Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
Why did you even bother quoting me? That has nothing to do with my post. :shrug: Stop trolling.
Should we move to ban believers?
- Thread starter universaldistress
- Start date
Why did you even bother quoting me? That has nothing to do with my post. :shrug: Stop trolling.
Atheists merely lack the belief that god exists. Only some atheists also hold the belief that god does not exist. It is a purely ontological position - i.e. regarding the existence or otherwise of god's existence.
Agnosticism is an epistemological position - regarding the knowability (either in absolute terms or personally) of the subject (in this case god).
So it is quite possible to be an agnostic atheist (I am one) and quite possible to be an agnostic theist... one who considers god unknowable yet believes.
This is also my experience - because most atheists are also agnostic.MZ3Boy84 said:
Some do, but you can then either still hold the belief that god exists, or you don't hold that belief. Making you also an atheist, or a theist.MZ3Boy84 said:
Hehe.Mind Over Matter said:
It's more like:
Atheist: There was once nothing. Or there was always something without a beginning. I mean, who needs a beginning - God certainly doesn't and he's the only alternative!! Anyway, assuming there was nothing, something then appeared one day, although it might have always been there. But either way, it's here, you see! It is called the universe. And then these cool things called laws were found to govern this universe, and if they didn't govern the universe the way they do then perhaps the universe would have vanished as quickly as it appeared, until eventually one did show up with these laws... which is us. But we only have our universe to sample from, so naturally some people will consider us very special indeed to live in a universe so perfect for us, even though we have no idea how many other universes might have been and gone, or even still exist. Cool, huh? Anyway, billions of years later, this chunk of matter called earth appeared because the precise obeyance of the laws led it to happen. It has no more purpose than the rest of the universe! And then simple life appeared on earth somehow, which while we have a reasonable idea, it is proving rather difficult to replicate, but then we only have a few labs working on this, whereas the universe only has a hundred or so billion galaxies, each with a hundred or so billion stars, and not to mention the planets that circle those! For Earth, though, a comet might have just brought it over, again in obeyance of the laws of the universe. Who knows for sure, but some of us care and are trying to find out which is more likely?! And then life randomly mutated very slightly, as it does, and after a few billion years those cumulative changes, together with the proven fact of evolution (as opposed to the theory of how it happens) led to humans, although some like to create a distinction between micro- and macro-evolution which only shows a lack of understanding on their part to what is the same concept, albeit the latter occurring over vast number of years. Consciousness is real, and seems to be a process of information flow within the brain, and is being further examined all the time, and our understanding is improving. Its certainly not just a bunch of different genes! We don't have a purpose here, we are just a product of the universe that appeared one day, or was always here. We're looking into that one. Oh wait, we can't do that, because we don't have free will! Dang! Ah, but even if we don't have free will then we can't choose NOT to look into it, right!
But instead we have this wonderful illusion of freewill that we can not escape from, even if at the micro-level it is all just the interaction of the primary particles in obeyance of the laws of this universe, that may or may not even be here.Or something along those line.
If it's an explanation, then who/what created the magical wizard?
You don't have to believe any of that to be an atheist. You just need to have a lack of belief in any existing claims about supernatural deities.
Actually the success of many arguments to do away with such slavery was also based on god's will too.
actually the answer is clear from examining what constitutes god's will as opposed to popular social convention (since anything that carries social authority is guilty of the same crimes - for instance thalidomide didn't do a wonderful job of facilitating personal freedom, even though it was heralded as the perfect tool for it on the authority of science).
IOW there is a general principle of faulty representation that works on absolutely any tool of progressive social thought.
If you don't factor that in you can throw the baby out with the bath water on just about anything.
like what?
Capitalism?
/chortle
If one can be a christian and not support slavery (or indeed express scriptural based rejections of it) something is schizoid in your thinking on the subject.
this is unbelievable.
christianity is not the only religion or philosophy in existence.
your post is schizoid.
duh
Christianity is also not the only religion that provides instructions (such as guidelines for the treatment of slaves) relevant to a particular time place and circumstance.
Plenty of jews in NYC that are totally heedless of the guidelines laid out for camel maintenance
:shrug:
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
Maybe it was justified in their own minds back 2000 years ago, but how do you explain fundamentalist Christians still holding to the same views, still supporting slavery based on the same verses 1800 years later in a completely different part of the world? There is no justification. And that is precisely why, when people adhere to every word of their holy books, when they believe in that that bible is inerrant and is timeless, that's when religion becomes dangerous. And unfortunately there are still a vast number of people that follow these outdated and immoral scriptural principles.
This same concept, as you have stated, transends into most other religions as well. Between Judaism, Islam and Christianity, their holy scriptures contain some of the most inexcusable crimes and injustices, condoned by their God's themselves.
There is no excuse whether one is mentally sane or not. If you believe that God had asked you to kill your own son for the purpose of a primitive sacrificial ritual, would you? For those that are extremely pious (and/or mentally disturbed), they have no problem committing such an atrocity because it allows it within their holy books. Of course, we like to think that we've advanced from such stupidity. But this is not always the case. Left and right, we find mothers drowning their own children in bathtubs because "God told them to". We still find wars waging around the globe (mainly in the Middle East) because they believe that they are granted divine providence and the support of their one true God, and more importantly, the word for word condonement of murder and war within their scriptures. Humans are stupid. Many do not understand that their bibles, their scriptures, have very little moral ground in today's society. We've evolved. Times, governments, beliefs, borders, morality - they've all changed. And with the change in these things, we must be willing to let go of the past commandments that are set forth in religious texts as they no longer apply in our world. Granted, there are some universal moral truths that are put forth, such as (some of) the 10 Commandments. Do not kill, honor your folks, etc. But those are unfortunately the minority in most all scriptures.
When you read the Qur'an, The Bible, the Torah and many others, you find that God himself has commanded his followers, with no expiration made clear, that they are to kill non-believers, sodomites, and anyone who goes against their teachings or even questions them.
Though religion, more specifically monotheistic religions, can produce some good in people, it is more often used as a scapegoat in order to commit the most astrocious crimes against humanity. Religion limits individual freedoms, potential postive morality and our own abilities of reason and logic. These are, upon the review of the past 2500 years, inarguable statements of truth that have been proven time and time again.
Simply put, organized religion has caused more death and harm than any other man-made concept in the history of humanity. The slight good that can, and occassionally does, come out of religion tends to be mainly done because the believer must do it to avoid some sort of divine retalliation. They want to "look good" in front of their Creator. So in essence, they aren't committing good acts for the benefit of humanity but rather for their own benefit. Again, I reiterate, there are some obvious exceptions to that; some people actually do genuinely care about their fellow human beings.
The in summary, their negative acts strongly outweigh the postive. That is why we must leave religion behind and move forth with a new social morality where there are no excuses to commit evil. And for those who refuse to put down their bibles, who will only adhere to the illusion of it's inerrency, we must leave them behind as well. In our day, we have little time to allow the false dogmas, the outdated commands and the illusioned beliefs to have control of even the slightest bit of our existence. Now is the time for facts, evolution, knowledge and growth. If we want to become a better and more productive and efficient species, we need to let go of the immoral behaviors that we've held onto for far too long.
Then why do they call themselves "atheists"?
And why do they make a point of going public with it?
Philosophically, it remains that "If god's will is what directs the universe, its not clear how the eradication of support or obedience to it grants a greater freedom."
It simply follows from the definition of God - namely, God being the Cause of All Causes, the Creator, Maintainer and Controller of the Universe and all living beings, God being omnimax - that
1. God's will directs the Universe,
2. obedience to God's will grants one the best position possible.
What revelations about God's will from God specific people may have received at a certain time and place, or what they may have conjured up as being God's will, does not change the formal philosophical argument that God is in charge and we do best to align ourselves with His directives.
Then why do they call themselves "atheists"?
And why do they make a point of going public with it?
i would say the opposite of this sign. "there IS a god. now stop worrying and enjoy your life". :shrug:
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
The argument advances, under the basis that God exists and is in charge, would basic morality permit the support of a being that is obviously immoral base on scriptural accounts?
Then why do they call themselves "atheists"?
And why do they make a point of going public with it?
Um... Why do Christians and others make it a point to go public with it, moreso than Atheists?
There are various scriptural accounts.
Do you think that only one must be right, at the exclusion of all others?
People generally make a point of going public with what they believe/support/etc.
The personal is political.
The case is just curious with atheists, since for someone who claims to lack belief, they sure have a lot to say.
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
There are various scriptural accounts, many of them contradicting each other; such as the two creation stories in Genesis. How does the beleiver decipher which is correct, if any?
And Atheists very much so have a belief. Not believing that God exists is nevertheless still a belief. And furthermore, most do speak out because they feel that heinous injustices still take place in the name of religion. I'm not sure when it became immoral to speak out against immorality.
Because they are, perhaps? :shrug:
Possibly to highlight the pervasiveness of a belief that not everyone holds, arguably hinders societal development, and yet which influences everyone's life whether we want it to or not? Possibly.
I ask again:
There are various scriptural accounts.
Do you think that only one must be right, at the exclusion of all others?
Which is something hotly debated among atheists.
When that first kid was caught with his hand in the cookie jar?
Some do, some don't. Weak/ strong atheism.
No, not believing is lacking a belief. Whereas believing not is a belief.
an inability to distinguish a principle from a detail.
what else?
the principles are timeless (technically called sanatana - or eternal - dharma)
the details are not (technically called sva - or as pertinent to the body - dharma)
don't know what you are talking about - transcends into most other religions?
primitive sacrificial ritual? ... obviously not
why talk of holy books.
Even mundane law has sufficient grounds to outclass mere familial bonds
Actually left and right I find mothers loving their children as a gift from god - don't know where you are living though.
The conflict in the middle east is all about securing resources. Trumping up the religious difference simply diffuses public attention from the fact.
Probably because theft and adultery are common place.
:shrug:
needless to say, I think you would have a hard time proving we have evolved beyond, greed, avarice, lust, wrath, etc
If you don't find the Christians in your street burning down Sikh temples in neighboring suburbs, it wouldn't appear that they are having such a hard time distinguishing a principle from a detail
The simple fact is that religion has a social authority and as such it has value to persons who have a political agenda.
Your suggestion that we can solve a majority of the problems that you attribute to religion by doing away with it lacks foresight. All that would happen is that the same business would occur through the agency of the next social authority down a tier (ethnicity has often proven to be a useful one when religion cannot be called upon ).
A more intelligent solution is to refine religiousity so that it can be more easily distinguished from political agendas that find it attractive to wear its veil.
Correction.
Far from being inarguable, society limits individual freedom (for better or worse) and morality (for better or worse).... and as far as societies that have an agenda to disparage religiosity, the general consensus is that they have a dismal track record and along list of human rights abuse that trifles anything you can dream up in the name of religion.
As for limiting reason and logic, if you went to study philosophy you would find yourself studying for the most part the proposals for reason and logic as put forward by many religious persons - but its kind of a spurious point since people by and large study only those things to help them secure the bare necessities of life .... even your average quantum mechanic knows as much philosophy as your average car mechanic.
Not by a long shot.
Pol pot, stalin ... just a few names that come to mind
if you can't even conceive of religion that doesn't place the practitioner in the role of a criminal, small wonder that you spend your pages in such an embroiled state
Actually the essence of religion is to establish the living entity outside of the conditions of suffering ... an existence that automatically renders the pursuit of altruism meaningless
this is all useless talk (that bears a remarkable similarity to the lofty ideals of radical hegelianism of the 19th century ... but maybe that's a separate topic)
as long as one is relegated to bodily existence (ie accepting the body as the final last word in self hood) , one is relegated to greed, avarice, wrath etc ... which automatically forestall any progress, evolution or possibility of being free from illusion.
The bolded parts - look strange for a Buddhist ...
Did you skip the Buddha's lessons on views, sublime attitudes and sectarians?