shove their morals down my throat!" Yet, what we often see, is just the opposite. Anti-Christians want to shove their immorality down the throats of the religious. At age 48, I have never seen any proposal or initiative to require people to worship Christ, read the Bible, go to Church, or pray. It's never happened to my knowledge. However, we are constantly bombarded with measures and initiatives to abolish prayer in public, remove religious icons, destroy the religiously-based moral fabric of society, and deny religious freedoms. Christianity in particular, is a religion of acceptance, meaning, you must (is required) accept Christ as your personal savior. It can't be forced on you, and no one can make you do this, regardless of whatever law could be passed, this is something you have to accept in your heart, and there is really no other way to become a Christian.

I once had an interesting debate with an Atheist about Morality. He argued that morals were not rooted in any religious or spiritual belief, that people could be moral and not be religious or spiritual at all. I was skeptical, because I think that morality is rooted in a belief of some higher power which will ultimately hold you accountable for betraying morality. Otherwise, there is really no intrinsic reason to behave morally. Just as 'responsibility' can only be maintained if there is someone to hold you responsible.

In arguing with this Atheist, I asked a series of questions which seemed to baffle him, but there was a valid point to be made. I asked if he was okay with the idea of making pedophilia legal? Why not reduce the legal age of consent to... oh, say... 10 or 12 years old? Of course, he was appalled at the idea, as most of us would be, but the thing is... aren't we imposing our "morality" on others? Why do we have public indecency laws? Isn't this imposing our own moral standards on others? Why can't we all run around naked in the streets and masturbate openly in public? Masturbation isn't hurting anyone, neither is being naked, so what is the problem? Aren't we simply imposing a "moral value" on the rest of society?

The trouble with religious bigots is, they want to draw lines based on their own comfort zones, but they don't want any such line imposed on them. They clearly have limits and 'morals', but these are excused and rectified as appropriate, while other moral views are condemned and scorned. Again, go look up the word "bigot" and see what it says, you'll find that fits the definition to a tee.

To me, a bigot is a bigot is a bigot. They are all the same. It doesn't really matter if you are a racial bigot, a sexist bigot, or a religious bigot, you are still a bigot at the end of the day. To avoid bigotry, you must be willing to understand other viewpoints and respect the beliefs and values of others, and religious bigots can't seem to do this. We've established, they don't have to be afraid of Christians turning them into religious people, that simply can't happen. So what is the problem? I believe it is rooted in hate and greed. Non-religious people have a compelling reason to despise and hate those who practice religious beliefs, they are jealous of their relationship with whatever God they worship, and since they have renounced God, this relationship is not possible for them. Since they can't have that, they don't want anyone else to have it either. Thus, they lash out at anything religious, in complete ignorance of their own bigotry.

Now, before you bash me, let me say again, I am not a "religious" person, I don't belong to any church or denomination, and I actually reject organized religions because I think they all have flaws and misconceptions. I have my own personal beliefs, and I respect the beliefs of others. I am open-minded, and I don't mind standing up for the underdog, especially in the face of blatant bigotry and hate. The purpose of this thread is to open eyes to bigotry within the hearts of my fellow man, and reach understanding. If I can cause one anti-Christian bigot to think before he starts bashing someone for their religious beliefs, it will have been well worth the time it took to write this.


Nobody cares what you think

-snip-


Don't you have more posts than 96? Maybe I'm thinking of another Mystic Skeptic.

Anyways, I expect when people come to my door it should have a direct impact on my life in some way, if they want to save me from something 40 years down the line then they should wait. My lack of their morals won't kill me instantly or else I would already be dead.

So what they are doing to be is forcing their religion on me by acting in a completely irresponsible and disrespectful manner toward my free time. Since it is pointless the only other thing they must be doing is trying to have a direct impact on my life by making me in their church, which is forcing their religion on me.

You are missing the point. The fact that you consider their idea daft does not add any more validity to your denial of being a bigot. You would still consider David Duke a bigot even if he were to completely believe that racial equality is a daft idea.

The fact that you consider it 'daft' is irrelevant. Your actions are intolerant and that of a bigot.

You seem to be the one unable to grasp the point. Racism is an illogical position as is religious conviction because neither are based on evidence. Equality is not an illogical position - therefore it is logical to lump religious beliefs with racism as they are both based on false assumptions. I am attacking these false assumptions (and when I say 'daft' what I mean is something that has no basis in fact but simply in belief) - this is not bigotry. I have no idea who David Duke is.

So, according to you, someone is not a bigot for disparaging people and ideas such as women's rights, racial equality, etc. so long as they firmly believe those ideas are daft...
It is bigotry to disparage ideas or their holders only if you do so for the reason that you have a contrary view. It is not inherently bigotry to pick apart one's reasoning in support of a given view if you do it to demonstrate a flaw from a neutral stance.

I think that morality is rooted in a belief of some higher power which will ultimately hold you accountable for betraying morality. Otherwise, there is really no intrinsic reason to behave morally.
So the only reason you don't, say, rape and murder other people is because you're afraid of punishment?

That's disgusting. But don't assume that your own failures are shared by us atheists. Some of us have the basic moral decency to recognize that we shouldn't rape and murder other people even if eternal damnation doesn't await those who do.

Seconded.

I am astonished at how much rampant religious bigotry is expressed here daily, on a routine basis. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, Christians have been bashed for centuries, it is fairly common practice. Because of the nature of Christianity, the teachings of Christ to "turn the other cheek", it leaves the door wide open for anyone to take a pot shot whenever they feel compelled to do so, and no Christian is going to ever retaliate.

Still, the practice of bashing Christians, and religion in general, is at an all-time high in my lifetime. I am sure there have been greater religious persecutions, but you would think we had evolved beyond such bigotry and hatred. Reading through the various attacks, it is clear, there is a lot of deep-seated contempt and revile for those who practice religion.

Often, I am mistaken for a "religious nut" or 'told off' by some angry agnostic who assumes I am a Christian. I am a spiritualist, there is a difference. I believe in a higher power than self, I don't comprehend how you can make it through life thinking otherwise, it defies logic and renders life pointless. Nevertheless, I have tolerance for those who choose not to believe in anything greater than themselves. My standpoint comes from my convictions and principles, to stand up against bigotry and hate. Whatever you believe, you shouldn't be hated for it, nor should you be persecuted or ridiculed.

What is interesting to me, is how the religious bigots don't see themselves being bigoted at all. Of course, this is typical with any kind of bigotry, not too many people will readily admit they are bigoted. But when you get to the root of what bigotry is, those who constantly belittle and berate Christian beliefs, are bigots. There is no other way to define it, except religious bigotry.

I am sometimes treated to the complaint that Christians want to "shove their morals down my throat!" Yet, what we often see, is just the opposite. Anti-Christians want to shove their immorality down the throats of the religious. At age 48, I have never seen any proposal or initiative to require people to worship Christ, read the Bible, go to Church, or pray. It's never happened to my knowledge. However, we are constantly bombarded with measures and initiatives to abolish prayer in public, remove religious icons, destroy the religiously-based moral fabric of society, and deny religious freedoms. Christianity in particular, is a religion of acceptance, meaning, you must (is required) accept Christ as your personal savior. It can't be forced on you, and no one can make you do this, regardless of whatever law could be passed, this is something you have to accept in your heart, and there is really no other way to become a Christian.

I once had an interesting debate with an Atheist about Morality. He argued that morals were not rooted in any religious or spiritual belief, that people could be moral and not be religious or spiritual at all. I was skeptical, because I think that morality is rooted in a belief of some higher power which will ultimately hold you accountable for betraying morality. Otherwise, there is really no intrinsic reason to behave morally. Just as 'responsibility' can only be maintained if there is someone to hold you responsible.

In arguing with this Atheist, I asked a series of questions which seemed to baffle him, but there was a valid point to be made. I asked if he was okay with the idea of making pedophilia legal? Why not reduce the legal age of consent to... oh, say... 10 or 12 years old? Of course, he was appalled at the idea, as most of us would be, but the thing is... aren't we imposing our "morality" on others? Why do we have public indecency laws? Isn't this imposing our own moral standards on others? Why can't we all run around naked in the streets and masturbate openly in public? Masturbation isn't hurting anyone, neither is being naked, so what is the problem? Aren't we simply imposing a "moral value" on the rest of society?

The trouble with religious bigots is, they want to draw lines based on their own comfort zones, but they don't want any such line imposed on them. They clearly have limits and 'morals', but these are excused and rectified as appropriate, while other moral views are condemned and scorned. Again, go look up the word "bigot" and see what it says, you'll find that fits the definition to a tee.

To me, a bigot is a bigot is a bigot. They are all the same. It doesn't really matter if you are a racial bigot, a sexist bigot, or a religious bigot, you are still a bigot at the end of the day. To avoid bigotry, you must be willing to understand other viewpoints and respect the beliefs and values of others, and religious bigots can't seem to do this. We've established, they don't have to be afraid of Christians turning them into religious people, that simply can't happen. So what is the problem? I believe it is rooted in hate and greed. Non-religious people have a compelling reason to despise and hate those who practice religious beliefs, they are jealous of their relationship with whatever God they worship, and since they have renounced God, this relationship is not possible for them. Since they can't have that, they don't want anyone else to have it either. Thus, they lash out at anything religious, in complete ignorance of their own bigotry.

Now, before you bash me, let me say again, I am not a "religious" person, I don't belong to any church or denomination, and I actually reject organized religions because I think they all have flaws and misconceptions. I have my own personal beliefs, and I respect the beliefs of others. I am open-minded, and I don't mind standing up for the underdog, especially in the face of blatant bigotry and hate. The purpose of this thread is to open eyes to bigotry within the hearts of my fellow man, and reach understanding. If I can cause one anti-Christian bigot to think before he starts bashing someone for their religious beliefs, it will have been well worth the time it took to write this.
Good post. While I may not agree with all you have written, I do believe that you make some very good points. There is a preponderance of atheists here at NSG who seem to delight in dousing good Christians with their bigotry. By the same token, there is also a number of religious zealots who enjoy giving it right back. It would be nice if the extremists on both sides could tone it down a bit, but that appears to be unlikely.

Good post. While I may not agree with all you have written, I do believe that you make some very good points. There is a preponderance of atheists here at NSG who seem to delight in dousing good Christians with their bigotry. By the same token, there is also a number of religious zealots who enjoy giving it right back. It would be nice if the extremists on both sides could tone it down a bit, but that appears to be unlikely.

Very good points? All he's said is that there are bigots, these bigots do bigotted things, biggoted things are bad, and that he's jealous of Christians. I've seen better points on a tennis ball. *ba dum tish*

... Reading through the various attacks, it is clear, there is a lot of deep-seated contempt and revile for those who practice religion.
Although there are some posters for whom this is undoubtedly true, it is not universally the case that contempt for religion implies contempt for the religious; just as it is not universally the case that hating "sin" requires one to hate "sinners". Many of us see Religion itself, in terms of its role as an ideological segregation tool, as an inherently dangerous power that has been misused in the control and manipulation of others, and our primary concern in questioning the deep-seated existentialism behind them is in those to whom it poses a threat, whether within or without.

The thing is, although we may ourselves be prejudicial when it comes to the effect Religion has (since we are human after all, and are limited in our knowledge by induction and inference), we are acting against what we perceive to be prejudice and ideological authoritarianism just as you are. We know it's a vicious cycle, but it's a vicious cycle that we can't afford to end if it comes at the death of our understanding, because although we know we may be wrong, we know Religion is wrong too, and we can't let it go unchecked.

You're more than welcome to question the wisdom behind this course of action. Heck, we know it's ridiculous. But we don't see any other way to do it. We have no authority to change Religion from the inside, and Religion has stubbornly refused to change at the behests of those outside of its grasp. The only option we have left, it seems, is to fight, and hope that the conflict can bring about constructive dialogue. Although this may mean making enemies of those we would rather befriend, and firing bullets we would rather not fire, it's something that we have to do. And in this, while myself an unashamed mystic, I fight beside those who want to be heard.

Although there are some posters for whom this is undoubtedly true, it is not universally the case that contempt for religion implies contempt for the religious; just as it is not universally the case that hating "sin" requires one to hate "sinners". Many of us see Religion itself, in terms of its role as an ideological segregation tool, as an inherently dangerous power that has been misused in the control and manipulation of others, and our primary concern in questioning the deep-seated existentialism behind them is in those to whom it poses a threat, whether within or without.

The thing is, although we may ourselves be prejudicial when it comes to the effect Religion has (since we are human after all, and are limited in our knowledge by induction and inference), we are acting against what we perceive to be prejudice and ideological authoritarianism just as you are. We know it's a vicious cycle, but it's a vicious cycle that we can't afford to end if it comes at the death of our understanding, because although we know we may be wrong, we know Religion is wrong too, and we can't let it go unchecked.

You're more than welcome to question the wisdom behind this course of action. Heck, we know it's ridiculous. But we don't see any other way to do it. We have no authority to change Religion from the inside, and Religion has stubbornly refused to change at the behests of those outside of its grasp. The only option we have left, it seems, is to fight, and hope that the conflict can bring about constructive dialogue. Although this may mean making enemies of those we would rather befriend, and firing bullets we would rather not fire, it's something that we have to do. And in this, while myself an unashamed mystic, I fight beside those who want to be heard.

The role of religion in society is more complicated than that. It has been used as an ideological segregation tool, but so has language, ethnicity, and history. The real problem is ideological segregation. Why blame the tool when the tool user is at fault?

I agree with you that the primary concern should be for the populace who is subject to such manipulation. And one good method of preventing such manipulation is by teaching our children critical thinking skills. This would help people against those who wish to manipualte them, whether or not religion is the tool for such manipulation.

Also by focusing on the prejudice and ideological authoritarianism, rather than religion itself, we allow ourselves the option of organising with like minded people regardless of their theism. This also gets rid of the vicious cycle you alluded to in your post.

Religion is not a single, monolithic, hive being. Many theists have embraced change, and still do. Many have even been proponents of change.

we shouldn't rape and murder other people even if eternal damnation doesn't await those who do.


Why?

Why?

Because we wouldn't want to be raped and murdered, and we have no basis to put ourselves over others.

Because we wouldn't want to be raped and murdered,

Raping and murdering people doesn't mean that you will be raped and murdered.

and we have no basis to put ourselves over others.

Says who?

Raping and murdering people doesn't mean that you will be raped and murdered.

No... but it means that either you are acting irrationally (without a reason) or you recognize as legitimate a principle that allows rape and murder.

Says who?

What's your basis?

It is bigotry to disparage ideas or their holders only if you do so for the reason that you have a contrary view. It is not inherently bigotry to pick apart one's reasoning in support of a given view if you do it to demonstrate a flaw from a neutral stance.

On that you are correct. Many people here are incapable of maintaining their neutral objectivity - as evidenced by the word 'daft'.

In matters of religion it is my humble opinion arguing with logical 'reason' is about as sensible as trying to taste music, hear blue or smell love. Religion is a deeply personal matter - one which people should feel no fear to express, share, or even avoid. You can disagree with anyone's ideas - but to disparage someone for holding them is the beginning of intolerance.

No, I was responding to the whole paragraph, which began "I am sometimes treated to the complaint that Christians want to "shove their morals down my throat!" If I was responding to only the last sentence, that would've been the only thing I quoted.

If you are allowed to use your religion to discriminate, then you are discriminating based on religious beliefs, regardless of what the person who are discriminating against believes.

Describe a law which allws that?

No... but it means that either you are acting irrationally (without a reason) or you recognize as legitimate a principle that allows rape and murder.

There's lots of good reasons to rape and murder people.

Such as financial gain or pleasure.

If I can get away with these things, why should I stop?

What's your basis?

To put myself over someone?

Because I can get away with it and it makes me happy.

Click Stand;13235743']Don't you have more posts than 96? Maybe I'm thinking of another Mystic Skeptic.

Anyways, I expect when people come to my door it should have a direct impact on my life in some way, if they want to save me from something 40 years down the line then they should wait. My lack of their morals won't kill me instantly or else I would already be dead.

So what they are doing to be is forcing their religion on me by acting in a completely irresponsible and disrespectful manner toward my free time. Since it is pointless the only other thing they must be doing is trying to have a direct impact on my life by making me in their church, which is forcing their religion on me.
post count is irrelevant - but just presume for now that mine are so profound as to have staying power in your consciousness... :)


You are going to die in 40 years? I'm not so sure about that myself. Regardless - I'm pretty sure most religions are not just about what happens after death.

So far as forcing their religion upon you - unless they are breaking into your home, tieing you up and brainwashing you that argument does not hold water. I will agree that anyone i don't know knocing on my door for any reason is an annoyance to me - but so far none have forced anything upon me.

Regardless - if you are so convinced that tehy are wrong - why not invite them into your home and reverse witness to them? You too can save the world one soul at a time...

Such as financial gain or pleasure.

You would not agree to being raped or murdered for either of those reasons, in all probability.

Because I can get away with it

Irrelevant.

and it makes me happy.

Again, not a reason you would actually accept as such.

If I can get away with these things, why should I stop?
A number of reasons, all of which have nothing to do with religion-based morality.

One could argue you are causing unnessecary suffering and loss of life, and that one shouldn't engage in activities that promote suffering and/or loss of life; or a consequentialist would say that murder and rape lead to bad consequences, and are thus morally wrong; or one could argue, if you believe in human rights, that you are violating a human's basic right to life and to be free from forced violation of your body; or, if you were a classic liberal, one could say that murder and rape violate an individual's 'private property' of their body; or, one could use an utilitarian argument, arguing that, on a pleasure-net-pain maxim, murder and rape don't promote utility; and so on.

There are plenty of aguments that don'e recourse to a god or gods.

The idea that morality can only stem from religion was thought to be laughable years ago.

You seem to be the one unable to grasp the point. Racism is an illogical position as is religious conviction because neither are based on evidence. Equality is not an illogical position - therefore it is logical to lump religious beliefs with racism as they are both based on false assumptions. I am attacking these false assumptions (and when I say 'daft' what I mean is something that has no basis in fact but simply in belief) - this is not bigotry. I have no idea who David Duke is.

David Duke is irrelevant. Anyone can argue logic to suit their own moral convictions. Logic can be used to describe blacks as inferior and asians as the master race, logic can be used to relegate women to glorified baby-machines, logic could be used to justify discrimination against homosexuals. Logic is pliable - particularly in matters of religion.

To describe anyones belifes at any level as 'daft' is evidence of bigotry. Because you do not share the same values as someone does not give you the right to regard them with intolerance. Nobody has ever had an improvement in their condition as a result of being on the receiving end of intolerance.

I am astonished at how much rampant religious bigotry is expressed here daily, on a routine basis. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, Christians have been bashed for centuries, it is fairly common practice. Because of the nature of Christianity, the teachings of Christ to "turn the other cheek", it leaves the door wide open for anyone to take a pot shot whenever they feel compelled to do so, and no Christian is going to ever retaliate.

...

Let's reflect.

1) Who are getting persecuted in Serbia for their religious beliefs?
Ans - Muslims

2) What is the first thing I hear if I tell someone I'm Hindu?
Ans - Stop worshiping cow sh** and turn to Christ

3) What do they teach in schools about Hinduism?
Ans - It is a polytheistic religion and they ridicule it

4) Who's name is in the pledge of allegiance?
Ans - The Christian God's

5) What happened to Mitt Romney in New Hampshire?
Ans - He was ridiculed because he was Mormon and thus part of "a non-Christian cult"

6) Why doesn't Fox News like Barrack Obama?
Ans - Because he's "Muslim" (even though he's Christian)

7) Right after 9/11/01, what happened?
Ans - Sikhs were killed because they wore turbans and thus they were "terrorists"

8) What would happen to my Muslim friends should they tell people their religion?
Ans - They'll be called a terrorist

9) What was the religion of Nazi Germany?
Ans - Christianity

10) Who started the First Crusader War?
Ans - Christians

11) Who, when they took over Jerusalem, allowed people to leave if they didn't want to stay?
Ans - The Muslims (specifically Salah-ad-Din)

12) Who, when they took over Jerusalem, slaughtered every Muslim and Jew?
Ans - The Christians

13) Who tortured and killed non-Christians for 300 years?
Ans - The Christians (the Inquisition)

14) Why can't I hold public office in some U.S. states?
Ans - Because I'm not Christian

15) What happened in Salem, Massachusetts?
Ans - People were killed because they didn't follow Christianity and thus were "practicing magic"

16) Why did Pizarro slaughter the Incans?
Ans - Because they Incan King threw the Bible on the ground

17) Read this: http://www.burningcross.net/crusades/christian-missionary-atrocities.html

I could go on and on, but there's no need to. Christians are ridiculed because for the past 1000 years, they've been persecuting everyone who doesn't follow their religion and they even persecute themselves.

The role of religion in society is more complicated than that. It has been used as an ideological segregation tool, but so has language, ethnicity, and history. The real problem is ideological segregation. Why blame the tool when the tool user is at fault?
People often say that. The thing is that Religion is not in the same category as the above, though you could certainly include Spiritualism and Theology in that list. Religion is to Theology rather what Nationality is to Language and Culture, in that it is an explicit declaration of community according to this sort of exclusive ideology. And in that respect, Religion is an example of ideological segregation rather than something that is abused by it.

(Incidentally, I have similar disagreements with the notion of Nationality, but that's for another day)

Religion is not a single, monolithic, hive being.
Well, that's up for debate. I think the notion of a hive-mind suits religion pretty well, though I'd agree in saying it's not a "monolithic" construct. People are still the arbiters of their own actions, and the effect of religion on them is one of heavy influence rather than unquestionable dictation.

Nonetheless, it does influence the decision-making of its constituent members in a manner driven by the collective ideology, and as such, the hive-mind abstraction - while by no means fully descriptive - does deal with the "zeitgeist" aspect of Religion that cannot be properly addressed through any other.

In Any case, I fully agree with your two central paragraphs that we should be focused on tackling the question of sectarianism as the root of the problem. But in order for that to work, we need to get people to see where it affects us, and there's no sense trying to hide Religion (or counter-Religion, for that matter) from that when it could potentially be the most effective posterboy for what sectarianism does to us.

Let's reflect.

1) Who are getting persecuted in Serbia for their religious beliefs?
Ans - Muslims

2) What is the first thing I hear if I tell someone I'm Hindu?
Ans - Stop worshiping cow sh** and turn to Christ

3) What do they teach in schools about Hinduism?
Ans - It is a polytheistic religion and they ridicule it

4) Who's name is in the pledge of allegiance?
Ans - The Christian God's

5) What happened to Mitt Romney in New Hampshire?
Ans - He was ridiculed because he was Mormon and thus part of "a non-Christian cult"

6) Why doesn't Fox News like Barrack Obama?
Ans - Because he's "Muslim" (even though he's Christian)

7) Right after 9/11/01, what happened?
Ans - Sikhs were killed because they wore turbans and thus they were "terrorists"

8) What would happen to my Muslim friends should they tell people their religion?
Ans - They'll be called a terrorist

9) What was the religion of Nazi Germany?
Ans - Christianity

10) Who started the First Crusader War?
Ans - Christians

11) Who, when they took over Jerusalem, allowed people to leave if they didn't want to stay?
Ans - The Muslims (specifically Salah-ad-Din)

12) Who, when they took over Jerusalem, slaughtered every Muslim and Jew?
Ans - The Christians

13) Who tortured and killed non-Christians for 300 years?
Ans - The Christians (the Inquisition)

14) Why can't I hold public office in some U.S. states?
Ans - Because I'm not Christian

I could go on and on, but there's no need to. Christians are ridiculed because for the past 1000 years, they've been persecuting everyone who doesn't follow their religion and they even persecute themselves.


So - you persecute Christians as some sort of cosmic payback? Regardless of your rationalization or the lack of merit of them - you admit that you are a bigot. Good for you - that is the first step towards recovery.

I'm curious - what is the teaching regarding tolerance acording to Hundu beliefs?

Raping and murdering people doesn't mean that you will be raped and murdered.


No. However, we have evolved as social beings. Part of this is the development of an innate empathic ability which allows us to both take the perspective of someone else (to understand what it might feel like to be raped/murdered) and to feel a negative emotional reaction to seeing others distressed (and a positive one to others happiness, it's why laughter is infectious)*. Interestingly, research has found that even from a young age, children can differentiate between moral transgressions (defined as those causing another person harm) and conventional transgressions (breaking social rules), irrespective of the relevant punishment to these. So I suppose this little meander down a psychological lane is to say that humans are built with an innate level of morality based on a principle of social co-operation and non-harm which exist irrespective of religious beliefs forcing us one way or the other. Also, kids tend to socialise better when it's based on empathy for others rather than fear of punishment.

*please note, this is often affected by in-group/out-group dynamics and whole host of other factors including perceived threat.

You can disagree with anyone's ideas - but to disparage someone for holding them is the beginning of intolerance.

What he said. So let's keep it reasonably civil, and no more of this sort of thing:

Well, if Dixieanna's "morality" weren't puritanical, bigoted, depraved nonsense, I might agree.

Nobody cares what you think

Show me some genuine evidence for the existence of your God or shut the fuck up.

So - you persecute Christians as some sort of cosmic payback? Regardless of your rationalization or the lack of merit of them - you admit that you are a bigot. Good for you - that is the first step towards recovery.

I never said persecution and intolerance is correct. However, read the first post of the thread. It states clearly that the OP believes that Christians are the only ones getting persecuted. Obviously, that's not true.

I'm curious - what is the teaching regarding tolerance acording to Hundu beliefs?

Those who are intolerant towards other will have intolerance towards them. Those who persecute others because of their religion deserve to themselves be persecuted and they will be - either by man or by the Divine. This is an example of Karma.

David Duke is irrelevant. Anyone can argue logic to suit their own moral convictions. Logic can be used to describe blacks as inferior and asians as the master race, logic can be used to relegate women to glorified baby-machines, logic could be used to justify discrimination against homosexuals.
And I have yet seen any 'logical' arguments for discrimination due to sex, sexual orientation, religion or lack of, skin colour, etc. that aren't obviously flawed.

To describe anyones belifes at any level as 'daft' is evidence of bigotry
Not at all!

If someone holds a belief that the moon is made of green cheese, then I can quite happily say that their belief is daft without being a bigot. Pointing out a flawed belief is in no way bigotry.

Moreover, if I hold that your belief ''anyone who calls another individual's belief 'daft' is a bigot" is daft, then I'm not being a bigot towards you, I just hold that you are mistaken.

Let's reflect.

1) Who are getting persecuted in Serbia for their religious beliefs?
Ans - Muslims


Source?

Those who are intolerant towards other will have intolerance towards them. Those who persecute others because of their religion deserve to themselves be persecuted and they will be - either by man or by the Divine. This is an example of Karma.
I never really liked that aspect of Hinduism, though I guess it's present in Christianity too; the idea that "People naturally get what's coming to them". The world has been pretty harshly constructed if unconditional forgiveness is in violation of its inherent laws.

Anyway, I digress. Hinduism has an incredibly rich and valuable mystical tradition that we often forget in the rush to use it to make judgements about the way the world "works", and in that sense I certainly hope people continue to pass it on.

I kind of agree with Domici, but I think this trend is more apparent in American christian groups. American christian's seem to be more... Passionate, you could say about thier faith.

Sadly the vast majority of christians in the U.S are rather lazy, although not as badly as in europe (if they still have christians). Its the ones in asia and africa and south america that are truly blazing for christ.

A number of reasons, all of which have nothing to do with religion-based morality.

This ought to be interesting.

One could argue you are causing unnessecary suffering and loss of life, and that one shouldn't engage in activities that promote suffering and/or loss of life;

Why?

I can benefit from causing unneccessary suffering and loss of life, greatly.

or a consequentialist would say that murder and rape lead to bad consequences, and are thus morally wrong;

Bad consequences for who? Certainly not the murderer or rapist. I mean the victim is going to suffer. But I got mine, so why should I care?

or one could argue, if you believe in human rights, that you are violating a human's basic right to life and to be free from forced violation of your body; or, if you were a classic liberal, one could say that murder and rape violate an individual's 'private property' of their body; or, one could use an utilitarian argument, arguing that, on a pleasure-net-pain maxim, murder and rape don't promote utility; and so on.

That's all mamby-pamby bullshit and self defeating prattle.

You haven't given me one good reason not to hurt people in order to improve my posisiton in this life.

There's no good reason that I shouldn't kill old ladies and steal there mattress money if I can get away with it.

Source?

That's like asking for the source that proves that there are Muslims in the United States. Anyway:

http://www.wakeup.org/anadolu/01/3/muslims_of_yugoslavia.html

I can't really give sources for the genocides against Muslims by Serbia, though.

You haven't given me one good reason not to hurt people in order to improve my posisiton in this life.
Would you hurt yourself in order to improve your position in life? Would you, say, cut out your right eye for enough money to ensure you unparallelled comfort for the rest of your life?

You haven't given me one good reason not to hurt people in order to improve my posisiton in this life.

Jail's a bitch. That should be a fairly valid reason.

Jail's a bitch. That should be a fairly valid reason.

Actually, that is not a valid reason at all.

There are times when it is morally obligatory to go to jail for what is right.

post count is irrelevant - but just presume for now that mine are so profound as to have staying power in your consciousness... :)

Not saying it matters, but I thought that you had more posts, like I remember you account having more. So it must have been a person with a similar name.

You are going to die in 40 years? I'm not so sure about that myself. Regardless - I'm pretty sure most religions are not just about what happens after death.

But there will be no consequences until then.

So far as forcing their religion upon you - unless they are breaking into your home, tieing you up and brainwashing you that argument does not hold water. I will agree that anyone i don't know knocing on my door for any reason is an annoyance to me - but so far none have forced anything upon me.

What I am saying is that since it has no direct impact on my life, they have no other reason to be there. The only way it can have an impact is if they want me to go to their services, which is forcing their religion on me.

Regardless - if you are so convinced that they are wrong - why not invite them into your home and reverse witness to them? You too can save the world one soul at a time...

I am very busy from can't see till' can't see. Alas there no time to save souls. Also, if I was busy with them I might miss someone coming to the door with a real reason to be there.

Jail's a bitch. That should be a fairly valid reason.
He could bypass that by arguing that he could kill anyone who tried to arrest him. Or overthrow the jailers and run the prisons himself.

If you're going to refute the stance of total immorality, you can't use "Threat of punishment". There are other, more appropriate methods to counter it.

Why?
Because that's a moral theory, albeit a rather simple one.

Your entire point of this line of reasoning, I presume, is to show that moral theories can't exist without recourse to religion. This is blatantly not the case.

Bad consequences for who? Certainly not the murderer or rapist. I mean the victim is going to suffer. But I got mine, so why should I care?
Because, if you were a consequentialist, the consequences for all involved are important. I'm not saying you've got to agree to this line of reasoning; I'm just showing you that moral theories are quite possible without recourse to religion.

That's all mamby-pamby bullshit and self defeating prattle.
:p

Tell that to the thousands of classic liberal, human rights and utilitarian political theorists. I'm afraid you're going to have to come up with a better response than 'that's BS'.

You haven't given me one good reason not to hurt people in order to improve my posisiton in this life.
I've given you at least five.

There's no good reason that I shouldn't kill old ladies and steal there mattress money if I can get away with it.
Do you honestly think that you should only refrain from doing bad deeds if you aren't going to get punished from it, or conversely, that you should only do good deeds if you are going to get rewarded?

Would you murder if God allowed it?

Or do you think murder would be a good thing if God allowed it?

I am astonished at how much rampant religious bigotry is expressed here daily, on a routine basis.I'm not. The annoying Christians tend to be the ones most intent on spreading their Truth (c).
I guess I shouldn't be surprised, Christians have been bashed for centuries, it is fairly common practice. Because of the nature of Christianity, the teachings of Christ to "turn the other cheek", it leaves the door wide open for anyone to take a pot shot whenever they feel compelled to do so, and no Christian is going to ever retaliate. Oh... You've mistaken "Religious Bigotry" with common Bigotry...

Christian's never retaliate? What fantasy world do you live in?

Still, the practice of bashing Christians, and religion in general, is at an all-time high in my lifetime. I am sure there have been greater religious persecutions, but you would think we had evolved beyond such bigotry and hatred. Reading through the various attacks, it is clear, there is a lot of deep-seated contempt and revile for those who practice religion. Not really. I used to work for Caritas, the catholic welfare organization in Germany. Almost all my colleagues were religious, and I had no problem with them. It's contempt for a minority that are utterly convinced they have the answer and want to ensure that everyone elses lifestyle fits that answer.

I am sometimes treated to the complaint that Christians want to "shove their morals down my throat!" Yet, what we often see, is just the opposite. Anti-Christians want to shove their immorality down the throats of the religious. At age 48, I have never seen any proposal or initiative to require people to worship Christ, read the Bible, go to Church, or pray. It's never happened to my knowledge. However, we are constantly bombarded with measures and initiatives to abolish prayer in public, remove religious icons, destroy the religiously-based moral fabric of society, and deny religious freedoms. You know, I've never seen Christians being repressed. Therefore, it obviously doesn't happen. :rolleyes:
I was in Virginia for the constitutional ammendment last year. Example of the moralists pushing their worldview down the rest of societies throat right there.

I once had an interesting debate with an Atheist about Morality. He argued that morals were not rooted in any religious or spiritual belief, that people could be moral and not be religious or spiritual at all. I was skeptical, because I think that morality is rooted in a belief of some higher power which will ultimately hold you accountable for betraying morality. Otherwise, there is really no intrinsic reason to behave morally. Just as 'responsibility' can only be maintained if there is someone to hold you responsible. He's wrong. The term he's looking for is "ethical". It is possible to be ethical and not be religious, but morality is always derived from religious codes.

In arguing with this Atheist, I asked a series of questions which seemed to baffle him, but there was a valid point to be made. I asked if he was okay with the idea of making pedophilia legal? Why not reduce the legal age of consent to... oh, say... 10 or 12 years old? Of course, he was appalled at the idea, as most of us would be, but the thing is... aren't we imposing our "morality" on others? Why do we have public indecency laws? Isn't this imposing our own moral standards on others? Why can't we all run around naked in the streets and masturbate openly in public? Masturbation isn't hurting anyone, neither is being naked, so what is the problem? Aren't we simply imposing a "moral value" on the rest of society? Good question. Let's see: the issue with the age of consent is usually a cultural one. When is a child old enough to begin acting like an adult? Puberty hits sometime in the early teens, so it would be logical to mark that as a change in legal status. The difficulty with that is that everyone hits physical maturity at different times. So it is a complicated issue, particularly because adults can abuse the inexperience of people so young.

Now the indecency, yeah, that is shoving moral codes down people's throats. I can understand why masturbation should be kept in private areas, it's a form of sex, but nudity? Give me a break! There's absolutely no sound reason to make nude bathing on public property illegal.

The trouble with religious bigots is, they want to draw lines based on their own comfort zones, but they don't want any such line imposed on them. They clearly have limits and 'morals', but these are excused and rectified as appropriate, while other moral views are condemned and scorned. Again, go look up the word "bigot" and see what it says, you'll find that fits the definition to a tee. Not always, though. For instance, I don't like watching two men go at it, and I absolutely DETEST cheese. However, I don't see how not liking either would be grounds for denying anyone that doesn't share my distaste the above.

To avoid bigotry, you must be willing to understand other viewpoints You can start by comprehending how someone can live their everyday lives without believing in a higher power ;)

I never really liked that aspect of Hinduism, though I guess it's present in Christianity too; the idea that "People naturally get what's coming to them". The world has been pretty harshly constructed if unconditional forgiveness is in violation of its inherent laws.

Anyway, I digress. Hinduism has an incredibly rich and valuable mystical tradition that we often forget in the rush to use it to make judgements about the way the world "works", and in that sense I certainly hope people continue to pass it on.

You're supposed to ignore Karma. For example, when seeing a beggar, don't say "It's because his Karma", but just help the beggar. Karma is a natural result that is hard to describe. If I do something wrong, then someone will do something wrong to me even if they don't intend it. If something bad happens to you, you're supposed to do something about it and not just say "It's because of my Karma".

Hindu Scripture says that Karma can be broken through the performance of good deeds.

Would you hurt yourself in order to improve your position in life? Would you, say, cut out your right eye for enough money to ensure you unparallelled comfort for the rest of your life?


No. In this scenario I'm only willing to cut out a weaker persons' eye to ensure unparallelled comfort.

The term he's looking for is "ethical". It is possible to be ethical and not be religious, but morality is always derived from religious codes.

Coherently distinguish between the two in a way that justifies this claim.

Jail's a bitch. That should be a fairly valid reason.


Fear of jail isn't morality.

Fear of jail isn't morality.

I never said it was.

No. In this scenario I'm only willing to cut out a weaker persons' eye to ensure unparallelled comfort.
Hmm. Presumably, then, your eye is something of value to you; more so than any individual item of status you might otherwise be able to exchange for your own embetterment (since you would, no doubt, be quite happy to give up $100 if it meant getting $100,000, or similarly anything of lower value for something of higher value).

Why is this? Would the loss of your eye be a symbol of weakness? Would the diminished vision somehow detract from your enjoyment of life? Or is there some other reason that your eye is more valuable than anything the world could possibly offer you?

9) What was the religion of Nazi Germany?
Ans - Christianity
Not to be nitpicky, but Nazi Germany was hardly a religious state. In fact, the religious group that supported Hitler's rise to power soon lost prominence when he became Führer. A bunch of the top tier Nazis were more interested in establishing a religion akin to Germanic mythology, although Hitler was pretty ambivalent.

Coherently distinguish between the two in a way that justifies this claim.Morality always has to do with virtue, and is a religious concept. Ethics, on the other hand, is the general code of how to behave, and does not necessarily base itself on morality.

In other words, it's possible to be ethical without being moral.

Christians may be bashed every time we turn around, but that does NOt mean that we are not to retaliate. If people bash us, and war against us, the Lord gives us the right to defend ourselves. CMon Christians! We need to defend ourselves even if it means dying for the greater good, which is preserving our religion as well as religious freedom!

I was skeptical, because I think that morality is rooted in a belief of some higher power which will ultimately hold you accountable for betraying morality.

I think that it's also possible to be moral because you want to function within society, not necessarily because of some sort of carrot/stick complex. Otherwise why else would I feel compelled not to steal, if I don't think that a higher being is judging me for it? Other people are judging me for it, and the power of that can be just as, if not sometimes more effective than the idea of something final and unseen judging you when you die.
At the very least, I hold myself accountable for my actions. I can judge myself just as other people, or a higher power might judge me.

So I don't think that it is necessary to have a higher power to do the judging. Most people can do that of their own volition. Maybe some people can't, and for them it's a good idea, but I consider myself moral - and it is the judgement and estimation of myself both in my own eyes and in those of other people that compels me to be moral, rather than something supernatural.

Morality always has to do with virtue, and is a religious concept. Ethics, on the other hand, is the general code of how to behave, and does not necessarily base itself on morality.

In other words, it's possible to be ethical without being moral.
I think you get into tricky waters when you try and distinguish between 'ethics' and 'morality'.

They're the same thing, and pretty much every political philosopher uses them interchangeably. I can't even think of one who doesn't.

Furthermore, morality/ethics doesn't always have to do with virtue, and quite clearly isn't always routed in religion.

Fear of jail isn't morality.
And neither is fear of God.

That's like asking for the source that proves that there are Muslims in the United States. Anyway:

http://www.wakeup.org/anadolu/01/3/muslims_of_yugoslavia.html

I can't really give sources for the genocides against Muslims by Serbia, though.

Yeah, (skimmed through it, will re-check later, I'm on meds right now) the article is from 1991 and it seems very biased.

You wrote: "Who are getting persecuted in Serbia for their religious beliefs?
Ans - Muslims"

Right now? Unlikely considering all the eyes that are watching that region. Before? Undeniably.

I wasn't asking because I wanted to be an ass, I wanted to see if there were some current persecutions of muslim in Serbia. You failed to give me a source of current ones and instead gave me a source thats 16 years old. Then you proceed to say that you really can't give me a source for what I'm asking. Why bother to make the claim then?

And it seems that you think I was asking if there were muslims in Serbia, I wasn't. I know there are, I've seen them first hand. I explained above what I was asking for.

Morality always has to do with virtue,

So does ethics.

and is a religious concept.

No, it isn't.

Ethics, on the other hand, is the general code of how to behave,

Yes, and if you comply with this "code", you are virtuous.

and does not necessarily base itself on morality.

You have yet to give a clear definition of "morality." Nor have you explained its connection to religion.

I am astonished at how much rampant religious bigotry is expressed here daily, on a routine basis.
Any examples of this?

Christians have been bashed for centuries, it is fairly common practice.
It's probably even more common to be a Christian, or at least claim to be. If not the latter, then Christianity claiming to have popular opinion on its side is no longer a legitimate argument according to your own reasoning. (Not like it was a legitimate argument to begin with, "popular" doesn't mean reasonable)

Because of the nature of Christianity, the teachings of Christ to "turn the other cheek", it leaves the door wide open for anyone to take a pot shot whenever they feel compelled to do so, and no Christian is going to ever retaliate.
HORSE SHIT. You're acting like non-Christians "started it" or something. The Christian opposition to embryonic stem cell research (as if embryos that are only a few days old and as such probably wouldn't have the consciousness that death causes one to lose) is causing people with diseases it could cure to have to keep the disease for probably years more than they otherwise would. Not to mention the false allegation that Atheists are immoral. Or the attempt to disguise creationism as science. Or the blatant lie that the US is a "Christian nation"; it is NOT. In the US Bill of Rights, the first 10 words of the first amendment are "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and yet Christians are basing opposition to same sex marriage rights on the bible condemning homosexuality. I'm not even American and I notice this. It's about time the non-Christians fought back...

And "turn the other cheek" my ass. How much public opposition to the death penalty do you see?

I am sometimes treated to the complaint that Christians want to "shove their morals down my throat!" Yet, what we often see, is just the opposite. Anti-Christians want to shove their immorality down the throats of the religious.
Wait, you say you're not a Christian but you claim that anti-Christians want to shove immorality down the throats of the religious?

Explain yourself.

However, we are constantly bombarded with measures and initiatives to abolish prayer in public
I don't agree with them. As long as you allow prayer of other religions than Christianity it's reasonable. I can ignore it, I can look away.

I think that morality is rooted in a belief of some higher power which will ultimately hold you accountable for betraying morality. Otherwise, there is really no intrinsic reason to behave morally.
Just because YOU'RE so selfish that you think there's no reason to behave ethically if not threatened by a dictator of the universe doesn't mean you should assume atheists are. In case you can't identify with this, I have a conscience, I actually try to consider how others are affected by what I do. (For the record though, I'm probably more agnostic than atheist but still anti-religion and my point still stands)

And don't even talk about a lack of consequences. According to Christianity, you can rape and murder and steal all the time and so long as you repent you can be forgiven. It's only when you "blaspheme" that you can't. The law, on the other hand, does not forgive people for raping and murdering and stealing, as such actually has consequences to hold people accountable for those actions.

Isn't this imposing our own moral standards on others?
Moral standards not based on dogmatic thinking but on questioning. Churches brainwash people with scare tactics like "when you find yourself doubting like with 'what about other religions, what if they're right?' remember that these are only doubts that the DEVIL fills your mind with"; what makes you think they don't brainwash with regards to right and wrong?

they are jealous of their relationship with whatever God they worship, and since they have renounced God, this relationship is not possible for them
What, do you think you can read minds or something? I pity them.

People here don't hate those who are religious - they can't stand those who parade the forum, make great generalisations against people, clime the moral high ground condemn those around them, claim they're all going to hell - the see that very people go off and do the opposit of what they preached.

Me, I have a religion, but I don't feel the need to impose it on others nor do I feel the need to scream to the top of my lungs (whilst pointing) that "you're going straight to hell!!!!!!!!!!!"

So does ethics.

Yes, and if you comply with this "code", you are virtuous.

How do you support the claim that all ethical systems are examples of virtue ethics?

Christians may be bashed every time we turn around, but that does NOt mean that we are not to retaliate. If people bash us, and war against us, the Lord gives us the right to defend ourselves. CMon Christians! We need to defend ourselves even if it means dying for the greater good, which is preserving our religion as well as religious freedom!Actually, no, the bible quite explicity states that you shouldn't.
Unless you're not Christian.

How do you support the claim that all ethical systems are examples of virtue ethics?

That's not what I said.

Virtue ethics are built on the centrality of virtues: rather than considering specific acts, certain attributes of character are cultivated.

Plenty of ethical systems do not incorporate this prioritization of virtue. However, they still incorporate virtue itself, by reversing the line of causation: rather than certain acts being in line with a certain character, a certain character is in line with certain acts.

I reject virtue ethics, but I might strive to be a loving, honest person because it makes me less likely to commit acts I recognize as immoral.

(Furthermore, there is some ambiguity regarding the term "virtue"--there is moral virtue, the willingness to fulfill one's obligations, and then there are the specific virtues of the tradition of virtue ethics. Moral virtue, which is what I was talking about, could actually be credibly argued to be mutually exclusive with virtue ethics.)

Edit: Along the same lines, the only coherent, reasonable, and substantive (non-pedantic) distinction between "morality" and "ethics" I can think of would actually put virtue ethics in the "ethics" category... because it does not hold by a notion of a higher moral obligation the way "moral" systems tend to, but rather is in a sense "pragmatic."

Actually, no, the bible quite explicity states that you shouldn't.
It also quite explicitly says that you can (Exodus 22).

Funny how that works, isn't it?

It also quite explicitly says that you can (Exodus 22).

Funny how that works, isn't it?Much of the OT got revoked by Jesus, particularly the Eye for and eye bit.

Much of the OT got revoked by Jesus, particularly the Eye for and eye bit.
Doesn't mean the bible doesn't say it. =P

Doesn't mean the bible doesn't say it. =PBut it does mean that it is specifically prohibited by the bible ;)

But it does mean that it is specifically prohibited by the bible ;)
True, but it's also specifically condoned (for those of selective understanding). :p

But it does mean that it is specifically prohibited by the bible ;)

I recall Jesus saying something about selling your cloak to buy a sword or something

I recall Jesus saying something about selling your cloak to buy a sword or somethingFunny, I recall him saying "Those that live by the sword, die by the sword" when one of his disciples wanted to defend him from the Romans... Seems a lot less ambiguous.

That's not what I said.

Indeed not, but oversimplifying kinda helped give that impression. ;)

Virtue ethics are built on the centrality of virtues: rather than considering specific acts, certain attributes of character are cultivated.

Plenty of ethical systems do not incorporate this prioritization of virtue. However, they still incorporate virtue itself, by reversing the line of causation: rather than certain acts being in line with a certain character, a certain character is in line with certain acts.

Ah, I see your point.

I reject virtue ethics, but I might strive to be a loving, honest person because it makes me less likely to commit acts I recognize as immoral.

Right. But wouldn't this simply mean that virtue could be (or should be) the result of such an ethical system, not that it's inherently a part of it? Certainly, the application of ethics and the theory of ethics often end up being quite dissimilar when it comes to human behavior.

(Furthermore, there is some ambiguity regarding the term "virtue"--there is moral virtue, the willingness to fulfill one's obligations, and that is what I was referring to, and then there are the specific virtues of the tradition of virtue ethics. Moral virtue, which is what I was talking about, could actually be credibly argued to be mutually exclusive with virtue ethics.)

I'm not sure moral virtue could even be said to be inherent in most ethical systems.

Edit: Along the same lines, the only coherent, reasonable, and substantive (non-pedantic) distinction between "morality" and "ethics" I can think of would actually put virtue ethics in the "ethics" category... because it does not hold by a notion of a higher moral obligation the way "moral" systems tend to, but rather is in a sense "pragmatic."

I'm not actually interested in making that distinction, just in clarifying your position.

Right. But wouldn't this simply mean that virtue could be (or should be) the result of such an ethical system, not that it's inherently a part of it?

Specific virtues of character (honesty, compassionateness, etc.)? Yes.

I'm not sure moral virtue could even be said to be inherent in most ethical systems.

It applies to all the ones founded on an obligation independent of some notion of benefits (tangible or intangible) for ourselves.

Whether someone can or cannot be forced into christianity isn't really important, what is important is that various christian groups go door to door trying to force people into christianity.

And things like the pledge of allegiance (..one nation, under god,...), your money (in god we trust), trying to get science classes to teach creation myths, the 10 comandments outside courthouses e.d. do force people into accepting christianity. Now, as a religious person, this might not seem as a bad thing to you, but, to an atheist this is indeed, very annoying.

Amen :p

I think ridiculing beliefs based on superstition is a perfectly sensible thing to do. Show me some genuine evidence for the existence of your God or shut the fuck up.

thou shalt not flame?

Funny, I recall him saying "Those that live by the sword, die by the sword" when one of his disciples wanted to defend him from the Romans... Seems a lot less ambiguous.

Found it
22:36: "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

My interpretation would be Jesus planned on dying because it was part of the plan, but for self defense the disciples should defend themselves

But then their are things that contradict that :confused:

It applies to all the ones founded on an obligation independent of some notion of benefits (tangible or intangible) for ourselves.

Which ones would those be?

Which ones would those be?

Most modern ethical theories out there? Virtually every consequentialist and deontological theory, for instance.

The backdrop to this teaching is that the Jews considered it an insult to be hit in the face, much in the same way that we would interpret someone spitting in our face. Bible scholar R. C. Sproul comments: "What's interesting in the expression is that Jesus specifically mentions the right side of the face [Matthew 5:39]....If I hit you on your right cheek, the most normal way would be if I did it with the back of my right hand....To the best of our knowledge of the Hebrew language, that expression is a Jewish idiom that describes an insult, similar to the way challenges to duels in the days of King Arthur were made by a backhand slap to the right cheek of your opponent."


According to this website when Jesus was saying turn the cheek he was referring to when someone is being insulted and not really physically threatened, self defense if your being threatened is something you should do

http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/qselfdefense.html

that is logical

also note Jesus was meant to be crucified so that's why he didn't defend himself in the end

There's lots of good reasons to rape and murder people.

Such as financial gain or pleasure.

If I can get away with these things, why should I stop?

Because its illegal?

To put myself over someone?

Because I can get away with it and it makes me happy.

You need help

According to this website when Jesus was saying turn the cheeck he was refering to when somone is being insulted and not really physicly threatened]

Except that he also tells us to not resist an evil person.

You need help
He'd challenge that by noting that he's perfectly happy with his existence, and thus he doesn't actually need help at all, since all that matters is one's own contentment. You need to demonstrate a reason that he should consider his ideas incomplete in order for him to yield to requests to change them.

Except that he also tells us to not resist an evil person.

Which seems strange since Jesus did resist evil, like with the money changers

Because its illegal?

Whither your an atheist or Christian if the only reason you don't rape people is because it's illegal I don't want to be around you

Which seems strange since Jesus did resist evil, like with the money changers
You could argue that was catching evil unawares rather than actual resistance, but I guess the principle is similar. "Don't let evil pick the battleground", maybe?

Whither your an atheist or Christian if the only reason you don't rape people is because it's illegal I don't want to be around you

He wanted a reason, and my personal basis of not doing to others what I wouldn't want done to me had already been put forth.

He wanted a reason, and my personal basis of not doing to others what I wouldn't want done to me had already been put forth.
That's still kinda incomplete as a theory of ethics though. I mean, what if I happen to have a masochistic streak; does that justify me torturing others because I happen to like it? And what if I happen to like peanuts, but haven't taken someone else's peanut allergies into account?

That's still kinda incomplete as a theory of ethics though. I mean, what if I happen to have a masochistic streak; does that justify me torturing others because I happen to like it? And what if I happen to like peanuts, but haven't taken someone else's peanut allergies into account?

It works for me

Found it
22:36: "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

My interpretation would be Jesus planned on dying because it was part of the plan, but for self defense the disciples should defend themselves

But then their are things that contradict that :confused:Matthew 26
Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

52"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

It works for me
All power to you, but "it works for me" isn't enough to tell R0cka his system of ethics (or lack thereof) is mistaken.

All power to you, but "it works for me" isn't enough to tell R0cka his system of ethics (or lack thereof) is mistaken.

True, but then I don't think anything is

That's still kinda incomplete as a theory of ethics though. I mean, what if I happen to have a masochistic streak; does that justify me torturing others because I happen to like it? And what if I happen to like peanuts, but haven't taken someone else's peanut allergies into account?Exceptions prove the rule, and the Golden Rule is proven by masochism.

Ah, this has a lot of traction 'round these parts...

http://www.bartcop.com/anti-christianBigotry.gif

Most modern ethical theories out there? Virtually every consequentialist and deontological theory, for instance.

I can see how a deontological theory would fit with that description, but a consequentialist theory fitting it seems rather more iffy. Certainly, altruism would, but even agent-neutral or human-centered theories still advocate benefits for ourselves. And utilitarian, egoistic, or eudaimonic ethics would obviously not fit the criterion you proposed.

Ah, this has a lot of traction 'round these parts...God, I love IDT...:D

True, but then I don't think anything is
Au contraire. Solipsist egotism is notoriously susceptible to deconstructionism. You just need to work out how their value system works and point out the value of the peripheral within that system (which will be universal, unless they're also totally nihilist, in which case they'll be a gibbering mess of a human being and you can pretty much leave them alone).

I don't see too much. Perhaps you have simply have a low 'bashing' tolerance.
Yeah, that whole thing where they ruled most of Europe, that was a hard time to be Christian.
Oh no, no Christian has EVER gone against the teachings of Christ. Not a one. :rolleyes:


Alas, bigotry and hatred are still far too common in any group of humans.
As much as there is for those who practice no religion, or the 'wrong' religion. Crazy wackos are everywhere.


Strange, I don't comprehend why one would believe in the existence of a higher power.

My life is pointless? :(

Good for you.

Hated and persecuted, that's good. Ridicule, however, is a fun way to criticise things. Making fun of people doing silly things, highlights that you think those things are silly.


See, this is why people assume you're a Christian. Of all the religions you could have mentioned, you've picked Christianity and gone on about how they're being bashed and discriminated against. Just like a Christian would.
It's bigotry to say anything bad about Christian beliefs? Don't be ridiculous. Why should someone pretend that they have no problems at all with Christianity or Christian beliefs? Why should religious beliefs be free from criticism?


I imagine some of them do. Just like some Jews do. Or some Muslims. Or some Hindus. Or some atheists. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Some people just think that everyone should go by their sense of it.

Your cheap attack on anyone who isn't Christian further makes you seem Christian.

More examples from Christianity. And incidentally, there are several states in America that preclude atheists from holding office. These are laws that require people to believe in some god or gods.

Not anymore, assuming you read the above.

Cite your claim.

In keeping with the separation of church and state.

Treaty of Tripoli. America is a secular nation.

Cite your claim.

Really, you are very fond of Christianity for someone who isn't Christian. And you might want to tell priests to stop baptising babies. Unless you think that infants who can't talk can accept Christ as their personal saviour.


Which of course they can.

I think that one's morals should be self-justifying. One should do the right thing simply because it's the right thing, not because of a threat of punishment from some deity/deities.

Aside from the secular version of karma(the idea is that if you do good things, then people will be less likely to do bad things to you, and more likely to do good things to you) or, as I said above, doing the right thing simply because it's the right thing.


It is legal to be a paedophile, and I object to your using the term as though it was a synonym for child molester.

Because at that age children's brains aren't fully developed. It's come up before in other threads, someone else would be able to explain it better. [/answertoarhetoricalquestion]

That is what laws generally are, a codification of a society's morals.

Society is imposing it on itself. Societies change. It's my hope that eventually there will be no need for laws, and people will be content to live and let live without the threat of punishment, legal or divine.


You've basically just said that religious bigots are bigots......


Respect to what extent? Should I stop eating meat on Fridays because it goes against Christian beliefs?

Who's we? Got a mouse in your pocket? :p

You do know that you're non-religious yourself, right? Are you saying that you are jealous of religious people and all that? That might explain why you have those rose tinted glasses on re:Christianity.


But you're also jealous of the relationship they have with god, since you've renounced it. Strange.


Way to go. You've told us that bigots are bigots, and bigotry is bad, and that you have some kind of strange self-hating thing going on. So, are you actually going to do something to stop bigotry? Or are you just going to complain about how the poor unfortunate Christians(and no other religion, apparently) are victims of it?

/thread

Certainly, altruism would, but even agent-neutral or human-centered theories still advocate benefits for ourselves.

Yes, but that is irrelevant to the difference. I am talking about the basis of the obligation, not its particular character... the approach that clearly separates "right" and "interest." (What is right may sometimes be in our interests... sometimes pursuit of our interests may even be right. But no claim is made that right stems from interest. Rather, like I said, it is independent of what is in our interest.)

Virtue ethics, on the other hand, tends to (at least in its most prominent forms) put the two together, arguing that the basis of ethics is the pursuit of certain holistic personal goods.

And utilitarian, egoistic, or eudaimonic ethics would obviously not fit the criterion you proposed.

Egoistic or eudaimonic ethics, no. Utilitarian ethics absolutely does. We do not maximize happiness because our happiness happens to get pursued in the process... indeed, sometimes we must sacrifice our happiness for the greater happiness.

...
IOW, treating others as you would wish to be treated is a good start; but better yet, ask the other how they would like to be treated first...
...

And how would you go about finding out how everybody would like to be treated?

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

Ethics: the science of morals in human conduct; moral philosophy.
Morality: the degree of conformity of an idea, practice, etc., to moral philosophy.
Moral: concerned with the goodness or badness of human character or behaviour, or with the distinction between right and wrong.

So, no help there.

To my way of thinking it doesn't matter much -- people inherently feel that certain things are wrong and certain things are right (or not, in the case of the persona that R0cka is putting forward). We tend to rationalise these into a system of beleif that may or may not involve a religion.

I personally have a different golden rule -- any system of belief that asserts that other systems of belief are invalid is ... well, not invalid, obviously, but much less good.

IOW, treating others as you would wish to be treated is a good start; but better yet, ask the other how they would like to be treated first...

BTW, Kamsaki-Myu: I'm fascinated by the line of argument you are developing with R0cka. if this thread peters out or R0cka dissapears, I'd really like to hear the end of it...

Yes, but that is irrelevant to the difference. I am talking about the basis of the obligation, not its particular character... the approach that clearly separates "right" and "interest." (What is right may sometimes be in our interests... sometimes pursuit of our interests may even be right. But no claim is made that right stems from interest. Rather, like I said, it is independent of what is in our interest.)

Virtue ethics, on the other hand, tends to (at least in its most prominent forms) put the two together, arguing that the basis of ethics is the pursuit of certain holistic personal goods.

Egoistic or eudaimonic ethics, no. Utilitarian ethics absolutely does. We do not maximize happiness because our happiness happens to get pursued in the process... indeed, sometimes we must sacrifice our happiness for the greater happiness.

Perhaps the issue is my understanding of the perspective from which a person with an agent-neutral or human-centered ethical theory is coming.

It's always seemed to me that egoists are obviously operating completely from an "I" perspective, and that altruists are obviously operating completely from a "they" perspective. Meaning that for the egoist, the benefit to the "I" is all that's morally significant, and for the altruist, the benefit to the "they" is all that's morally significant.

Whereas collective-minded utilitarians, for example, are operating from a "we" perspective. Meaning that for them, the benefit to the collective "we" is what's morally significant. And since the "I" is inherently a part of the "we", it is indeed based on what benefits the individual, since the individual is part of the collective.

So I'm reluctant to say that even utilitarian ethics would fit this criterion:

It applies to all the ones founded on an obligation independent of some notion of benefits (tangible or intangible) for ourselves.

People often say that. The thing is that Religion is not in the same category as the above, though you could certainly include Spiritualism and Theology in that list. Religion is to Theology rather what Nationality is to Language and Culture, in that it is an explicit declaration of community according to this sort of exclusive ideology. And in that respect, Religion is an example of ideological segregation rather than something that is abused by it.

(Incidentally, I have similar disagreements with the notion of Nationality, but that's for another day)

Wow. Some people in this thread read books and take classes in this sort of stuff, I guess.

Anyways...

A lot seems to depend on how you define religion. You seem to be focusing on its aspects as a definer of a social community. But language, shared history, ethnicity, and a host of other things do the exact same thing. Living in Quebec has definitely shown me how language can polarise a community. I am aware that religion can do that too. But that power can also be turned to good. The simplest example is when a church organises its parishioners for some charity. We have an example of a religious community that is defining itself by doing good acts as required by their religion. It's not as sexy and headline grabbing as Jihad, but it happens too.

Well, that's up for debate. I think the notion of a hive-mind suits religion pretty well, though I'd agree in saying it's not a "monolithic" construct. People are still the arbiters of their own actions, and the effect of religion on them is one of heavy influence rather than unquestionable dictation.

Nonetheless, it does influence the decision-making of its constituent members in a manner driven by the collective ideology, and as such, the hive-mind abstraction - while by no means fully descriptive - does deal with the "zeitgeist" aspect of Religion that cannot be properly addressed through any other.

Again, this is more about the sectarianism than religion. You could apply the same criticism to high school cliques.

In Any case, I fully agree with your two central paragraphs that we should be focused on tackling the question of sectarianism as the root of the problem. But in order for that to work, we need to get people to see where it affects us, and there's no sense trying to hide Religion (or counter-Religion, for that matter) from that when it could potentially be the most effective posterboy for what sectarianism does to us.

As long as we do not portray it as the sole cause of sectarianism. I think we should have several poster boys, and show how one affects the other. To get back to Quebec, the current debate is about Muslims versus Catholics, allophones versus Francophones, federalists versus nationalists, or some permutation thereof, depending on which newspaper you're reading or which politicial said something dumb. All of these things are dividing my community right now.

But again, we can see how religious communities can be part of the solution. The Canadian Islamic Congress (http://www.canadianislamiccongress.com/ar/smart.php) has organised itself as a community to promote civic integration, so as to reduce sectarianism:

On Labour Day weekend (2005) the CIC hosted an intensive two-day short course for Imams, teachers, leaders, men and women, youth and seniors, covering subjects such as Canadian history, law, political system, the media, family counselling and Islamic Law. The course – a first in Canada – was well received, with women comprising fully one-third of the participants.

He'd challenge that by noting that he's perfectly happy with his existence, and thus he doesn't actually need help at all, since all that matters is one's own contentment. You need to demonstrate a reason that he should consider his ideas incomplete in order for him to yield to requests to change them.

In the context of the thread, though, all we have to do is show that ROcka would also disregard religion as a moral compass, right? I thought Rocka was trying to get across the idea that all these other ways of defining a morality could be ignored, but the same reasoning could be applied to religious sources of morality.

In reality, no one would waste time trying to convince an obvious sociopath like ROcka's current persona with logical reasons for being moral. We wuld just lock him up or shoot him.

BTW, Kamsaki-Myu: I'm fascinated by the line of argument you are developing with R0cka. if this thread peters out or R0cka dissapears, I'd really like to hear the end of it...
I'd quite like to hear his response first, since we're not so much dealing with moral law or even ethical principles but rather with the question of value judgements and the basis of such judgements in an environment of an egotistical world-view. It's a surprisingly difficult question for egoists to answer, since although it's usually disregarded as a hand-wavey "that which gives me Pleasure", arriving at a consistent explanation for pleasure's transient nature generally requires us to think existentially.

Wow... numerous pages of anti-religious bashing and hate to respond to! You people should really consider getting a life! I'll just take this opportunity to address some of the finer points....

From Ifreann:

See, this is why people assume you're a Christian. Of all the religions you could have mentioned, you've picked Christianity and gone on about how they're being bashed and discriminated against. Just like a Christian would.
Well, perhaps you should read the post again, I do mention Christians in particular, because this seems to be where intolerant bigots make a distinction when bashing religion in general. I am opposed to bigotry toward Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or whatever practice of religion is being attacked with bigotry and hate.

Your cheap attack on anyone who isn't Christian further makes you seem Christian.

It's not a "cheap attack" at all, it is pointing out the truth, and the truth sometimes hurts, but it is still the truth. As I said, most bigots, when confronted about their bigotry, will view it as a "cheap attack" because they don't view themselves as bigots. I have never known it to happen, have you? Oh, and I don't really care if you think I am a Christian or not, it doesn't bother me what you think, I know what I am.

Really, you are very fond of Christianity for someone who isn't Christian. And you might want to tell priests to stop baptising babies. Unless you think that infants who can't talk can accept Christ as their personal saviour.

Nah, I am actually not fond of Christianity, or any other organized religion. I understand Christian belief and tradition, and I realize priests can't bestow Christianity on an infant, because it requires acceptance of Jesus as your personal savior. Now, it is a nice gesture and important aspect to Christian belief to have infants "blessed", if you will, but it doesn't transform the infant or attest to their personal religious beliefs.

I think that one's morals should be self-justifying. One should do the right thing simply because it's the right thing, not because of a threat of punishment from some deity/deities.

You mention "right thing" here, but I am unclear... "right" in who's judgement? Does this mean, as long as you can personally justify something, it is okay to do it? If you can rationalize being a serial killer is "the right thing to do", that is okay by you? There is no "threat" of punishment as far as I know, it is clearly a mandated promise. I personally think, if you are determining what is "right" you have established your own religiously moral criteria. You aren't any different than a religious person, you just have a different set of standards based on your own conscious, which is influenced by an underlying belief that maybe there is something greater than self.

Aside from the secular version of karma(the idea is that if you do good things, then people will be less likely to do bad things to you, and more likely to do good things to you) or, as I said above, doing the right thing simply because it's the right thing.

Again, what is this "karma" that makes the bad things and good things happen, if not something greater than self? Seems to me, instead of worshiping "God" you have simply changed the word to "karma" and justified your own moral standard. I'm not saying this is "wrong" but let's be honest about what you are doing.

It is legal to be a paedophile, and I object to your using the term as though it was a synonym for child molester.

No, pedophilia is illegal in the US, because the age of consent is 16, and sexual relations with anyone under that age, is statutory rape. I never used the term in any way, but if you want to assume that I said pedophilia is synonymous with child molestation, I will accept that assesment.

Because at that age children's brains aren't fully developed. It's come up before in other threads, someone else would be able to explain it better.

Well, that is good, because you are doing a rather poor job. Who determined that any given child has any particular level of brain development, and what does that have to do with sexual relations? Pedophiles aren't really concerned with brain development. It sounds as if you have come up with a justification for your moral judgement, and it has little to do with the issue itself. It makes for a good rationalization of your morality, which you choose to impose on others, but that is about it. So, what happens if we allow pedophilia? Some mythical "God" known as "Karma" going to cast a big rock down from the sky on our heads? The point I am getting to is, what is the basis for this moral judgement, if not some deep-rooted belief in retribution from something greater than you?

That is what laws generally are, a codification of a society's morals.

What exactly are "societies morals" based upon? Why should I have to live by the rest of societies morals if I don't believe in them? Are you still not understanding my point here, or are you just playing dumb?

But you're also jealous of the relationship they have with god, since you've renounced it. Strange.

I've not renounced anything. I am very in touch with my spirituality, and have never stated otherwise. I don't subscribe to any organized religious belief, but I respect those who do. I am not jealous, I am fairly indifferent to those who choose to believe differently than myself, and I think everyone should practice this tolerance, the world might be a lot better off. Unfortunately, we are world full of hypocrites and bigots, most of which, will never truly understand the extent of their own bias.

...I wonder if Dixie is going to return?

Unlike some people, I have a life outside of this message board. One thing you can count on, I will always return. I may not address your posts, because I only address things which deserve a response. I do this when I have time, it's not a mission or purpose in life, like it seems to be for others.

--------------
From Soheran:
So the only reason you don't, say, rape and murder other people is because you're afraid of punishment?

That's disgusting. But don't assume that your own failures are shared by us atheists. Some of us have the basic moral decency to recognize that we shouldn't rape and murder other people even if eternal damnation doesn't await those who do.

I think the reason most of us don't rape, murder, steal, etc., is because of an inherent belief within us all as humans, that we will be held accountable by a higher power at some point. Otherwise, you would just do whatever your animal instinct led you to do, without conscience, like every other animal on the planet. You mention "basic moral decency" but what is this? Where do you suppose a person obtains this? You see, what you are establishing is, we ALL have a moral compass, and intrinsically know right from wrong. But, what is "right" and "wrong"? Who has determined this, and isn't is simply a "moral judgement" being imposed on us by others?

Attempting to imply that religion of any kind is the sole provider of morality os at the the same time, the height of arrogance and stupidity.

If that were true, the Catholic Church wouldnt have so many pedophile preists.

As if there has never been a person without a religion, who was a morally just person.

In fact, organized religion has probably done more to damage moral deceny than any other organization anywhere.

It's always seemed to me that egoists are obviously operating completely from an "I" perspective, and that altruists are obviously operating completely from a "they" perspective. Meaning that for the egoist, the benefit to the "I" is all that's morally significant, and for the altruist, the benefit to the "they" is all that's morally significant.

Actually, altruists are not all about "they"... at least not most of us. But you're still missing the point.

One kind of moral theory: We must do what is right, even when it is not in our interest. (Sometimes it may be, but the determining principle is elsewhere.)

Another kind of moral theory: To say that something is "right" is just to say that it is in our interest, in some holistic, enlightened way.

I think the reason most of us don't rape, murder, steal, etc., is because of an inherent belief within us all as humans, that we will be held accountable by a higher power at some point.

So it's fear?

Bullshit. Fear doesn't motivate me to do what is right.

Otherwise, you would just do whatever your animal instinct led you to do, without conscience

How do you know that?

You see, what you are establishing is, we ALL have a moral compass, and intrinsically know right from wrong.

Yes.

Who has determined this,

Not "who"... what.

The answer is reason. Certain subjective moral sentiments also play a part.

and isn't is simply a "moral judgement" being imposed on us by others?

No.

I don't hate Christianity, I hate Christians. Big difference.

All Christians think the Atheists are repressing them, they scream and point fingers and say only by putting more religious icons up things will be fair.

Copy, paste, edit

All Atheists think the Christians are repressing them, they scream and point fingers and say only by putting less religious icons up things will be fair.

The truth is these posts wouldn't be so common if prosthelization (sp?) weren't a common practice to both Christianity and Atheism.

My friends are currently Catholic, Baptist, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and Atheist. They don't break down into attacking one another's faiths in person.

Why do web forums seem to be the chosen medium of Christian-Bigotry and Atheist-Bigotry? Disguising prosthetizing their own point of view as an outlet of their sentiment about how bad the other side is?

Unlike some people, I have a life outside of this message board. One thing you can count on, I will always return. I may not address your posts, because I only address things which deserve a response. I do this when I have time, it's not a mission or purpose in life, like it seems to be for others.

Nice. When all else fails, whine "You're all losers!!!11". No one will think less of you, I'm quite sure.

Nice. When all else fails, whine "You're all losers!!!11". No one will think less of you, I'm quite sure.

Of course no one will think less of him if that person's opinion hit rock bottom a long time ago.

Wow. Some people in this thread read books and take classes in this sort of stuff, I guess.
I'm looking into funding for an MPhil next year. It's exciting stuff!

A lot seems to depend on how you define religion. You seem to be focusing on its aspects as a definer of a social community. But language, shared history, ethnicity, and a host of other things do the exact same thing. Living in Quebec has definitely shown me how language can polarise a community. I am aware that religion can do that too. But that power can also be turned to good. The simplest example is when a church organises its parishioners for some charity. We have an example of a religious community that is defining itself by doing good acts as required by their religion. It's not as sexy and headline grabbing as Jihad, but it happens too.
I see where you're coming from, and I know a good many people who'd be nodding contentedly at it. I'm certainly aware that many religious groups have great outreach programmes, and I fully support them in that. It just frustrates me that they are "outreach" programmes though; that the separation between the people in the Church and the people in the wider community exists at all. In an ideal world, we'd have no need for outreach, because it would be inreach, and we'd be doing it constantly anyway!

To me, the religion has always been the institution rather than the underlying ideas. The reason for this is threefold. Firstly, religion is nominitive. You choose to call yourself a Christian, or a Jew, or a Muslim, or whatever. Even if you believe that Jesus is the son of God, that his death and resurrection has caused our sins to be forgiven and that all those who unfeignedly believe his holy gospel shall receive eternal life, if you tell people that you are not a Christian, they will not try to correct you.

Secondly, religions are distinct. Even though Christians and Muslims believe that the Jewish God is real, its history accurate and its promises and sacraments genuine, it is considered incorrect to call them Jewish. Similarly so for Baha'i and Islam.

Finally, other words exist for the ideological groundings of a given Religion; namely, theology, spirituality and liturgy. Whenever we wish to refer to religion in intellectual discourse, we almost always mean its theology, when referring to it in a practical sense, we refer to its liturgy, and when we refer to the personal, we take it to mean their own individual spiritual connection. Each of these things can in theory exist independently without the term "religion" coming into play; it's only when many, many people are joined together in them that we use the word.

But anyway, I digress. To make some sort of point out of this, I'm all for people cooperating for the greater good, but I think that this cooperation would be a great deal more successful if we didn't treat it as a tool in the promotion of our isolated interests. Yes, keep your beliefs and ideas and hi/stories, because we can't afford to lose them, but rather than treating them like the tome of a secret society bent on world domination, wouldn't it be better to work to make the world into a place where they don't need to be considered in isolation to everything else?

Bleh, I've lost the plot somewhat. :D

As long as we do not portray it as the sole cause of sectarianism. I think we should have several poster boys, and show how one affects the other. To get back to Quebec, the current debate is about Muslims versus Catholics, allophones versus Francophones, federalists versus nationalists, or some permutation thereof, depending on which newspaper you're reading or which politicial said something dumb. All of these things are dividing my community right now.
Sure. I'm Northern Irish, so I'm used to "Religion" being the most pronounced example of sectarianism (though it's more a sort of pseudoreligion, where people have more affiliation towards the names themselves than the ideas they stand for), but obviously different examples would be more appropriate to different contexts.

In reality, no one would waste time trying to convince an obvious sociopath like ROcka's current persona with logical reasons for being moral. We wuld just lock him up or shoot him.
Call me incredibly naive, but I think that this world fundamentally lends itself to an ethical principle known as the "Expanded Self"; namely, that agents are instinctively drawn to act in the selfish interests of their collective unit (though it may not be the strongest influence all of the time). People are far more likely to tend towards pathological behaviour when they are isolated or excluded from others because the only collective they have to act on is themselves. Similarly, though, people who have an active role in a group or community feel more drawn to act in that group's interest (even when that may itself be at odds with other groups or communities).

I noted this for two points. Firstly, because I don't think locking him up would be the right thing to do. It's exactly the sort of people like ROcka's persona that we need to spend effort to get involved with; we can learn from their backgrounds and use their grievances to prevent the future from creating more of them. Secondly, because this way of looking at the world is fundamentally similar to religious morality; that is, that the "higher power" is the driving force for what is right and wrong. If you can rationally accept the "Expanded Self", then it does not seem like such a major leap of logic (though it is one nonetheless) to consider the justification of morality.

Atheists are merely asking questions that have been repeated for over 200 years, and that have not yet been greeted with adequate answers by religion. To apply anything more onto «Atheism» is to construe Atheism as something it is not. And I say this as an atheist.

Attempting to imply that religion of any kind is the sole provider of morality os at the the same time, the height of arrogance and stupidity.

If that were true, the Catholic Church wouldnt have so many pedophile preists.

As if there has never been a person without a religion, who was a morally just person.

In fact, organized religion has probably done more to damage moral deceny than any other organization anywhere.


It seems you have a reading comprehension problem here, you apparently assume I am defending organized religion. Clearly, you missed the three times I have stated that I am not a member of any organized religion, and actually don't subscribe to any organized religious belief. I wouldn't go so far as to say 'religion has damaged moral decency', that is a bit of a stretch, since most moral decency is the result of religious ethics at some point. I can't speak for the Catholic Church or the problems they have had recently, or Catholicism in general, I don't really know much about it.

You might think I am "arrogant and stupid" for believing that morality stems from religious belief, but you haven't proven me wrong on this, you've simply hurled out a few petty insults to supposedly refute my point. It may make you feel good, but it hasn't changed the facts presented. Logic dictates, morality has to come from somewhere, and if not a human conscious realization of a greater power than self, where? What compels us to consider certain behaviors and practices "right" and "wrong" if not an inherent obedience or obligation to some greater power than ourselves? You simply can't justify morality any other way, it has no other purpose or reason.

I've never said that a person has to be religious to be moral, in fact, I have clearly stated several times in this very thread, I am not religious, yet I think I have a fairly high moral standard. Of course, my moral standard is rooted in spirituality. Spirituality and religion are related, but far from the same thing.

Look through the responses in this thread, you will find people professing to be Atheist, yet defending moral constraints mandated in our laws, and saying things like "the right thing to do" and such. What is that? My contention is, it illustrates that even an Atheist believes in something greater than self. Otherwise, there is no reason to justify moral constraints at all. Who are you to decide what is "right" or "wrong" for me? Most Atheists, when put to the test, will have to accept that their 'morality' comes from their own conscience, which make 'conscience' their God, and their personal viewpoint, their religion. They are really no different than the Bible-toting door knockers who want you to visit their church.

Anti-Christian bigotry is very rampant on this site. Simply because of the assumption that all Christians are bigots themselves.

Look through the responses in this thread, you will find people professing to be Atheist, yet defending moral constraints mandated in our laws, and saying things like "the right thing to do" and such. What is that? My contention is, it illustrates that even an Atheist believes in something greater than self. Otherwise, there is no reason to justify moral constraints at all. Who are you to decide what is "right" or "wrong" for me? Most Atheists, when put to the test, will have to accept that their 'morality' comes from their own conscience, which make 'conscience' their God, and their personal viewpoint, their religion. They are really no different than the Bible-toting door knockers who want you to visit their church.

I'm afraid you're failing to understand a fundamental difference between those who feel morality stems from the supernatural and those who feel morality stems from the natural. There is a fundamental standard of intellectual honesty that states that the strength of your convictions should be proportional to the coherency of your evidence. The Atheist is really the only one who is able to follow that when it comes to morality stemming from God. No matter how much squirming you can do, morality is ultimately bound to the logical and empirical constraints of the natural world: - How much we understand about the human body, it's capacity for suffering, pain, pleasure and joy, is what determines morality. The fact that the very same innate moral intuitions are available to both the religious and non-religious, while throughout history our notion of morality has changed and developed dramatically as our knowledge increased, demonstrates this clearly.

Making this equal to biblical literalism, is beyond the pale, frankly.

Furthermore, the notion that we are moral because we fear the consequences of immorality in the afterlife, is perhaps the most condescending statement that can be made of our species. It amounts to saying that we must be told lies to behave properly.

I don't hate Christianity, I hate Christians. Big difference.

How the hell does that work? Do you not allow Christians the same level of tolerance that you want from them?

Bullshit. Fear doesn't motivate me to do what is right.

Then please explain what compels you to do "right"? Is there any consequence for doing "wrong" other than laws (which we routinely violate)? How did you rationalize what is "right" and what is "wrong"? Do you see yourself as a God?

I really don't understand this aspect of Atheism, because it is a contradiction. You want to argue that people "just know what is right" yet you can't explain why or how. See, you can supposedly justify and rationalize why something is "wrong" or "right" by your own conscious standard, and you don't feel compelled to try and explain this further, but when a "religious" person does the same thing, you condemn them for it. You can justify laws against murder or rape because you've established this moral standard in your own mind, and recognize that these things are inherently "wrong", but a person of religion may think it is inherently "wrong" to not allow children to pray in school. It's the same thing, they have established a personal moral standard, just as you have. You can say that child molestation or pedophilia is wrong because it damages the child emotionally, but a religious person might argue that it damages the child emotionally to not say a prayer in school. Is one argument more valid than the other, is one moral standard more acceptable than the other? Because, they are both, in fact, imposed moral standards.

I surmise that Atheist are arguably more "religious" than any person of faith, they certainly do believe in a God, the fact they deny it and renounce another persons God, doesn't change the truth of the matter. Why else would Atheists be compelled to spend so much time and energy rejecting something they don't claim to believe in? I think most Atheists do indeed believe in God, and they are angry with God, for whatever reasons, and this anger translates to denial of the truth. Much the same way as, when I make a valid and legitimate point that no one can refute, they will call me names and say I am arrogant and stupid. It's natural human instinct and reaction to do this.

It's somewhat shocking to meet those who have managed a considerable amount of literacy without ever coming across the basic facts such as animals of lesser achievements as humans frequently demonstrating a fierce sense of morality and justice, or that we humans, derived from such lesser animals, evolving our own sense of morality and justice along the way.

How did our morality evolve? Again... morality is ultimately bound by how much we understand about our own species and the world we live in.

How the hell does that work? Do you not allow Christians the same level of tolerance that you want from them?

No, it means that the message of Jesus Christ is almost 100% different than the homophobic bigoted dribble that comes from self-professed 'Christians' these days. I draw a line between the two because they are totally against each other in message. Christianity does not justify the bigoted attitudes of the conservative Right, it's just used by bigots as their scapegoat, ie it's easier to say 'my religion says gays are evil', than 'I think gays are evil', it lends respectability to intolerance, kinda like the same way they have food at a titty bar.

I'm afraid you're failing to understand a fundamental difference between those who feel morality stems from the supernatural and those who feel morality stems from the natural. There is a fundamental standard of intellectual honesty that states that the strength of your convictions should be proportional to the coherency of your evidence. The Atheist is really the only one who is able to follow that when it comes to morality stemming from God. No matter how much squirming you can do, morality is ultimately bound to the logical and empirical constraints of the natural world: - How much we understand about the human body, it's capacity for suffering, pain, pleasure and joy, is what determines morality. The fact that the very same innate moral intuitions are available to both the religious and non-religious, while throughout history our notion of morality has changed and developed dramatically as our knowledge increased, demonstrates this clearly.

Making this equal to biblical literalism, is beyond the pale, frankly.

Furthermore, the notion that we are moral because we fear the consequences of immorality in the afterlife, is perhaps the most condescending statement that can be made of our species. It amounts to saying that we must be told lies to behave properly.


First of all, I reject the contention that belief in a God is "supernatural". Spiritual belief in something greater than self has been around since the dawn of mankind, this is hard to deny. We are hard wired to believe in something greater than our own self. Now, whether that is the God of Abraham, Nature, Karma, or our own conscious, that is clearly debatable, but we all have a natural human state of spiritual belief in some regard. Denying this, doesn't make it not so.

I never said that we "fear consequences of immorality in the afterlife" those are your words, not mine. However, our moral standards come from somewhere, there is a reason we rationalize things as being "wrong" or "right" and behave accordingly. I simply asked where this comes from in a person who professes not to believe in anything greater than self, and so far, no clear answer has been given. I don't think an answer can be given, because it defies logic. Morality doesn't come from logical and empirical constraints of the natural world, because the rest of the animal kingdom is amoral, they have no moral compass. The logical and empirical constraints of the natural world would dictate that we must have a logical reason for moral behavior, else it has no fundamental purpose.

You can justify laws against murder or rape because you've established this moral standard in your own mind, and recognize that these things are inherently "wrong", but a person of religion may think it is inherently "wrong" to not allow children to pray in school.

One very good and very useful moral standard is the harm principle. Causing unwarranted and unnecessary harm to someone else's life and livelihood is immoral. This statement isn't and has not ever been informed through a conversation with an imaginary friend called God. It is informed by what actions we know can inflict pain and suffering on others.

Your theory about Atheists having a religious foundation for morality, actually denying God's existence out of anger is absurd, frankly. Besides the nearly impossible improbability of God's existence that atheists conclude, we (humans) have no need of God, nor religion simply because we actually have reasons and evidence for what we (humans) «believe» about morality.

I surmise that Atheist are arguably more "religious" than any person of faith, they certainly do believe in a God, the fact they deny it and renounce another persons God, doesn't change the truth of the matter. Why else would Atheists be compelled to spend so much time and energy rejecting something they don't claim to believe in? I think most Atheists do indeed believe in God, and they are angry with God, for whatever reasons, and this anger translates to denial of the truth. Much the same way as, when I make a valid and legitimate point that no one can refute, they will call me names and say I am arrogant and stupid. It's natural human instinct and reaction to do this.
ROFL

How can you presume to know what an Atheist thinks when you are not one?
It certainly does not take time and energy for me to reject something that doesn't exist. If you are talking about people on these forums..well NEWSFLASH..it's a DEBATE forum.

Show me a valid legitimate point you have made. I have seen none. You have to back up your claims with SOURCES in order to be taken seriously ya know. So quit whining that people are attacking your "points" when you have nothing to back them up.

I never said that we "fear consequences of immorality in the afterlife" those are your words, not mine.

You spoke of accountability earlier on. About the supernatural, unless God can manifest himself in the natural world, then he is supernatural.

However, our moral standards come from somewhere, there is a reason we rationalize things as being "wrong" or "right" and behave accordingly. I simply asked where this comes from in a person who professes not to believe in anything greater than self, and so far, no clear answer has been given.

The origin of morality is certainly a very complex question. Atheism makes no attempt to answer the question, since atheism is merely the refusal to advance god as an answer to what we don't know. What I reject is that something greater than ourselves (an obvious excuse to insert God) is the default answer that should fill all the gaps of what we do not yet understand.

I don't think an answer can be given, because it defies logic. Morality doesn't come from logical and empirical constraints of the natural world, because the rest of the animal kingdom is amoral, they have no moral compass.
Actually this is completely false. Several species including birds, demonstrate a sense of morality and justice.

The link I wanted to post has already been posted. :(

Several species including birds, demonstrate a sense of morality and justice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSWFKAZTQ2w

If that's morality and justice to you, remind me never to eat dinner at your house.

Again, what is this "karma" that makes the bad things and good things happen, if not something greater than self? Seems to me, instead of worshiping "God" you have simply changed the word to "karma" and justified your own moral standard.

If you do bad things it will likely come back to bite you, but other people can be responsible for that.

No, pedophilia is illegal in the US, because the age of consent is 16, and sexual relations with anyone under that age, is statutory rape. I never used the term in any way, but if you want to assume that I said pedophilia is synonymous with child molestation, I will accept that assesment.

Paedophilia is merely being attracted to chilidren, that is not illegal. Acting on those feelings however, is.

I really don't understand this aspect of Atheism, because it is a contradiction. You want to argue that people "just know what is right" yet you can't explain why or how.

I can't explain how I beat my heart, how I can feel emotions, how I can move my limbs, how I can retrieve memories, how I can instinctively know where other people store their cutlery. Even though I can't explain all of those things, I know that I can do them, and I don't hold a higher power responsible.

I surmise that Atheist are arguably more "religious" than any person of faith, they certainly do believe in a God, the fact they deny it and renounce another persons God, doesn't change the truth of the matter.

By definition an atheist lacks belief in a god(s).

Actually, altruists are not all about "they"... at least not most of us.

Then why call yourself an altruist? Altruism at its most basic is living for others (they), to serve and help others. It's the idea that we have a moral obligation to serve others even if that means sacrificing part of ourselves.

Ever read Comte?

But you're still missing the point.

Feel free to put a spotlight on it.

One kind of moral theory: We must do what is right, even when it is not in our interest. (Sometimes it may be, but the determining principle is elsewhere.)

Another kind of moral theory: To say that something is "right" is just to say that it is in our interest, in some holistic, enlightened way.

That's a nice, broad, dualistic set of categories. It's just too bad I think dualisms are generally lacking in useful accuracy when it comes to things like large sets of complex ethical theories.

LOL - door to door serving people??? LOL.


cheese is cheese - it does not matter which food you are eating- as evidenced by my changing only the subject of your menu.


Once again - preparing your cuisine only requires a few small changes...

You're right. You can make someone sound like anything if you simply change what they're saying.

That's a nice, broad, dualistic set of categories. It's just too bad I think dualisms are generally lacking in useful accuracy when it comes to things like large sets of complex ethical theories.

It's not a "dualism", it's a distinction... and if you object to it, could you be more specific?

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e142/leftyflecken/100.gif

First response ... nice

It seems you have a reading comprehension problem here, you apparently assume I am defending organized religion. Clearly, you missed the three times I have stated that I am not a member of any organized religion,

I honestly dont give a crap if you worship dog turds. It makes no relevance to me, or the point at hand. Youve mentioned several times on this board, over and over again about your religious beliefs.
Frankly, I think we're all sick to death of it.




and actually don't subscribe to any organized religious belief. I wouldn't go so far as to say 'religion has damaged moral decency',

Oraganized religious have done very little to promote moral decency most of them espouse, and more than anyone else, to destroy that very ideal.
How many wars or deaths or evil deed done by humans werent the direct result of religion?




that is a bit of a stretch, since most moral decency is the result of religious ethics at some point.

Like what?
Murder, rape, theft, and hate?
Is that the kind of moral decency youre speaking about?
Becuase that pretty much what all the really popular religions have been doing for the last 2000 years, all the while speaking out against the very actions they condone, support, or started.




You might think I am "arrogant and stupid" for believing that morality stems from religious belief, but you haven't proven me wrong on this, you've simply hurled out a few petty insults to supposedly refute my point.

I dont NEED to prove you wrong, becuase the concept is so ridiculous, that you havent any sort of basis for reality.
Youre implying that all moral decency and sense of right and wrong, comes from a myth!
Youre basing this on what, exactly?
Your desire for it to be true?!

Are you saying that there is not now, nor has there ever been, a person of decent quality, and moral standards, that had no religion?
And you have the temerity to be offended when I call this arrogance?

The very idea that morality depends on religion is to suggest that a person without such spiritualism in thier makeup means that they automatically are prone to abhorrent behaviour.
This is absurdity in the extreme.
Regardless of religious beliefs, society has its own rules that naturally supercede any make-believe sky-god.
People adapt to thier society, this is how we learn that societies moral boundaries.


It may make you feel good, but it hasn't changed the facts presented.

Facts??

What facts? You have provided no such thing, merely your personal ranting about your particular views and most especially, incoherent condemnation of anyone with an opposing view.



I've never said that a person has to be religious to be moral,

Really?
You mean like when you said this:
since most moral decency is the result of religious ethics at some point...

Or later on, when you even implied this:

Originally Posted by Dixieanna
I surmise that Atheist are arguably more "religious" than any person of faith, they certainly do believe in a God, the fact they deny it and renounce another persons God, doesn't change the truth of the matter.

You want more?
Backpedal all you want, these are your words, not mine.

What were we talking about?

Oh, yah, arrogance and stupidity.

To imply atheists are religious...well, friend, thats pretty dumb, since the whole idea is the antithesis of religion. Argue ll you want against that, it wont change the fact youre implying that even people who dont believe in any of it, are in fact a religion, or are in some rambling way....religious.






in fact, I have clearly stated several times in this very thread, I am not religious,

Yes...we know. You simply cant go on for 10 minutes without mentioning it ten times.


yet I think I have a fairly high moral standard.

If you carry yourself in real life, the way you do on this forum, I very much doubt that.


Look through the responses in this thread, you will find people professing to be Atheist, yet defending moral constraints mandated in our laws, and saying things like "the right thing to do" and such. What is that? My contention is, it illustrates that even an Atheist believes in something greater than self.

Have you considered, for a moment, that people choose not to do certain things, simply because they choose to be what society would consider "a good person"?, or that maybe, just maybe, becuase instincually, doing good things for people, makes us feel good?
Its a chemical change in the brain.
As mammals...its just there.

Apparently, your contention lies in the idea that without spiritualism, we are born sharks, and would eat our own young.
Assinine.



Otherwise, there is no reason to justify moral constraints at all. Who are you to decide what is "right" or "wrong" for me? Most Atheists, when put to the test, will have to accept that their 'morality' comes from their own conscience, which make 'conscience' their God, and their personal viewpoint, their religion. They are really no different than the Bible-toting door knockers who want you to visit their church.

Its completely different.
You need to rely on "god" or whatever, for your sense of moral decency.
I need only rely on myself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSWFKAZTQ2w

If that's morality and justice to you, remind me never to eat dinner at your house.

That's one example and proves exactly nothing. Let me show the moral equivalent in a human society.

http://homecooking.about.com/library/archive/blveal.htm

Truly horrifying, isn't it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSWFKAZTQ2w

If that's morality and justice to you, remind me never to eat dinner at your house.

I've always wanted to feed a pet bird turkey

Oraganized religious have done very little to promote moral decency most of them espouse, and more than anyone else, to destroy that very ideal.How many wars or deaths or evil deed done by humans werent the direct result of religion?

Most of them?

Like what?
Murder, rape, theft, and hate?
Is that the kind of moral decency youre speaking about?
Becuase that pretty much what all the really popular religions have been doing for the last 2000 years, all the while speaking out against the very actions they condone, support, or started.

Moron alert! They don't condone it, it's clearly written out it's against the rules. When was the last time you saw someone raped or murdered in America and the dude that did it justified it using religion?

It's also a bit idiotic using examples when times were different. You think all those wars wouldn't have happened if there wasn't religion? You don't think people would be greedy, seek more power/land/wealth? You honestly believe people wouldn't be as petty as they are now if there was no religion?

Youre implying that all moral decency and sense of right and wrong, comes from a myth!

Er. Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf? Little red riding hood? Three little pigs? All of these teach people values, whether moral or other. To deny that is stupidity.

Are you saying that there is not now, nor has there ever been, a person of decent quality, and moral standards, that had no religion?

I think that's a stretch, though I do believe that religion helped ingrain those values on our society (after all, religion has had a tremendous impact on western cultures, probably more so than just about any other factor).

Regardless of religious beliefs, society has its own rules that naturally supercede any make-believe sky-god.

People adapt to thier society, this is how we learn that societies moral boundaries.

Tell me genius, where do you think these rules came from originally? Could it be, perhaps, religion?!

To imply atheists are religious...well, friend, thats pretty dumb, since the whole idea is the antithesis of religion. Argue ll you want against that, it wont change the fact youre implying that even people who dont believe in any of it, are in fact a religion, or are in some rambling way....religious.

More brainless ramblings. Atheism is the denial of God, not religion. I can obviously see how the two are linked, but it's still an important distinction to make. Anyway, surely you can see that you have a belief that there is no God.

If you carry yourself in real life, the way you do on this forum, I very much doubt that.

Really? You seem to be the mental delinquent that's has the low moral standard. The jist of what he's saying I gather (I skipped a few pages), is that people should just let people live how they want to live and not constantly criticize their beliefs. As long as the belief doesn't hurt anyone then (heh heh) what's the harm?

Have you considered, for a moment, that people choose not to do certain things, simply because they choose to be what society would consider "a good person"?, or that maybe, just maybe, becuase instincually, doing good things for people, makes us feel good?

Psychological Conditioning from too much TV/Books/Movies which in turn is based off societies moral code which in turn, well what do you know? Is based off a religious moral code.

Its completely different.
You need to rely on "god" or whatever, for your sense of moral decency.
I need only rely on myself.

Agreed that it's completely different, your conscience is not your religion, your god or you moral foundation, at least, not originally. Societies values are where morality comes from and it's ingrained into us when we're young. Again I'd like to point out that societies values come from none other than, RELIGION (at least, in the Western sense).

Why such sudden attention to religion from atheists? You know what I see here? People who need to hate something :mad:. Some people are so passionate (and silly) in their hatred of religion that they even deny the ones who are religious some minimum respect.

Why can't people be religious on their own if they won't harm or even preach to others? Suddenly atheists think they're superior because they finally see that religion is wrong, and in the next moment they start to unprovokedly judge others who are still religious and have the right to be so.

I don't see religious people judging me around as I live my life. Heck, my catholic mother said back when I was a kid that I could choose any other religion or even abandon christianism if I felt it was wrong, that nothing would change. Religion shouldn't intrude in politics if the people don't want it, and as long as it's something personal on your life, it should be tolerated and respected.

Tolerance goes both ways, from religious to atheists, and vice-versa. But in these forums all I see is hate posts toward religions, sometimes it just stays in the level of flaming and hate-talking for just no reason, just to let off some steam. That's what I think, anyway. ;)

Zaij;13236929']More brainless ramblings. Atheism is the denial of God, not religion. I can obviously see how the two are linked, but it's still an important distinction to make. Anyway, surely you can see that you have a belief that there is no God.

Lacking belief in a god(s) is not the same as believing that there isn't a god(s). They often go hand in hand but they're still not the same.

I think ridiculing beliefs based on superstition is a perfectly sensible thing to do. Show me some genuine evidence for the existence of your God or shut the fuck up.

How else did the Universe get here, unless it always existed?

I really liked the way Zaij addressed the Atheist rant, so I won't bother to post pull-quotes here. I would like to address several statements made on the previous page by the religion-bashers...

1. God is not a "myth" because you claim it. Sorry. I know you keep saying it over and over as if it is proven fact, but it is clearly not a provable fact. I would argue, if there is no God, humans have evolved with a completely unnecessary instinctual trait, contrary to Darwin's theory of natural selection. Trace the history of man and you will find a connection to spirituality has always existed in some form. So, if there is no such thing as God, there is no such thing as Evolution, at least not the Darwin theory of it.

2. Spirituality is not religion. I have never stated a word about "my religion" in these forums or elsewhere, because I don't do religion. I am a devout spiritualist. Contrary to Neanderthal thinking, there is a difference. I will often use the word "God" to describe the entity greater than self, which I fully know exists, and is not a myth. This doesn't mean I worship the same God as a Christian or Jew. I do believe we ALL worship some God, in some form. It is part of being a human being.

3. No war has ever been waged by religion itself. Wars are waged by men, and they have often used religion to justify war, but the religion itself does not, and has never, supported acts of war against each other. It is contrary to any true religious ethic to make war against your fellow man.

4. I never said Atheists were "religious" only that they believe in the God they profess to not believe in. Denying God doesn't mean you don't believe in God. It's like a fat person denying they are fat and becoming offended by comments that they are fat. Their denial doesn't change the fact they are fat. They can act all outraged and point fingers at others, call people names, and insist they are not fat, but at the end of the day, they are still fat.

5. Morality is rooted in religious or spiritual belief, there is no way to separate the two. You can argue about "right and wrong" all you like, you can't explain who or what established this criteria. It is not the natural world, because the natural world would dictate that "right and wrong" is survival of the fittest, and whatever man can justify in his own mind as acceptable to him, and clearly, societies and man do not live by this ethic.

Let me leave you with another example of what I am saying about morality, because this is the most important aspect of my point. Morality, the sense of "right and wrong", can only exist if there is some apparent benefit or consequence to man. Without this, there is simply no reason, rationale, or justification to behave morally... why would you? Do people drive the speed limit because it is "the right thing to do?" No... they do it because, if they don't, an authority can and will deliver consequences in the form of a ticket. If there were no such thing as Police, there would be no purpose in establishing or obeying a speed limit. Store owners do not leave their store unlocked at night, because there is no one present to deliver consequences for theft. If they left their stores unlocked, there would be no reason for thieves to "do the right thing" and not steal their stuff. Morality without some measure of accountability, is the same way, it defies the human condition in principle, and is absolutely pointless.

...the same tired crap...


Once again you display the typical foolishness of your insistance upon repeating endlessly, your religious beliefs to an audience that could care less, and wishes you would just shut the hell up about it.
What kind of a narcissist are you?

Once again, you ignore direct points back at you, refusing to adress anyone who clearly has you figured out.
You obviously know nothing of debate, and you insist upon restating the same old nonsense every time you make a thread like this.

You have nothing to contribute, and are general hack.

You refuse to accept reality for what it is and insist upon restating your own personal opinions, as if somehow it made it true.
You arent here to actually debate anyone, just repeat yourself endlessly.

Worthless.

I. Just as 'responsibility' can only be maintained if there is someone to hold you responsible.


If you you really think like this, you are a terrifying human being and I hope I don't know you.

If you really don't see how there can and should be secular (non religious) reasons to outlaw, say, sex with children, you are a terrifying human being.

If you have to have a supernatural entity to validate morality, you are a terrifying human being.

If you need a "higher power" in order to be good, and there is no power higher then God, who holds God accountable? And if God can consider non-supernatural reasons to refrain from terrible things, then why can't you?

Do you see why people like you scare me?

Two men stand before a woman.

One says "I will not rape this woman, or else I will be punished by a supernatural being".

The next says "I will not rape this woman, because my own mind and heart, and nothing more, will not permit it."

Which is moral?

Two men stand before a woman.

One says "I will not rape this woman, or else I will be punished by a supernatural being".

The next says "I will not rape this woman, because my own mind and heart, and nothing more, will not permit it."

Which is moral?

Well said.

I 5. Morality is rooted in religious or spiritual belief, there is no way to separate the two. .

Ever hear of empathy? Of sympathy? Of avoiding harming another, because you are cognizant of the pain it would cause them, and you find that pain to be unacceptable?

Religion likes to call itself the source of this "golden rule", but the truth is, treating others as you would be treated yourself requires no supernatural enforcement.

If you really believe that all people would speed, steal, and kill if there wasn't something there to stop them, then enjoy being little more then an animal under the stern watch of a celestial zookeeper with a penchant for blood sacrifice of its own children.

I choose not steal, or kill, and the only consequence that stays my hand is knowing what I would be doing to somebody.

Two children are in a store.

One says "I won't steal candy, because if I do, mommy will spank me".

Another says "I won't steal candy. These things belong to some one."

Which should the parent truly be proud of?

I really liked the way Zaij addressed the Atheist rant, so I won't bother to post pull-quotes here. I would like to address several statements made on the previous page by the religion-bashers...

1. God is not a "myth" because you claim it. Sorry. I know you keep saying it over and over as if it is proven fact, but it is clearly not a provable fact. I would argue, if there is no God, humans have evolved with a completely unnecessary instinctual trait, contrary to Darwin's theory of natural selection. Trace the history of man and you will find a connection to spirituality has always existed in some form. So, if there is no such thing as God, there is no such thing as Evolution, at least not the Darwin theory of it.

And god doesn't exist simply because you claim it. Whether God exist or not, neither you, me, or anyone else knows.

2. Spirituality is not religion. I have never stated a word about "my religion" in these forums or elsewhere, because I don't do religion. I am a devout spiritualist. Contrary to Neanderthal thinking, there is a difference. I will often use the word "God" to describe the entity greater than self, which I fully know exists, and is not a myth. This doesn't mean I worship the same God as a Christian or Jew. I do believe we ALL worship some God, in some form. It is part of being a human being.

See, but heres the thing...

You DON'T KNOW whether god exist or not. Anymore then me. Anyone more than anyone. And if you do, prove it. Y'know call this 'greater entity' and show him to us.

Can't do that?

That shut up about knowing that god exist. It is so annoying that everyone claims they 'know', when the truth is we all don't know whether god exist or not.

3. No war has ever been waged by religion itself. Wars are waged by men, and they have often used religion to justify war, but the religion itself does not, and has never, supported acts of war against each other. It is contrary to any true religious ethic to make war against your fellow man.

I think the crusades and the whole 'taking back the holy land' thing pretty much looks like religion waging war.

4. I never said Atheists were "religious" only that they believe in the God they profess to not believe in. Denying God doesn't mean you don't believe in God. It's like a fat person denying they are fat and becoming offended by comments that they are fat. Their denial doesn't change the fact they are fat. They can act all outraged and point fingers at others, call people names, and insist they are not fat, but at the end of the day, they are still fat.

No, the thing about atheist is that they don't believe in god.

Just because you say they do doesn't make it true.

If you deny the existence of god, it means you don't believe god exist. It doesn't mean you believe in god, and are somehow 'jealous' of his connection with someone else.

And you example is crap.

5. Morality is rooted in religious or spiritual belief, there is no way to separate the two. You can argue about "right and wrong" all you like, you can't explain who or what established this criteria. It is not the natural world, because the natural world would dictate that "right and wrong" is survival of the fittest, and whatever man can justify in his own mind as acceptable to him, and clearly, societies and man do not live by this ethic.

Not my morality. Mines is basically 'Well, I know I wouldn't like someone stealing from me, so I won't steal from someone else'

Its the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have done to yourself.

See that? There goes an ethic that isn't religious. No floating boogeyman to scare me to do the right thing.

I mean, if the only reason you do the right thing is because you fear some stupid consequence, then your not a moral person to begin with. Moral people, like myself, simply don't do immoral and bad things because we don't want to cause harm to others. That simple.

leave you with another example of what I am saying about morality, because this is the most important aspect of my point. Morality, the sense of "right and wrong", can only exist if there is some apparent benefit or consequence to man. Without this, there is simply no reason, rationale, or justification to behave morally... why would you? Do people drive the speed limit because it is "the right thing to do?" No... they do it because, if they don't, an authority can and will deliver consequences in the form of a ticket. If there were no such thing as Police, there would be no purpose in establishing or obeying a speed limit. Store owners do not leave their store unlocked at night, because there is no one present to deliver consequences for theft. If they left their stores unlocked, there would be no reason for thieves to "do the right thing" and not steal their stuff. Morality without some measure of accountability, is the same way, it defies the human condition in principle, and is absolutely pointless.

Believe or not, there are people who do the right thing just because its the right thing to do. And the only benefit usually is the knowledge that they're a better human being.

And there are people who simply don't murder, rape, go over the speed limit, etc. because of the consequences involved. And thats probably the type of person you are, but that isn't me.

Different people have different motivations for doing and not doing things.

First of all, I reject the contention that belief in a God is "supernatural"."

Can your version of God decide what natural law will be? Can it choose to ignore gravity, or travel faster then light, or see the future, or raise the dead? Can your version of "God" decide what natural law will be, change it at will? Then it is above or beyond nature, and fits the very textbook definition of what it is to be supernatural.


I never said that we "fear consequences of immorality in the afterlife" those are your words, not mine. However, our moral standards come from somewhere, there is a reason we rationalize things as being "wrong" or "right" and behave accordingly. I simply asked where this comes from in a person who professes not to believe in anything greater than self, and so far, no clear answer has been given. I don't think an answer can be given, because it defies logic. Morality doesn't come from logical and empirical constraints of the natural world, because the rest of the animal kingdom is amoral, they have no moral compass. The logical and empirical constraints of the natural world would dictate that we must have a logical reason for moral behavior, else it has no fundamental purpose.

Here's an answer: When people started developing sufficient cognition to be aware of one another as somemthing other then external stimuli, as something other than predator, prey, threat, or nutrient, there became a logical reason to treat one another with regard. That "something other" doesn't have to be a "soul" or a "thetan" or a "Child of God", it just has to be another homo sapien.

Your logic must be frighteningly flawed to not find logical reasons to not kill someone, other then "I might get caught and punished" or "God forbids it".

When certain species of migratory bird have one of their group injured, two more will fall out of formation and stay with their comrade until it heals or dies. There is no "God of Ducks" that told them to do this. There are valid, logical reasons for them to care for their own species.

The ducks just figured it out faster than some humans.

Well said.

Backwoods, you were here standing up for my right to choose to respect others without a "God" thing to make me do it, so you have my thanks.

I'm gratified, and feel safer on Earth, knowing that there are at least some people in the world who wouldn't grab a chainsaw if there wasn't a "God" idea to restrain them.

One says "I won't steal candy, because if I do, mommy will spank me".

Another says "I won't steal candy. These things belong to some one."

Which should the parent truly be proud of?

Of both, in my opinion.

Morality does exist without religion or secular laws, sure, but not all people are moral. Some people break against the rules even when they know they will be punished. BUT, there is a good number of people who will NOT break against the most obvious moral codes of the society because they have been told not to, and know that there would be (possibly severe) consequences. This is obviously a good thing.

If a person does not do something because he fears the consequences, I think the law has done its duty, be it secular or religious in origin. Of course it is suboptimal, but that's the way things are. It's better than having a much higher number of people doing undesirable things just because no one will do anything about them.

Guess what for we need weapons in this world we live in.

Of both, in my opinion.

Morality does exist without religion or secular laws, sure, but not all people are moral. Some people break against the rules even when they know they will be punished. BUT, there is a good number of people who will NOT break against the most obvious moral codes of the society because they have been told not to, and know that there would be (possibly severe) consequences. This is obviously a good thing.

If a person does not do something because he fears the consequences, I think the law has done its duty, be it secular or religious in origin. Of course it is suboptimal, but that's the way things are. It's better than having a much higher number of people doing undesirable things just because no one will do anything about them.

Guess what for we need weapons in this world we live in.

You make a fine and practical point. I am not against laws (although I prefer to reside in a country with purely secular laws that allow people to practice their religion but not enforce it on others through weight of statute).

The problem is, the original poster states that morality can ONLY exist through religion or spirituality. That is something I dispute.

So, let the one child be governed by spanking or the threat thereof, and let the other be governed by an internally born (or, taught by example of a conscientious parent) awareness of others as being as meaningful as the self.

The second child impresses me more.

so called christians will have something to whine about when they stop bashing everything else. of course one could say the few REAL christians don't, but the few who exist at all, amount to only the smallest, least militant, and least vocal of minorities of those calling themselves by that name. the same can appearantly be said of islam.

everytime you have a tyrannt identifying themselves with a belief, that belief has a LOT to live down. every person of genuine and honest good will, again, if there are any, who calls themselves that, can thank lord shrubery the simple for giving them so much to have to do so.

there is a longer term and indemic problem with christianity and islam, more so then any other beliefs, and that is their unwillingness to except as valid any beliefs or perceptions outside the range of their arbitrarily defined pseudo-knowledge.

every time i here someone equating not being a christian or moslem, with not believing in any kind of god or gods at all, i, along with everyone else, am reminded of this absurdity of emotional attatchment.

we live in a univers of infinite real possibilities, while each adamant organized belief offers only one possibility out of that infinite range of others, the vast majority of which, remaining even to be imagined.

until fallowers of every belief recognize and acknowledge honestly and openly that reality, those which most fanaticly refuse to, bring an honest and objective assessment of their self blindness upon their own heads.

reguardless of whomever may have said whatever, whenever.

=^^=
.../\...

Why such sudden attention to religion from atheists? You know what I see here? People who need to hate something :mad:. Some people are so passionate (and silly) in their hatred of religion that they even deny the ones who are religious some minimum respect.

Westboro Babtist Church. Topeka, Kansas. Look it up.

A great deal more of Christians have been bashing and KILLING Atheists and other non-christians for CENTURIES. Stop whining. It's about time some of us got some rights to live without winding up burned at the stake. Litterally or Metaphorically.

Why can't people be religious on their own if they won't harm or even preach to others? Suddenly, atheists think they're superior because they finally see that religion is wrong, and in the next moment they start to unprovokedly judge others who are still religious and have the right to be so.

Why can't people be non-religious on their own if they won't harm or even preach to others? For centuries, Christians have thought they're superior because they fail to see that non-religion is non-harmful, and in the next moment they start to unprovokedly judge others who are now non-religious and have the right to be so.

Your entire argument is a giant double-edged sword. I suggest you shut up before you make yourself look even more retarded.

I don't see religious people judging me around as I live my life. Heck, my catholic mother said back when I was a kid that I could choose any other religion or even abandon christianism if I felt it was wrong, that nothing would change. Religion shouldn't intrude in politics if the people don't want it, and as long as it's something personal on your life, it should be tolerated and respected.

Westboro Babtist Church would call you a Satanist homosexual whore.

The fact is there are gaint globs of religious fringe groups that exist everywhere. This isn't even limited to religion, there are Neo-Nazi's, Klansmen, Muslim Fanatics, etc... (Of which actually these fringe groups do use religion as some sort of justification for their radical hate)

For the will of Allah? Jesus Christ must condemn you then. I'll admit however that there are a fair share of people (somewhat like you) who are reasonable, kind, and religious. I have a number of religious friends and family members whome a cherish

Tolerance goes both ways, from religious to atheists, and vice-versa. But in these forums all I see is hate posts toward religions, sometimes it just stays in the level of flaming and hate-talking for just no reason, just to let off some steam. That's what I think, anyway. ;)

HORSE SHIT. What the hell? I don't see any of these threads. If anything, all I've seen is threads about Christians trying to fit Religion into people's lives under the guise of 'learning new ideas'

9) What was the religion of Nazi Germany?
Ans - Christianity

The Nazis were occultists. Read Satan and Swastika: The Occult and the Nazi Party.

. I suggest you shut up before you make yourself look even more retarded.


This language doesn't help. I can't and won't censor you, but saying things like that only feeds the persecution complex of the person you're addressing.

A lot of people draw strength from feeling victimized, or from posturing themselves as under attack; while I agree that it is disingenuous, telling them to "shut up" just lends to their feeling.

Dixieanna:

I know that lots of people here are having fun shouting at one another, and I wouldn't want to spoil that, and I'm not entirely sure you are going to read this post because perhaps you are one of them (how would I know?) But for my own purposes I'm going to have a go at answering some of what you say sensibly.


4. I never said Atheists were "religious" only that they believe in the God they profess to not believe in. Denying God doesn't mean you don't believe in God. It's like a fat person denying they are fat and becoming offended by comments that they are fat.

You are free to believe that if you wish -- but can you understand that to most people here it sounds both silly and offensive? If I told you that Spiritualists didn't really believe in a god, but were just pretending, how would you feel about it?

The subject of this thread is "religious bigotry". Based on what you've said so far, I understand you to mean: atheists ridiculing the beliefs of Christians and/or Spiritualists. But are you not, in your point above, doing the exact same to them -- whether you mean to or not?

My views on this: well, as I've said, I think lots of people are having fun shouting at one another. I'd prefer a real debate -- I am neither a Christian nor an Atheist and I'd quite like to see some of these arguments for a rational, secular basis of morailty expanded -- but I'm not here to spoil anyone's fun.

Personally I suspect that my views are the inverse of yours: that morality is (partly) the cause of religion, rather than the other way around. But don't worry; I don't expect you to agree with me.

I don't hate Christianity, I hate Christians. Big difference.

At least you admit to being a bigot.

At least you admit to being a bigot.

I refer you to my previous response:
http://http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13236741&postcount=150

In short, I hate hypocrite.

I refer you to my previous response:
http://http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13236741&postcount=150

In short, I hate hypocrite.

Yes, and in short, you lump all Christians into one homogenous group. That is bigotry.

This language doesn't help. I can't and won't censor you, but saying things like that only feeds the persecution complex of the person you're addressing.

A lot of people draw strength from feeling victimized, or from posturing themselves as under attack; while I agree that it is disingenuous, telling them to "shut up" just lends to their feeling.

Quite reminds me of the "S-word" in Elementary.

Really, I believe some people need to be smacked around a bit for looking like idiots or not researching. Even I have been 'pwned' before. It teaches people to think twice before pressing post. Or at least press 'review'

In regards to launguage. If somebody is going to get upset over something as trivial as 'shut up' I'd recommend they leave the internet before they're exposed to the more nastier crooks of the net. You bring up a point about victimization however.

David Duke is irrelevant. Anyone can argue logic to suit their own moral convictions. Logic can be used to describe blacks as inferior and asians as the master race, logic can be used to relegate women to glorified baby-machines, logic could be used to justify discrimination against homosexuals. Logic is pliable - particularly in matters of religion.

To describe anyones belifes at any level as 'daft' is evidence of bigotry. Because you do not share the same values as someone does not give you the right to regard them with intolerance. Nobody has ever had an improvement in their condition as a result of being on the receiving end of intolerance.

Logic cannot be used to describe black people inferior. This is the subtle point you seem to be unable to understand. If a racist person tells me someone is inferior because of the colour of their skin I will attack that belief with logic by asking them for evidence that that is the case - they will be unable to provide any evidence that that is the case because there is none. According to you if I attack this person's irrational (seeing as you have such a problem with the word daft) beliefs it is me that is being a bigot not the racist person.

Quite reminds me of the "S-word" in Elementary.

Really, I believe some people need to be smacked around a bit for looking like idiots or not researching. Even I have been 'pwned' before. It teaches people to think twice before pressing post. Or at least press 'review'

In regards to launguage. If somebody is going to get upset over something as trivial as 'shut up' I'd recommend they leave the internet before they're exposed to the more nastier crooks of the net. You bring up a point about victimization however.

"Shut up" may be trivial, but it is also trite and lacking any cogency. I have exposure to the "nastier crooks" of both the internet and real life.

It doesn't upset me, it disappoints me that people who presume to be worthy to "smack" others can't come up with anything more original, insightful, or civil.

At least consider that your point will be made all the more salient when tempered with some composure.

there is a longer term and indemic problem with christianity and islam, more so then any other beliefs, and that is their unwillingness to except as valid any beliefs or perceptions outside the range of their arbitrarily defined pseudo-knowledge.

Hey, I resent that! I'm a Christian Protestant, and I'm not unwilling to accept people's right to believe or not to believe anything they want. If you want to deny the existence of God, be my guest. If you want to believe there's a giant squid lying on the bottom of the Pacific ocean, waiting for the Stars To Be Right, be my guest. If you want to not care about there being a God or gods or whatever, be my guest. I won't state my own beliefs here, as this is neither the time or the place for it.

What I hate the most, personally, is extremist Atheism which is oddly prevalent on the internets (not saying here). If you think we're all just gonna end up being a pile of dirt and that's it, wouldn't that be a reason not to use your time to go off using your time more sensibly than wasting it with people who think that they have an eternity (after death) to waste? There's some food for thought.

every time i here someone equating not being a christian or moslem, with not believing in any kind of god or gods at all, i, along with everyone else, am reminded of this absurdity of emotional attatchment.

Who's been saying that? Obviously all other religions (like Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and so on) are religions too. Point me to the poster and I'll give him/her the verbal finger, too. I'm too lazy to actually read most of the posts, too much of pointless hating for no reason.

we live in a univers of infinite real possibilities,

According to science even I think this is untrue. We may think that anything may happen, but for instance the chances of a chimp (that has current-day level of chimpiness) writing the entire works of Shakespeare ever is close to none. Sure, there's a chance that it might happen, but I wouldn't call it a plausible possibility There's an infinite amount of uncertainty and freak chances, but possibilities (as in things which could be consciously reached and exploited)... I wouldn't go that far.

while each adamant organized belief offers only one possibility out of that infinite range of others, the vast majority of which, remaining even to be imagined.

And what's wrong with that? It helps people focus. It gives them a reason to keep on living instead of despairing. I actually *want* to believe in God because I don't want to think of death being the end of my existence entirely. The thought of that is a bit debilitating. Imagining even more things does not make them any truer than the current religions, sadly enough. Until we know with 100% certainty what happens after death, we really can't help but wonder and go with a religion (or not go with one if one chooses thus) that we think might be closest to the truth.

until fallowers of every belief recognize and acknowledge honestly and openly that reality, those which most fanaticly refuse to, bring an honest and objective assessment of their self blindness upon their own heads.

To be quite blunt... How does saying things like this make you any better than the religious nutcases who try to force feed their beliefs to people, really? You are just as blind as you say they are. You're trying to feed your own views as the truth, while they could be just as right or wrong as those of anyone else's.

According to science even I think this is untrue. We may think that anything may happen, but for instance the chances of a chimp (that has current-day level of chimpiness) writing the entire works of Shakespeare ever is close to none. Sure, there's a chance that it might happen, but I wouldn't call it a plausible possibility There's an infinite amount of uncertainty and freak chances, but possibilities (as in things which could be consciously reached and exploited)... I wouldn't go that far.


I'm with ZP on this one; "infinite possibilities" is a fine tagline for a sci-fi computer game, but on a pragmatic level, this is very close to being mere hyperbole.

Yes, and in short, you lump all Christians into one homogenous group. That is bigotry.
Well I have yet to see many Christians who actually take heed to the social gospel, indeed even if a majority of 'Christians' these days believed as Jesus said that spiritual worth is based on good material works, then the world would be a better place.

David Duke is irrelevant. Anyone can argue logic to suit their own moral convictions. Logic can be used to describe blacks as inferior and asians as the master race, logic can be used to relegate women to glorified baby-machines, logic could be used to justify discrimination against homosexuals. Logic is pliable - particularly in matters of religion.

To describe anyones belifes at any level as 'daft' is evidence of bigotry. Because you do not share the same values as someone does not give you the right to regard them with intolerance. Nobody has ever had an improvement in their condition as a result of being on the receiving end of intolerance.

Which is why all of us must submit to His Noodly Appendage. Hear and Be Saved!

Verily, there awaits you a most glourious afterlife, filled with thine wonders such as stripper factories and glourious beer volcanoes. HEAR THE GOOD WORD!

Our lord, the Flying Spagghetti Monster, is here! It is nigh hour of doom, where his glourious Ragu will cleanse the earth, while his lovely noodles suck Pastafarians up to a glourious heaven! But all other denomonations (excluding Jews and Italians) will be cast into the endless pit of British FOOD! EVERYTHING IS BROILED SEVERAL TIMES OVER!!!!!<CUE OMINOUS MUSIC> REPENT, YE SINNERS! BE TOUCHED BY HIS NOODLEY APPENDAGE!



Ramen

A great deal more of Christians have been bashing and KILLING Atheists and other non-christians for CENTURIES.

Just like the Romans were killing and bashing people of different religious groups for centuries, or how the moslems forced their religion (later than they started their entire conquest, sure) on the conquered peoples, or how the whites were bashing the blacks, or how the immigrants to America bashed the native Americans, or how the Japanese were bashing the Chinese/Koreans...

Yes, people have always been bashed by different groups. Christians did it too when they became the majority. I, however, largely doubt that it was done in the true spirit of the religion, but rather a perverted power-grubbin' way.

For centuries, Christians have thought they're superior because they fail to see that non-religion is non-harmful, and in the next moment they start to unprovokedly judge others who are now non-religious and have the right to be so.

Saying it's unprovoked these days is a bit of a funny thing, since so often when Christians with weird views come up (creationism in SCIENCE CLASS? Um, right), these "unprovokedly bashed non-religious persons" start bashing Christianity as a whole, rather than the particular sect/whatever of Christianity the person represents.

Guess why the reformation happened? Cuz people got fed up with the Church being such a bastard!

Westboro Babtist Church would call you a Satanist homosexual whore.

Westboro Baptist Church is hardly representative of Christianity as a whole. Halp, I'm being assaulted by extremist somethings who use some nutjobs as their ammunition!

It's always fun to have people go "Christians this" and "Christians that", and then cry "BUT THESE AREN'T REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ENTIRE RELIGION" when it's about some other religion. :/

For the will of Allah? Jesus Christ must condemn you then.

Personally I would think that Jesus Christ would not condemn anyone. That's the part of the message that was lost somewhere along the line.

all I've seen is threads about Christians trying to fit Religion into people's lives under the guise of 'learning new ideas'

Some random members of some vaguely Christian sects more like. :/

Why?

I can benefit from causing unneccessary suffering and loss of life, greatly.


Let's turn this around a bit. I could benefit from causing the loss of your life greatly. I do not proscribe to any faith based article of belief.

For what reasons that are applicable to me should I not kill you? And why have I not done so already?

Any form of religiously based moral reasoning is an instant fail.

Which is why all of us must submit to His Noodly Appendage. Hear and Be Saved!

Verily, there awaits you a most glourious afterlife, filled with thine wonders such as stripper factories and glourious beer volcanoes. HEAR THE GOOD WORD!

Our lord, the Flying Spagghetti Monster, is here! It is nigh hour of doom, where his glourious Ragu will cleanse the earth, while his lovely noodles suck Pastafarians up to a glourious heaven! But all other denomonations (excluding Jews and Italians) will be cast into the endless pit of British FOOD! EVERYTHING IS BROILED SEVERAL TIMES OVER!!!!!<CUE OMINOUS MUSIC> REPENT, YE SINNERS! BE TOUCHED BY HIS NOODLEY APPENDAGE!



Ramen

This is what I hate about you Pastafarians. Do you forget the horrible massacre at the Al Dente Monastery, where the Alfredo Heretics were ruthlessly boiled (although not for as long) because the dared to propose that the Sauce have clams instead of mushrooms?

It doesn't upset me, it disappoints me that people who presume to be worthy to "smack" others can't come up with anything more original, insightful, or civil.

I've never said I, or any other people on the internet aren't 'worthy' or more 'worthy' to "Smack" others. All people, even bigots, or n00bs have that ability equally.

It is how the act of "Smacking" is caried out, whether intelligently and composed...or...unintelligent and lacking...

Also, I would point out, this is the internet. Originality is virtually non-existant. Everything has been done 1 million times over in my opinion. But it is the fact some things have been done 1 million times over as compared to 1 trillion.

I've never said I, or any other people on the internet aren't 'worthy' or more 'worthy' to "Smack" others. All people, even bigots, or n00bs have that ability equally.

It is how the act of "Smacking" is caried out, whether intelligently and composed...or...unintelligent and lacking...

Also, I would point out, this is the internet. Originality is virtually non-existant. Everything has been done 1 million times over in my opinion. But it is the fact some things have been done 1 million times over as compared to 1 trillion.

This rampant smacking might be a bit more counterproductive and a bit less instructive then some may hope.

Honestly, is "shut up" intelligently composed?

As to this being the internet, civility in discourse does not have to be constricted to one medium or forbidden to another.

Here's something that hasn't been heard a million times:

If somebody is saying "My people are treated rudely!" and you say "Shut up, you sound like a retard!", will not an albino dentist perhaps tilt his head?

Perhaps civil discourse isn't any more original then "shut up, you're retarded", but it seems to be rare among some...

This rampant smacking might be a bit more counterproductive and a bit less instructive then some may hope.

Honestly, is "shut up" intelligently composed?

As to this being the internet, civility in discourse does not have to be constricted to one medium or forbidden to another.

Here's something that hasn't been heard a million times:

If somebody is saying "My people are treated rudely!" and you say "Shut up, you sound like a retard!", will not an albino dentist perhaps tilt his head?

Perhaps civil discourse isn't any more original then "shut up, you're retarded", but it seems to be rare among some...


Do you think formally acknowleging defeat or simply not replying at all is the best response to losing an arguement?

Quite well put in my opinion

Yes, and in short, you lump all Christians into one homogenous group. That is bigotry.

No, it's not. Don't use words if you don't understand them.

Do you think formally acknowleging defeat or simply not replying at all is the best response to losing an arguement?

Quite well put in my opinion

You feel that I'm evading your argument?

Perhaps I misunderstand your position.

I thought you were saying that the "shut up" was some way of enlightening others, and I was replying that it is still rude and likely not effective in conveying your point.

My analogy of the albino dentist was meant to illustrate that verbiage like "retard" and "shut up" only gives some small measure of credence to the premise that the OP is being bullied.

Honestly, I believe I am addressing your argument, but if I am not, please emphasize the aspect of your position that I have neglected, and I will genuinely try to better address it.

Do you think formally acknowleging defeat or simply not replying at all is the best response to losing an arguement?
This question is stemming from a perception of argument as a competition rather than a method of resolving the conflict of ideas. If you take the view that it's only the idea itself that can win or lose, there's no personal problem with admitting that the idea you've been proposing has been shown to be less suitable.

No, it's not. Don't use words if you don't understand them.

Yeah, I'd say that the right term to use would be "religious stereotyping". Which, none the less, is a good way to make people who had nothing against you originally to suddenly have something against you.

Yeah, I'd say that the right term to use would be "religious stereotyping". Which, none the less, is a good way to make people who had nothing against you originally to suddenly have something against you.

It works both ways.

Ask any "Christian-Hating Atheist" on this forum.

It works both ways.

Ask any "Christian-Hating Atheist" on this forum.

Indeed it does. I have nothing against regular Atheists who go about their business like most people, but I have a lot against the types who spout "Christians this" and "Christians that", while it's obvious that there are insane amounts of different Christian groups, which was caused by the Reformation, which happened hundreds of years ago. If some guy from some militaristic Gogglethopian Baptist Church says something crazy, it doesn't mean that even a millionth of all Christians of all different Christian denominations agree with it.

As for all this hayte spouting... Let's go with the "all Christians are one cohesive group" idea for a second here. If you find as many Christians spouting hate as Atheists, you still have a percentually infinitesmal amount of Christians going at it versus a percentually MUCH higher number of Atheists. What this could indicate if one was a spiteful person is that Atheists are more likely to spout hateful words about people of religion than Christians are about Atheists (and other religions)! :p And even if you could find, numerically, a lot more Christians than Atheists going at it, you'd need a significantly higher number of them than Atheists to get to the same percentage.

It's easy to just say that a certain group does something more than another when the other group is MASSIVE compared to the other - while in truth, by percentages, the numbers are completely different.

And now you're doing it yourself by the way. You are implying that Atheism is a religion...

Just kidding. I know you meant the stereotyping part, but not with the "religious" part in it.

There is an irony underlining the defensive posture of accusing atheists and rationalists of stereotyping religion.

When for example, individuals who consider themselves Christians denounce other Christians for the beliefs they profess, such as the Fred Phelps chapter, there is something else happening there.

First, this is actually one of the most frequent pro-religion arguments that come up. The charge that agnostics and atheists are generalizing or mischaracterizing a particular denomination. The religious person will say «I don't believe in that», or also, «Those who are drawn to that sort of fundamentalism can't be real Christians.» or «Why should obscure religious fringe extremists be used to represent and denigrate the whole?» and so on and so forth.

I am familiar with Sam Harris's stance on religious moderation, that the moderates deceive both the stated principles of their religion and reason simultaneously while allowing for fundamentalists to portray their views as pure and ultimately true. I do agree with this, but still, I'd like to look upon these arguments from a different perspective.

I believe that every response of this sort («that's my not religion!»), is actually an extremely positive sign. What they are saying is, in a nutshell:, «OK we both agree, these positions on sexuality (for example) are actually in the bible, but they are terrible. I don't believe in them and I do recognize them as being terrible beliefs» that we should discard from our personal faith.

These occasions are small but significant victories in our dialectic battle against the abracadabras of this world.

When they claim that their god/religion is different or better or more compatible with a civilised society, what they are really doing is revealing their effort of reevaluating the contemporary values of their own dogmas. This is the very first step before personally acknowledging that if you are able to cherry pick what is good/useful to your morality from within the stated tenets or your own religion, then, simply stated, the judgement you've applied in that precise moment has nothing to do with religion, God, or anything other-wordly. Whatever the source of your morality it is with you all along and it can be applied in every aspect of your experience as a human being living in society without the need for supernatural authorities, available to the fundamentalist, the moderate, the pagan, the apostate and the atheist.

I frankly believe we should take these sort of pro-religion arguments with a smile. For example, wouldn't we want more and more Islamic apologists to come out and defend Islam in this fashion? That a moderation of Islam does, should or can exist other than those who carry signs saying «Death to those who say Islam is a violent religion!»?

Sorry.
You should be.

That's one example and proves exactly nothing. Let me show the moral equivalent in a human society.

http://homecooking.about.com/library/archive/blveal.htm

Truly horrifying, isn't it?

While I have no interest in this philosophical foolishness (apart from adding alliteration), I am something of a bird buff. Please, do give me some examples of birds displaying a system of morality or justice that goes beyond defined animal behaviors.

As an aside, the chick being eaten in that movie was as seagull chick, so a proper moral equivalent would be a human eating a human child.

And if that's too uneven a playing field for you, I can dig up some material on turkey vultures eating human children (albeit ones that died of starvation).

Or the many species of raptor who's young will commonly starve out or even kill their younger, weaker sibling to improve their own chances of survival.

Or the parasitic nesters that steal the nests of other birds to raise their own young in.

Yes, and in short, you lump all Christians into one homogenous group.Well, all Christians have in common that they believe in Yeshua (=Jesus) being the messiah (=christos). Hence the name and that also constitutes sufficient homogeneity.

While I have no interest in this philosophical foolishness (apart from adding alliteration), I am something of a bird buff. Please, do give me some examples of birds displaying a system of morality or justice that goes beyond defined animal behaviors.

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9898270

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9898270

"Past tests of the degree to which animals other than people can delay their gratification have focused on birds and monkeys. Both groups can delay gratification if a bigger reward is on offer, but only for a few seconds."

The entire article focuses on chimpanzees, with the exception of the one paragraph I've quoted above, and even that is mostly irrelevant. Patience does not equate to morality, and delaying one's response to attain a larger reward can easily be a survival tactic.

I really liked the way Zaij addressed the Atheist rant, so I won't bother to post pull-quotes here. I would like to address several statements made on the previous page by the religion-bashers...

1. God is not a "myth" because you claim it. Sorry. I know you keep saying it over and over as if it is proven fact, but it is clearly not a provable fact.

Myth: a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

God is a mythological figure. I'm not saying there's no God, but whether he exists or not, he is a myth.


I would argue, if there is no God, humans have evolved with a completely unnecessary instinctual trait, contrary to Darwin's theory of natural selection. Trace the history of man and you will find a connection to spirituality has always existed in some form. So, if there is no such thing as God, there is no such thing as Evolution, at least not the Darwin theory of it.

That's nonsense. Whether God exists or not has nothing to do with the evolutionary basis for believing in him.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101041025-725072,00.html

4. I never said Atheists were "religious" only that they believe in the God they profess to not believe in. Denying God doesn't mean you don't believe in God. It's like a fat person denying they are fat and becoming offended by comments that they are fat. Their denial doesn't change the fact they are fat. They can act all outraged and point fingers at others, call people names, and insist they are not fat, but at the end of the day, they are still fat.

Could you give some support for this? There are overweight people who have convinced themselves that they are just fine and that society's standards improperly favor being too thin, but there are also people who are already too thin and are trying to loose weight. You may believe that atheists are wrong for denying God's existence, but how can you argue that they are wrong for denying their own belief in his existence?

5. Morality is rooted in religious or spiritual belief, there is no way to separate the two. You can argue about "right and wrong" all you like, you can't explain who or what established this criteria. It is not the natural world, because the natural world would dictate that "right and wrong" is survival of the fittest, and whatever man can justify in his own mind as acceptable to him, and clearly, societies and man do not live by this ethic.

Yes, you can. Lots of behavioral and social science scholars have been forced to do complete one-eighties on their belief that religion is the source of morality. A great example would be the incest taboo. For generations people thought that without a religious background people would all start shagging their parents and siblings just like animals do. It turns out that animals don't. At least not if they have a choice. The incest taboo is an urge to articulate a deeply ingrained biological urge, not the edict of an institution that managed to get in touch with the Great Spirit after leaving the house of his uncle and father and grandfather, who was a nice guy, but wrong about a lot.

Let me leave you with another example of what I am saying about morality, because this is the most important aspect of my point. Morality, the sense of "right and wrong", can only exist if there is some apparent benefit or consequence to man. Without this, there is simply no reason, rationale, or justification to behave morally... why would you? Do people drive the speed limit because it is "the right thing to do?" No... they do it because, if they don't, an authority can and will deliver consequences in the form of a ticket. If there were no such thing as Police, there would be no purpose in establishing or obeying a speed limit. Store owners do not leave their store unlocked at night, because there is no one present to deliver consequences for theft. If they left their stores unlocked, there would be no reason for thieves to "do the right thing" and not steal their stuff. Morality without some measure of accountability, is the same way, it defies the human condition in principle, and is absolutely pointless.

But that's got nothing to do with religion. Humans in a natural environment (or as God first created them) had very little concept of ownership or even privacy. In a hunter-gatherer band everyone shares everything. Even in neolithic villages need is more important than ownership. The conditions of morality you point out are very subjective. Comedians think one of the worst things you can do is tell a joke, but not say where you heard it. Most people never even think to say where they heard a joke, they just tell it and get a laugh. As long as it wasn't Leno's last night, no one else will care. It's pretty much the same with speed limits (which no one obeys) and store fronts. It isn't immoral to leave your store unlocked, it's just unwise. It's got nothing to do with God or spirituality.

"Past tests of the degree to which animals other than people can delay their gratification have focused on birds and monkeys. Both groups can delay gratification if a bigger reward is on offer, but only for a few seconds."

The entire article focuses on chimpanzees, with the exception of the one paragraph I've quoted above, and even that is mostly irrelevant. Patience does not equate to morality, and delaying one's response to attain a larger reward can easily be a survival tactic.
Patience and fairness are core elements to morality.

Nevertheless we are talking about a field of study that is practically in it's infancy. It is far too early to do anything but withhold judgement on whether birds have a sense of morality or not. It's abundantly indicative that apes do.

Not that any of this really matters to the veracity of religion or it's irrelevance as a source of morality.

1. God is not a "myth" because you claim it.
No, God is a mythical figure, not a myth. it's a subtle distinction.
Sorry. I know you keep saying it over and over as if it is proven fact, but it is clearly not a provable fact.
No more than Zeus and Hera being mythical figures.
I would argue, if there is no God, humans have evolved with a completely unnecessary instinctual trait, contrary to Darwin's theory of natural selection.
Not at all. Several lifeforms have vestigal organs, including humans. It's not impossible, therefore, that we have 'vestigal instincts'.
Trace the history of man and you will find a connection to spirituality has always existed in some form. So, if there is no such thing as God, there is no such thing as Evolution, at least not the Darwin theory of it.
False dichotomy.

2. Spirituality is not religion. I have never stated a word about "my religion" in these forums or elsewhere, because I don't do religion. I am a devout spiritualist. Contrary to Neanderthal thinking, there is a difference. I will often use the word "God" to describe the entity greater than self, which I fully know exists, and is not a myth. This doesn't mean I worship the same God as a Christian or Jew.
And thus you are jealous of Christians and their relationship with God, because you have denoucned it.
I do believe we ALL worship some God, in some form. It is part of being a human being.
Your belief ignores reality.

3. No war has ever been waged by religion itself. Wars are waged by men, and they have often used religion to justify war, but the religion itself does not, and has never, supported acts of war against each other. It is contrary to any true religious ethic to make war against your fellow man.
No True Scotsman fallacy.

4. I never said Atheists were "religious" only that they believe in the God they profess to not believe in. Denying God doesn't mean you don't believe in God. It's like a fat person denying they are fat and becoming offended by comments that they are fat. Their denial doesn't change the fact they are fat. They can act all outraged and point fingers at others, call people names, and insist they are not fat, but at the end of the day, they are still fat.
I don't deny God, I believe that he doesn't exist. Him and all the other gods and goddesses.

5. Morality is rooted in religious or spiritual belief, there is no way to separate the two.
Wrong. I have morals and no religion.
You can argue about "right and wrong" all you like, you can't explain who or what established this criteria. It is not the natural world, because the natural world would dictate that "right and wrong" is survival of the fittest, and whatever man can justify in his own mind as acceptable to him, and clearly, societies and man do not live by this ethic.
We have set our own criteria. In order to enforce these criteria, certain people claimed that they were dictated by a supreme being. Moses, for example.

Let me leave you with another example of what I am saying about morality, because this is the most important aspect of my point. Morality, the sense of "right and wrong", can only exist if there is some apparent benefit or consequence to man.
I find it disturbing that you only refrain from harming other people because you'll be punished if you do.
Without this, there is simply no reason, rationale, or justification to behave morally... why would you? Do people drive the speed limit because it is "the right thing to do?" No... they do it because, if they don't, an authority can and will deliver consequences in the form of a ticket.
And some people who are capable of simple thought realise that speed limits exist for a reason.
If there were no such thing as Police, there would be no purpose in establishing or obeying a speed limit.
Aside from the reason that it exists now, safety.
Morality without some measure of accountability, is the same way, it defies the human condition in principle, and is absolutely pointless.

In your opinion.

Patience and fairness are core elements to morality.

Nevertheless we are talking about a field of study that is practically in it's infancy. It is far too early to do anything but withhold judgement on whether birds have a sense or morality or not. It's abundantly indicative that apes do.

Not that any of this really matters to the veracity of religion.

Right. But I felt compelled to oppose the previous statement about birds having morality because, frankly, it goes against much of the behavior that birds (and all animals) partake in. Humans have it very easy compared to the rest of the animal kingdom.. We have time for morality. Most animals are concerned primarily with just surviving, although if traces of a moral structure were going to appear, it would almost certainly be first seen in social species like chimps or possibly some flocking, intelligent avians (I'm thinking corvids in particular).

I'd also dispute that patience is essential to morality (the article mentioned nothing about birds being observed practicing fairness). Some of the most heinous acts, such as premeditated murder or the abduction of a child for sexual exploitation, require a great deal of patience to perform with a minimal risk of discovery.

As for the bearing it has on religion, it could be argued that a moral constant followed by creatures not intelligent enough to be aware of morality would support the concept of a divine law or will of some sort. Of course, I don't give much of a care to other people's religious beliefs. Birds, on the other hand, I can talk about.

Indeed it does. I have nothing against regular Atheists who go about their business like most people, but I have a lot against the types who spout "Christians this" and "Christians that", while it's obvious that there are insane amounts of different Christian groups, which was caused by the Reformation, which happened hundreds of years ago. If some guy from some militaristic Gogglethopian Baptist Church says something crazy, it doesn't mean that even a millionth of all Christians of all different Christian denominations agree with it.

That's certainly true.

The problem is, the most militant, right-wing, and authoritarian sects of American Christianity have had undue political influence in the last few years. That seems to be changing, which I pointed out before, but it has left a bad taste in the mouths of a lot of people.

And the terms of the debate (Christian or not) wasn't really our choosing. Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell, and their ilk, have been talking about their followers as though they're the only Christians out there. And they were getting all the press. Most Christians in the US were against going to war in Iraq, but you wouldn't know it to look at the Christians who got the press.

So yes, atheists and other non-Christians are wrong to paint all Christians with the same brush, but certain Christians have been trying awfully hard to make sure that there's only one brush to paint with.

Well done Ifreann. You've shown patience I don't possess.

This idea that gets repeated by those who may not be religious but still «believe in belief» - that we must be lied to in order to behave properly - is the epitome of a kind of condescension and mockery of our evolved humanity and intelligence, that I frankly, want no part of.

And some people who are capable of simple thought realise that speed limits exist for a reason. Speed whats? :confused:

Well done Ifreann. You've shown patience I don't possess.Patience? Or boredom? You decide :D

Speed whats? :confused:
Speed limits. You know, those signs on the side of the road with numbers on them.

Patience? Or boredom? You decide :D

The latter.

-- The charge that agnostics and atheists are generalizing or mischaracterizing a particular denomination. --

Why would Agnostics be arguing about Christianity? They don't really deny the existence of God or gods or anything. Their belief is that we don't know and really can't know right now whether God/gods/whatever exists. What reason would they have to argue about the existence of God, when they don't really care about it?

When for example, individuals who consider themselves Christians denounce other Christians for the beliefs they profess, such as the Fred Phelps chapter, there is something else happening there.

What is happening is that there's as many interpretations of what it means to be Christian as there are different Christian denominations. Other denominations are much more open than others in the way they view the world, and how God would receive humanity. No matter what a person claims, while the Bible is "the Word of God", it has also been written down by people in times past who have had completely different knowledge base than us, and have quite likely have had their own agendas to follow when writing what they have written. Everyone should know by now (even the most fundamentalist denominations of Christianity) that the Bible isn't exactly the most credible historical source for everything that has happened on the Earth since day one.

I have no understanding for people who actually cite the Old Testament as something that binds Christians, when that's actually describing the Old Covenant, the Jewish chapter, while the New Testament is describing the NEW Covenant with God. And that is what we (as in Christians) should by all means follow. Unless someone made us Jews and no one told me about it.

-- that the moderates deceive both the stated principles of their religion and reason simultaneously while allowing for fundamentalists to portray their views as pure and ultimately true. I do agree with this, but still, I'd like to look upon these arguments from a different perspective.

That's complete bull when it comes to Christianity. And you know why? Reformation. No denomination has power over other denominations. Christian "moderates" are of different groups than Christian "fundamentals" and "radicals". We "allow" fundamentalists to portray their views as "true" because what we can do about it is just going something along the lines "... These guys are batshit insane." As an analogy, do you think that the the whites from other countries could change American foreign policy, or American policy as a whole?

Not really.

I believe that every response of this sort («that's my not religion!»), is actually an extremely positive sign. --

That's because it's actually true. The "Christianity" of Fred Phelps, for instance, is not the Christianity I know. And the parts in the Bible which tend to say things about sexuality and so forth are in the Old Testament (Old Covenant) to begin with, so they shouldn't have anything to do with us Christians.

The denominations of Christianity and their followers are capable of change just as everyone else. If we weren't, we wouldn't be human, and if it weren't, there wouldn't have been a Reformation in the first place. You should know that religions evolve (and devolve) with the times!

These occasions are small but significant victories in our dialectic battle against the abracadabras of this world.

I would say that it's not about you and people like you. It's about people using their brains and with the constant growth of knowledge in our society. Although... Masses of religious nutcases went to America from Europe due to "religious persecution"... So I guess that's where the American troubles with Christians comes up. But then again, they could at that point be fundamentalist any-religions, and them being crazy has nothing to do with them being Christian.

Coming up with things that are at odds with some strange Christian views doesn't mean that one has to be Atheist or Agnostic. Even Darwin was Christian! He who takes the Bible as literally as to claim that the world was created in seven days and be serious about it, is either stupid or insane. But that's just my opinion.

It is with you all along and can be applied in every aspect of your experience as a human being living in society without the need for supernatural authorities.

Uhhuh. You sound like people wouldn't understand this without saying it outloud. :p We aren't taught around here that we should do good things because God wants us to, but rather because it's the right thing to do and because it causes that warm and fuzzy feeling inside. Not everything has to be tied to religion.

Even if some religious leaders would want to do so.

I frankly believe we should take these sort of pro-religion arguments with a smile.

Just as much as we should take the kinds of anti-religion arguments brought up with a smile. Arguing about matters of faith is pointless, and everyone should just stop the incessant whining about each other's beliefs. Too bad that's too much to ask and these kinds of things get argued about forever.

Some things never change.

(And I'll have to let you know that talking about things like this when you're sick is kinda trippy)

EDIT:

And I think this thread is named wrongly, it should be something like what I said earlier. Atheistic bigotry, which is what the OP was talking about from the looks of it, would've required people going "OMG I'M SO ATHEIST THAT I CANNOT LET PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN GOD/GODS/BIG SQUIDS/COOKIES TO EXIST WITHOUT INCESSANTLY AND CONSTANTLY WHINING ABOUT THEM" :p

Yeah. Religious stereotyping sounds better in the context!

"Past tests of the degree to which animals other than people can delay their gratification have focused on birds and monkeys. Both groups can delay gratification if a bigger reward is on offer, but only for a few seconds."

The entire article focuses on chimpanzees, with the exception of the one paragraph I've quoted above, and even that is mostly irrelevant. Patience does not equate to morality, and delaying one's response to attain a larger reward can easily be a survival tactic.

Can you provide an example of what would be a moral behavior that is not a survival tactic?

Can you provide an example of what would be a moral behavior that is not a survival tactic?

How's jumping on a grenade to save others or in front of a bullet that would've killed your loved one (or something) a survival tactic? Or giving money to a beggar? Or helping someone who's confused out? And the list goes on.

Can you provide an example of what would be a moral behavior that is not a survival tactic?

Genuine altruism. Mercy for a helpless creature. Sexual inhibition with no clear biological motivation.

Oh, you were talking about animals still. How did I miss that?

*uses the "I'm sick, you can't blame me for anything I say now!" card.*

All beliefs need to be constantly challenged - if we cannot criticise a persons beliefs then we have no means of attacking the ideas of a Mao or Stalin or a Pol Pot. Religious beliefs are no different from any other belief - I would challenge the beliefs of an Aztec as much as I would a Christian as I would a Communist. If the Aztec or the Christian (of whatever flavour from Phelps to the mildest mannered Church of England person) or Communist wishes to answer my challenges they need to do so with evidence - as Bottle so rightly points out "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". If they are unable to answer because they have no proof then that is their problem - if they wish to carry on believing in the unprovable that is up to them, but by doing so they cannot then classify the debate as 'bashing' and the person opposing them in the debate as a bigot.

Oh, you were talking about animals still. How did I miss that?

*uses the "I'm sick, you can't blame me for anything I say now!" card.*

No problem. I've probably overstayed my welcome in this thread as it is.

... The purpose of this thread is to open eyes to bigotry within the hearts of my fellow man, and reach understanding. If I can cause one anti-Christian bigot to think before he starts bashing someone for their religious beliefs, it will have been well worth the time it took to write this.

In a setting like this, you'll not succeed. Here's why:

Not all religions are targeted for this bigotry. Pay special attention to the ones that are and you'll see a pattern begin to emerge. (Christianity is the one we see most often hit because in the West, it's the largest religion.)

And that pattern is that any religion that promotes self-sacrifice, personal responsibility, a well-defined moral code and honor will be attacked.

Look at the way culture is changing. It's moving away from these things. Read a few posts on this board. What values are espoused here? Self-Sacrifice? Never. No matter the issue, people want to know what's in it for them. Personal Responsibility? That's a hoot. All people waht to know is how to dhield themselves from the consequences of their actions. Moral code? Not in the modern world's left wing. Morality is derided as some sort of control. Honor? No. Act honorably and you will be mocked.

Christianity values all of these things and is thus seen as a threat by those who want to do whatever they want to without remorse or guilt. They want what they want and no other consideration matters to them. Not only that, but they demand that you pat them on the back for it.

And Christians, TRUE Christians, won't do that. We don't change our beliefs to accomomdate people who don't even believe in what we do. We won't soften our speech or ignore parts of our Scriptures in order to salve the conscience of people whose actions demonstrate nothing but depravity and selfishness.

We're not trying to control them or push our beliefs onto them, but that's the claim they use to gain sympathy and demonize us for daring to hold firm to our beliefs. We refuse to coddle them and so, to them, we are evil.

I often come on here and face significant derision when the topic of religion comes up. Not only for being Christian but sometimes I even get heat from other Christians because I'm a Mormon. It doesn't upset me because I see it coming and so when the grief, flames and nonsense are flung my way I can look at it dispassionately and see where it comes from. We were told in Scripture this would happen, so it's hardly surprising.

So you're right, there is absolutely religious bigotry out there. But once you know the causes, it's a lot easier to relax and laught at it rather than get upset. But you won't succeed in changing anybody's mind on here, because to change one's mind would be to admit they were wrong, and at this point they're so deeply invested with the vitriolic attacks and emty rhetoric, that would be VERY difficult.

And that pattern is that any religion that promotes self-sacrifice, personal responsibility, a well-defined moral code and honor will be attacked.Ah, bullshit.

Zeon Principality:

You can't attempt to strictly and unilaterally define umbrella terms, then demand compliance with them and question those who don't comply. Agnosticism is among other things a disbelief in religion. Not simply because we don't know, but rather because it's highly improbable, unprovable when the burden of proof is placed where it belongs - on those who make religious claims, or simply false.
In reality agnosticism and atheism are words that shouldn't exist, in the same way that there aren't words for those who don't believe in astrology or the Eleusinian Mysteries. I don't care about astrology but what part of my not caring about it rules out my being able to denounce it as crank pseudoscience at it's worst?

You've essentially underlined every point I've made about the futility and superfluousness that is religion, but seem to draw the opposite reaction to it. If Christianity and the texts that inform it, can't be used as a guide for morality than how on earth can you claim it to be divine? And why invoke religion when you've already conceded to my point that religious people require an additional moral filter beyond the religious liturgy?

You're denying that the old testament, namely the 10 commandments, are still considered the 2nd most important part of your religious tenets. Whether you have chosen to accept them or not, (invoking a secular reality based moral standard) is beside the point that there are those who do accept the Christian tenets fully.

You can recognize that fundamentalist are batshit crazy, but all the while you'll seem reluctant to fully reject and acknowledge the irrationality of religion and faith altogether. From the fundamentalists perspective it is the moderate that has sold out to reason and evidence. The fundamentalist in this way retains the illusion of purity and truth, since he refuses to apply the previously mentioned secular moral filter over biblical literalism.

The fact that we can observe divergent strands of biblical literalism underlines the moral inconsistency of the bible. Again, as a guide on morality and ethics it's really awful, but this hasn't stopped religion from trying to base their behaviour on it. This is how we end up with AIDS as a lesser evil to the use of the condom, etc.

You say this crazyness has nothing to do with them being Christian but I think it's patently obvious it has everything to do with them trying to establish their morals on Iron age Christian and Jewish literature, penned by barely literate men.

Darwin was not a Christian, and make it clear that he wanted to be referred to as an Agnostic.

The problem with the apparently non-ending and repetitive secular arguments against religion can be summarized in the following video.

A one on one interview between Richard Dawkins and Alistair McGrath.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6474278760369344626&q=Dawkins+McGrath&total=46&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0


Quoting a friend of mine:

Looking at what Dawkins does, and having just watched the video I think its obvious that they are trying to bridge a very wide gulf.

I look at the same video and see Dawkins asking about the inconsistencies of an omnipotent, all loving god in a brutal and unfair world. These inconsistencies cannot be answered by McGrath in the interview and he uses a very nice number of sidesteps to never definitively not answer the question.

A notable job of accepting the issues, but then going on to ignore it. The man, obviously a very intelligent and thoughtful scholar did not have the means to explain that god is kind for saving one child but not vile for allowing others to die. His assumption (and having studied Catholic theology extensively) that god is a doctrinal non-intervener - that part was weak and by the end it just seemed evasive.

Simply, I just think that the sense of offense that Dawkins engenders highlights a real incompatibility between those who need to confront subjective, emotive spirituality with the hard, empirical rationality that has been our single greatest engine of progress.

I'm not trying to be brutish when I say this, but it just seems that the one question that theists cannot clearly answer is why is god so inconsistent with everything that we've learned on our own? McGrath was not really being evasive, but his toolbox didn't have the gear to address the question. The problem, from my atheist viewpoint, is that Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens et all do have the gears in their toolbox to put the right questions out there. Betrand Russell did to, which is why so much of his stuff gets reused.

If it seems that we (as in the Atheists) are constantly asking the same questions, it is because we invariably do not get real answers.

All beliefs need to be constantly challenged - if we cannot criticise a persons beliefs then we have no means of attacking the ideas of a Mao or Stalin or a Pol Pot. Religious beliefs are no different from any other belief - I would challenge the beliefs of an Aztec as much as I would a Christian as I would a Communist.

If all beliefs must be constantly challenged... Why did you not bring up the challenging of the beliefs of a Capitalist, which indirectly massacre many people in the poorer countries on a daily basis? Or someone who believes in our particular flavor of democracy, which most in the world seem to reject? Or our brand of "freedom", which is shunned in parts of the world? Or the belief that money > all? Or the nearly religious belief in science, how it will be able to conquer all?

And how do Stalin's, Mao's or Pol Pot's beliefs relate to religions, anyway? Religions which are not even forced upon anyone as it stands right now? And if you want to bring the issues about Christianity where people butchered folks in its name some ~900 years ago, I would like to point you to Reformation.

If they are unable to answer because they have no proof then that is their problem - if they wish to carry on believing in the unprovable that is up to them, but by doing so they cannot then classify the debate as 'bashing' and the person opposing them in the debate as a bigot.

No, it's your problem which you are trying to turn into their problem. But really, I don't understand it, why do you have a problem with people believing in God, or gods, or the flying cookie which could destroy the universe? I'm fine with believing in God whose existence I can't prove to an "unbeliever". I don't need to prove anything. It's not out of my pocket that he or she chooses to not believe, so to speak, and it shouldn't really matter to them whether I believe in something or not.

As for the bigotry thing, you are making the same mistake the starter of the thread did. You are only a bigot if you bash EVERYONE who does not believe in your flavor of God/gods/cookies/biscuits/cakes/Ganondorf/Mmaarioo/Mushroom Kingdom/Mudkips/whatever. If a Christian person bashes an Atheist (for bashing Christians, who bashes Christians for a Christian bashing Atheists, who bashes... And so on), they're all just kinda stupid, but it doesn't make them bigots.

I still don't understand why an Atheist who does not believe in afterlife sees a debate about issues of faith worth debating for, when the people they are debating with believe that they will continue existing in one form or another pretty much FOREVER, when the Atheist him/herself believes that s/he'll cease to exist entirely at death. You could be doing something more productive with your time instead of wasting it like this.

Ah, bullshit.

You're so silly.

If all beliefs must be constantly challenged... Why did you not bring up the challenging of the beliefs of a Capitalist

Lack of space - are you really expecting me to list all beliefs in a single message because that would be silly - I assumed the audience had enough intelligence that when I said all beliefs I meant all (including my own) and the examples I gave were just that - examples.

You're so silly.
And you're delusional. I have no problem with religious systems that promote self-sacrifice, personal responsibility and have honor at the same time. I bash those people that adhere to more primitive creeds.

I'm not trying to be brutish when I say this, but it just seems that the one question that theists cannot clearly answer is why is god so inconsistent with everything that we've learned on our own? McGrath was not really being evasive, but his toolbox didn't have the gear to address the question. The problem, from my atheist viewpoint, is that Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens et all do have the gears in their toolbox to put the right questions out there. Betrand Russell did to, which is why so much of his stuff gets reused.

If it seems that we (as in the Atheists) are constantly asking the same questions, it is because we invariably do not get real answers.


I think the problem is twofold: 1) By approaching the problem from 2 opposite worldviews, it's nealry impossible to start from a common ground so naturally one would expect the disparate toolboxes not to match.

2) Your quote suggests the questions haven't been answered. I think they can and they have been, but those asking aren't seeking real knowledge they're being rhetorical, and will disregard *ANY* answer. They're not out to gain understanding but to promote and preserve their existing worldview.

And you're delusional. I have no problem with religious systems that promote self-sacrifice, personal responsibility and have honor at the same time. I bash those people that adhere to more primitive creeds.E.g. the basic assumption of Christianity is that a certain monotheos can be appeased by a human sacrifice/death. That is pretty primitive.

And you're delusional. I have no problem with religious systems that promote self-sacrifice, personal responsibility and have honor at the same time. I bash those people that adhere to more primitive creeds.

Oh? Then perhaps you'd regale us with a few examples of the religions you are gracious enough to to bash, and how they make Chrisianity so very primitive.

I'm just wondering if it's possible for you to respond in a non-derisive manner, because every time you to you prove my point about the nature of religious bigots.

If Christianity and the texts that inform it, can't be used as a guide for morality than how on earth can you claim it to be divine?Why not? If the particular deity is a butthole?

E.g. the basic assumption of Christianity is that a certain monotheos can be appeased by a human sacrifice/death. That is pretty primitive.

You're mistaken in your understanding, if this is your response but the REAL question is, (and here's your chance to prove me wrong) if I tell you that you've misunderstood something, how would you react? By insisting that you do understand just fine and a post like yours is perfectly justified, or would you accept the posibility that you are wrong, and allow someone to enlighten you?

No, it's your problem which you are trying to turn into their problem. But really, I don't understand it, why do you have a problem with people believing in God, or gods, or the flying cookie which could destroy the universe? I'm fine with believing in God whose existence I can't prove to an "unbeliever". I don't need to prove anything. It's not out of my pocket that he or she chooses to not believe, so to speak, and it shouldn't really matter to them whether I believe in something or not.

I do not have a problem with people believing what they want and I have never said I do. The only place I discuss people's religion with them is if they raise it - i.e in debates here or if they come knocking on my door uninvited selling their beliefs. If people expect to be able to take part in a thread such 'should creationism be taught in schools' and make arguments based on their beliefs then cry foul saying their precious beliefs are being 'bashed' I would say they need to retire from debate because they are clearly unable to cope with it.

You're mistaken in your understanding, if this is your response but the REAL question is, (and here's your chance to prove me wrong) if I tell you that you've misunderstood something, how would you react? By insisting that you do understand just fine and a post like yours is perfectly justified, or would you accept the posibility that you are wrong, and allow someone to enlighten you?That would depend on the contents of the "enlightenment".

That would depend on the contents of the "enlightenment".

Gawd you're so predictable this isn't even challenging anymore.

Oh? Then perhaps you'd regale us with a few examples of the religions you are gracious enough to to bash, and how they make Chrisianity so very primitive.Religions as a whole are rarely "primitive" in that sense, it's certain sub-groups that follow the "primitive creeds". The Abrahamic faiths tend to produce the worst examples, and since most people I come across that fit the category are Christian (due to geographical distribution in this case), Christians tend to receive more FlAK-fire than others. I never said Christianity was primitive, so I'd be much obliged if you didn't put words in my mouth, okay ;)

I'm just wondering if it's possible for you to respond in a non-derisive manner, because every time you to you prove my point about the nature of religious bigots.Oh, but if I am a bigot, then certainly not religious ;)

I just wanted to point out that you're deluding yourself. Christianity doesn't get bashed because it has the qualities you attribute to it. Many Christians get "bashed" because they don't follow simple Christian creeds that would make the world a better place.

Someone that claims that those are the reasons why Christianity is rather unpopular among non-Christians has either built a very high wall of ignorance around themselves to shield off any possibility of looking at the beam in your own eye, or is lying.

I do not have a problem with people believing what they want and I have never said I do. The only place I discuss people's religion with them is if they raise it - i.e in debates here or if they come knocking on my door uninvited selling their beliefs. If people expect to be able to take part in a thread such 'should creationism be taught in schools' and make arguments based on their beliefs then cry foul saying their precious beliefs are being 'bashed' I would say they need to retire from debate because they are clearly unable to cope with it.

And yet Atheists are even quicker to cry foul the moment their own position isn't treated as the default.

Anyone ever notice that? When you talk religion with an Atheist they absolutely demand that the conversation be conducted under the assumption that atheism is default and *any* other belief system, or even belief systems collectively, must be subservient to this.

Gawd you're so predictable this isn't even challenging anymore.Is this your enlightenment? Then no, thanks, you have nothing to further my understanding.

And yet Atheists are even quicker to cry foul the moment their own position isn't treated as the default.

Anyone ever notice that? When you talk religion with an Atheist they absolutely demand that the conversation be conducted under the assumption that atheism is default and *any* other belief system, or even belief systems collectively, must be subservient to this.That is silly, considering that agnosticism is the default.

And yet Atheists are even quicker to cry foul the moment their own position isn't treated as the default.

Anyone ever notice that? When you talk religion with an Atheist they absolutely demand that the conversation be conducted under the assumption that atheism is default and *any* other belief system, or even belief systems collectively, must be subservient to this.Atheism is the default. At birth each individual is an atheist. Then upbringing indoctrinates the individual.

That is silly, considering that agnosticism is the default.

So children who don't know what a god is believe that we will never be able to know for sure if one exists? Don't be ridiculous. And atheism is the default position. If you don't know about any god or gods then you can't believe in them, and thus are an atheist. Simple.

So children who don't know what a god is believe that we will never be able to know for sure if one exists? Don't be ridiculous. And atheism is the default position. If you don't know about any god or gods then you can't believe in them, and thus are an atheist. Simple.Nah, but children start off not knowing. A true agnostic wouldn't even be convinced that we will never be able to know for sure, just that we haven't received the necessary proof in the past. Besides, for a religious debate, not knowing is still the middle ground between beleiving there is/are no God(s) and beleiving in a specific deity.

Religions as a whole are rarely "primitive" in that sense, it's certain sub-groups that follow the "primitive creeds". The Abrahamic faiths tend to produce the worst examples, and since most people I come across that fit the category are Christian (due to geographical distribution in this case), Christians tend to receive more FlAK-fire than others. I never said Christianity was primitive, so I'd be much obliged if you didn't put words in my mouth, okay ;)

Not that I need to. You put them there yourself, my friend.

And you're delusional. I have no problem with religious systems that promote self-sacrifice, personal responsibility and have honor at the same time. I bash those people that adhere to more primitive creeds.

In defending your bashing of Christians. And, just because I know you'll try and respond by pretending you weren't referencing Christianity with that remark, here's an ally of yours who also it:

E.g. the basic assumption of Christianity is that a certain monotheos can be appeased by a human sacrifice/death. That is pretty primitive.


Oh, but if I am a bigot, then certainly not religious ;)

I just wanted to point out that you're deluding yourself. Christianity doesn't get bashed because it has the qualities you attribute to it. Many Christians get "bashed" because they don't follow simple Christian creeds that would make the world a better place.

If only this were true. When Christians get bashed around here, the criticisms aren't against "fake Christians" or "Christians who follow their beliefs badly." It's always against Christians generally or Christianity as a religion. Always. In fact, from what I've seen the only Christians who get any positive attention in a medium like this one are those who ignore some of the fundamentals of Christianity in order to appear more politically correct. Christianity has no room in it for abortion or homosexual behavior and yet people who adhere to these creeds are hit the hardest, while those who ignore them are rewarded.


Someone that claims that those are the reasons why Christianity is rather unpopular among non-Christians has either built a very high wall of ignorance around themselves to shield off any possibility of looking at the beam in your own eye, or is lying.

Abrahamic religions generally promote self-control, morality and responsibility. That's why people hit them. Christianity is hit hardest I suspect because it's the most common in the West. All you have to do is open your eyes and watch it happen.

Look at the way culture is changing. It's moving away from these things. Read a few posts on this board. What values are espoused here? Self-Sacrifice? Never. No matter the issue, people want to know what's in it for them. Personal Responsibility? That's a hoot. All people waht to know is how to dhield themselves from the consequences of their actions. Moral code? Not in the modern world's left wing. Morality is derided as some sort of control. Honor? No. Act honorably and you will be mocked.

Christianity values all of these things and is thus seen as a threat by those who want to do whatever they want to without remorse or guilt. They want what they want and no other consideration matters to them. Not only that, but they demand that you pat them on the back for it.
I grieve that this is largely true, and it is probably the most common reason people oppose religion. However, it is my opinion that this criticism is equally applicable to religion itself. Although there exist noble individuals within religion that share my dislike for the inherent selfishness of our materialist culture, I cannot simply turn a blind eye to the fact that religion's tendency to commune and segregate themselves from the world around them is an instance of the very same thing I criticise in western society. Religious organisations hold themselves as separate to the world around us and promote their own way of living as in some way distinct from the way everyone else does things, and in doing so, it's guilty itself of institutional self-interest and evasion of responsibility.

We are falling short of our duties to human existence when we choose to abandon it to its fate in favour of our own little club. And it is precisely this sort of cliquish behaviour that causes the problems we see in the first place. The fact that our society is now a paragon of cynical egoism is as much a fault of those like ourselves who hid from it and distanced themselves from it in the interest of providing an alternative, rather than engaging with the reasons for its emergence and challenging it head-on, as it is of those who supported the idea or those who quietly accepted it.

Organised Religion cannot claim to be a force for the well-being of mankind as long as it continues to hold itself aloft from the world. If it is to really represent our interests, it must work within it to improve it, not try to replace it.