Your view on Atheists

[Nancy Allen``]

Placing the blame of mass murder of theists on government is to excuse the atrocities committed.

 

As I said, I know it's disappointing that theists are not killing each other and putting on a display for atheists to point to and demonstrate how evil religion is, but that is not how religion works.

 

If theists today are to blame for acts that had happened hundreds of years ago, then we would be forced to wonder why you're not to give the Arizona land back to the Native Indians.

 

The same arguement for religious moderates giving shelter to the extremists can also be applied to atheism, who are apologists for the militents, the antitheists, the ones who want to ban religion and kill those who follow it.

 

For the laws, what does it say about religion in the United States? How about Canada? Great Britain? France? Germany? Russia? Japan? Australia? All civillized, democratic, first world countries. What do their laws say about religion?

 

Extremism is extremism regardless, you cannot dress it up and say it isn't by saying it's religious based or it isn't religious based.

[Achilles]

Placing the blame of mass murder of theists on government is to excuse the atrocities committed.

I'm not even sure how one could possibly draw that conclusion.

 

As it has been pointed out several times, trying to identify atheism as the cause is erroneous. It's clear to me that no amount of rational discussion is going to cause you to realize the mistake, so perhaps it's just best to let the matter drop (e.g. please stop bringing it up).

 

As I said, I know it's disappointing that theists are not killing each other and putting on a display for atheists to point to and demonstrate how evil religion is, but that is not how religion works.

DE already gave you examples. If you choose to ignore them, that's your concern.

 

If theists today are to blame for acts that had happened hundreds of years ago, then we would be forced to wonder why you're not to give the Arizona land back to the Native Indians.

Who made that argument?

 

I think theists today are, to varying degrees, to blame for the acts that happen today.

 

The same arguement for religious moderates giving shelter to the extremists can also be applied to atheism, who are apologists for the militents, the antitheists, the ones who want to ban religion and kill those who follow it.

Still waiting for a source that confirms that this group of people even exists.

 

For the laws, what does it say about religion in the United States? How about Canada? Great Britain? France? Germany? Russia? Japan? Australia? All civillized, democratic, first world countries. What do their laws say about religion?

Why don't you do your own homework?

 

Extremism is extremism regardless, you cannot dress it up and say it isn't by saying it's religious based or it isn't religious based.

Well, that certainly is one possible way of looking at it.

[Nancy Allen``]

I'll provide the answer then. Religion is allowed, it's legal. That's where it ends.

[Achilles]

I'm not sure I get it. When did anyone say otherwise?

[Nancy Allen``]

The third degree on religion, placing the crimes on extremists at the feet of everyone who follows it, acting as judge jury and executioner on theists. It's as if every Muslim is to be tried for murder because of September 11.

[Jae Onasi]

I'll provide the answer then. Religion is allowed, it's legal. That's where it ends.

 

I honestly don't know who raised that question, if they did at all, and I'm not sure how the legality of religion in a country is related to the original topic.

 

Nancy, it would help us all very much if you could narrow your focus a little when you bring up topics in your arguments. I can follow to some degree when you digress, but I'm having trouble sometimes, and if I am, I imagine others also are. All we know about what you're thinking is what you put here, so you have be a little more clear so we can understand you better.

 

The digressions are also taking discussions off topic, and that's not very courteous to the thread-starter.

[Nancy Allen``]

In that case I'll just reply to the topic on true believers killing those who don't follow their religion and then hopefully all the crime scene investigation on theism\atheism can be put to rest and it can go back to our views on atheists.

 

Apparently people are only following their religion if they kill those who don't follow it. A prime example is Al Qaeda's stated intent to force the world to Islam and is the reasoning behind their terrorist attacks. It's bull****. Religion is used as an excuse by someone with an axe to grind. Their reasons for terrorism? There's a few, from jealousy of the world progressing while they are left behind to foreigners on their land, specifically military on their holy ground.

[Achilles]

Apparently people are only following their religion if they kill those who don't follow it.

Since the all three of the world's major monotheisms have this doctrine, I don't know why this comes across as such a surprise. They tell you who, they tell you how, and they tell you why. I'm not sure how much "room for interpretation" exists.

 

A prime example is Al Qaeda's stated intent to force the world to Islam and is the reasoning behind their terrorist attacks.

That could be. I don't think that's quite how I had heard it, but that doesn't mean that this interpretation is wrong.

 

It's bull****. Religion is used as an excuse by someone with an axe to grind.

I agree. If the bible tells you to kill non-believers, then I would definitely view religion as an excuse to grind that axe. I think you've broken it down to its raw elements.

 

Their reasons for terrorism? There's a few, from jealousy of the world progressing while they are left behind to foreigners on their land, specifically military on their holy ground.

I think I've poked enough holes in the former, but I'm glad to see that you've at least partially accepted that latter.

[Nancy Allen``]

Excuse keeping this particular topic going but I took the liberty of researching a few sites to try and clarify the confusion over religiously instructed killing and the command not to kill.

 

http://www.biblestudy.org/question/notkill.html

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2006/20060206.htm

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Bible-Studies-1654/Thou-shalt-kill.htm

http://www.growthingod.org.uk/dontkill.htm

http://www.peterberkowitz.com/thoushaltnotkill.htm

[Achilles]

Nancy, I don't think anyone here is contesting the existence of that particular commandment. The point is that there are lots and lots of other examples where god tells us specifically to kill.

 

If the argument is: "We shouldn't kill because god tells us not to. It says so in the bible", then you have to somehow reconcile with this: "We should kill because god tells us to. It says so in the bible".

 

To only heed the parts we feel warm and fuzzy about is to cherry pick. Ignoring the existence of contradictions isn't going to make them go away or be any less real.

[mimartin]

The point is that there are lots and lots of other examples where god tells us specifically to kill.

 

If the argument is: "We shouldn't kill because god tells us not to. It says so in the bible", then you have to somehow reconcile with this: "We should kill because god tells us to. It says so in the bible".

 

I don’t take exception to your saying the Bible tells us to kill. Thanks to the verses you had me read I now agree with you, but God has never told me to kill. A book inspired by God, but written by man and translated by man says it is alright to kill under certain circumstances. I happen to agree under certain circumstances killing is a necessary evil, like protecting a loved one. It should only be done as a last resort and I must be willing to accept God punishment for that murder.

 

We shouldn’t kill not because God says so, but because all life is precious and we should strive to protect that gift. Yes, I said gift, even if you don’t believe in a maker the strange and unique thing necessary for complex life forms to develop on this planet is truly a gift to us all.

[Achilles]

I don’t take exception to your saying the Bible tells us to kill. Thanks to the verses you had me read I now agree with you, but God has never told me to kill.

I'm sure that god had never told you to kill, however there are many accounts in the bible of people that he did give the order to directly. Such a thing is well documented within christian lore.

 

A book inspired by God, but written by man and translated by man says it is alright to kill under certain circumstances.

While I'm happy to agree with the words, I think the message might be splitting hairs. Even if we were to agree that "inspired by god" was somehow different from "the word of god", it still puts the onus for the content on him. The conclusion that I came to years ago is this:

 

Either the bible is the word of god and wrong, or it is the word of man and useless.

 

I've yet to see any argument that has given me reason to think that this conclusion is erroneous.

 

I happen to agree under certain circumstances killing is a necessary evil, like protecting a loved one. It should only be done as a last resort and I must be willing to accept God punishment for that murder.

Which raises some interesting questions. Assuming that everyone here would agree that killing in self-defence, or in the defense of another, is ethical, why would fail to comment on this? He says murder is wrong, but then gives us a laundry list of circumstances in which murder is ok, however "self-defense" and "protecting others" isn't on that list. So it would seem that behavior that any of us would probably consider ethical is not sanctioned by our alleged maker.

 

We shouldn’t kill not because God says so, but because all life is precious and we should strive to protect that gift. Yes, I said gift, even if you don’t believe in a maker the strange and unique thing necessary for complex life forms to develop on this planet is truly a gift to us all.

I would tend to agree with such sentiments. The sad fact is that this message is not conveyed in the bible or the quran. It would seem that an objective examination of ethics would tend to lead us to very different conclusion than those offered by our holy texts. And a much more worthy one, in my opinion

 

As always, I enjoyed reading your response.

[mimartin]

First I am speaking of my personal views; these views have nothing to do with any other Christian’s views. They could be completely wrong, but they are my personal views and nothing more.

 

I'm sure that god had never told you to kill, however there are many accounts in the bible of people that he did give the order to directly. Such a thing is well documented within christian lore.[/Quote]

 

If God personally told me that I must kill someone, then I guess I would do it. However, he/she would have to personally tell me to do it and not be merely words in a book.

 

Either the bible is the word of god and wrong, or it is the word of man and useless.[/Quote]

 

Personally I find it far from useless. There are many examples and stories on how to live a moral life.

 

This will sound strange to you and may make me sound like a religious nut, but when as a Christian I read the Bible I know what God has determined that is important for me and what is not important.

 

I've yet to see any argument that has given me reason to think that this conclusion is erroneous. [/Quote]

 

And I respect your right to feel that way; I however personally don’t feel that way. We are given freewill and allowed to make our own decisions on how to worship our God or not to believe at all.

 

Which raises some interesting questions. Assuming that everyone here would agree that killing in self-defence, or in the defense of another, is ethical, why would fail to comment on this? He says murder is wrong, but then gives us a laundry list of circumstances in which murder is ok, however "self-defense" and "protecting others" isn't on that list. So it would seem that behavior that any of us would probably consider ethical is not sanctioned by our alleged maker. [/Quote]

 

Sorry, I must not have been clear. I am not saying that killing in self-defense or in defense of another is ethical or in my belief structure not a sin against God. I am saying that in defense of a loved one I’d be willing to accept my punishment both in this life and in the next. I’m actually unsure of how I’d react to protect my own life. Is my life more valuable than another? I know it is just as valuable, but not greater than anyone else.

 

I would tend to agree with such sentiments. The sad fact is that this message is not conveyed in the bible or the quran. It would seem that an objective examination of ethics would tend to lead us to very different conclusion than those offered by our holy texts. And a much more worthy one, in my opinion [/Quote]

 

To me it is. Well at least that is were I get that sentiment. This is strictly a Christian view, but God thought that our lives were so important that he sent his own son onto this earth to be tortured and murdered for us. I might be willing to sacrifice my own life for humanity, but I’d never be willing to sacrifice a loved ones life.

[TK-8252]

If God personally told me that I must kill someone, then I guess I would do it. However, he/she would have to personally tell me to do it and not be merely words in a book.

 

You mean like if god told you to kill your own son? Why would you want to be loyal to a god who's an ass? Is it really worth sacrificing your dignity and your morality just to go to heaven? Murdering your own son for your own personal benefit?

 

 

Personally I find it far from useless. There are many examples and stories on how to live a moral life.

 

Like... to murder your own son?

[Achilles]

First I am speaking of my personal views; these views have nothing to do with any other Christian’s views. They could be completely wrong, but they are my personal views and nothing more.

Fair enough.

 

If God personally told me that I must kill someone, then I guess I would do it. However, he/she would have to personally tell me to do it and not be merely words in a book.

Right, ala Moses, Abraham, etc. What about modern day people that claim to speak to god directly, specifically when it comes to doing violence? I understand that you probably more skeptical than most and tend to want to think for yourself, but I can’t help but fear for younger, more impressionable people that are raised to believe that the bible in the inerrant word of god.

 

Personally I find it far from useless. There are many examples and stories on how to live a moral life.

If the bible was the sole source of morality, I could agree. If the bible was a superior or even a good source of morality, I might be persuaded to agree. However, a reasoned examination of moral philosophy and ethics provide far better guidance and come without the need for cherry-picking or mental gymnastics.

 

This will sound strange to you and may make me sound like a religious nut, but when as a Christian I read the Bible I know what God has determined that is important for me and what is not important.

But it is all allegedly his word. If this is his one lifeline to us, the only text handed down for all time, why would he include information that he didn’t intend for you to consider “important”?

 

Also, this experience was completely subjective. Your experience could be radically different from those of others. How are we to discount those that claim that god told them to kill if there is no objective baseline from which to work?

 

And I respect your right to feel that way; I however personally don’t feel that way. We are given freewill and allowed to make our own decisions on how to worship our God or not to believe at all.

I would say it has more to do with the validity of the arguments than how I feel, but I understand the gist of your argument.

 

Sorry, I must not have been clear. I am not saying that killing in self-defense or in defense of another is ethical or in my belief structure not a sin against God.

Wow. Ok.

 

If it makes you feel any better killing in self-defense or the defense of another isn’t unethical.

 

I am saying that in defense of a loved one I’d be willing to accept my punishment both in this life and in the next. I’m actually unsure of how I’d react to protect my own life. Is my life more valuable than another? I know it is just as valuable, but not greater than anyone else.

From a deontological perspective, all life has value, therefore it should be defended. The “real” ethical situation isn’t your defending yourself, rather the other person threatening your life. At least according to Kant

 

To me it is. Well at least that is were I get that sentiment. This is strictly a Christian view, but God thought that our lives were so important that he sent his own son onto this earth to be tortured and murdered for us. I might be willing to sacrifice my own life for humanity, but I’d never be willing to sacrifice a loved ones life.

First, there’s no evidence that such a person existed let alone that these events transpired. Second, even assuming that jesus was real and was the son of god and that he really died on a cross approximate 2000 years ago and he was resurrected 3 days later, the whole thing doesn’t make any sense (this really needs to be picked up in the appropriate thread). Third, as I stated above, objective morality is superior to subjective morality, which is what religion provides.

 

Sorry to gish gallop over your argument, but there was a lot to unpack there.

 

Take care.

[mimartin]

You mean like if god told you to kill your own son? Why would you want to be loyal to a god who's an ass? Is it really worth sacrificing your dignity and your morality just to go to heaven? Murdering your own son for your own personal benefit?

First off I'd have to have a son. No, I wouldn't because any God I'd worship would not ask me to kill. I also do not believe myself worthy enough to believe God would speak to me directly and should I did hear voices I’d just believe I'd gone off the deep end causing me to seek professional medical help.

 

Like... to murder your own son?

 

Like I said in response to Achilles I do not believe the Bible tells me to kill or provides me the justification to kill. Others may interpreted it differently, but that is my personal view. Even if the Bible provided justification does not mean I can not hold myself to higher standards.

 

But it is all allegedly his word. If this is his one lifeline to us, the only text handed down for all time, why would he include information that he didn’t intend for you to consider “important”?

 

We have been given freewill. The people that wrote and translated the Bible had that same gift. I find it preposterous that their prejudices and the agenda would not be included in their writings. Inspired was the wrong word for me to use, but divine influence would have been a better choice for me to use. God’s influence is there, but so are the influences of the mortals that wrote the Bible and commission the translation of the Bible.

 

Just because I find some of the Bible less important than others does not mean I'm willing to mark it all as trash. After all I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water.

[Achilles]

We have been given freewill. The people that wrote and translated the Bible had that same gift. I find it preposterous that their prejudices and the agenda would not be included in their writings. Inspired was the wrong word for me to use, but divine influence would have been a better choice for me to use. God’s influence is there, but so are the influences of the mortals that wrote the Bible and commission the translation of the Bible.

If the bible acknowledged anywhere within its pages that it contained the nothing more than the inspired wisdom of the authors' time, I might be willing to soften my criticism of it. However, quite to opposite is true. It claims several times to be the inerrent word of god.

 

We are allegedly given free will and then provided with an archaic list of rules that we must live by if we wish to retain god's favor. The punishment of disobeying them is eternal damnation.

 

I appreciate that you have a very liberal view toward religion in general and christianity specifically, however this is the legacy sir. You can disagree with the doctrine, as I can plainly see that you do, but that doesn't make it something that it isn't.

 

The point is that even if we were to completely wipe out all the ugly parts and accept that the pretty ones are all there are and all there ever was, there is still absolutely no reason to believe that god had anything to do with it.

 

Thanks for reading.

 

ADDED BY EDIT

Just because I find some of the Bible less important than others does not mean I'm willing to mark it all as trash. After all I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water.

This is a rough analogy but I'll try to work with it.

 

You're willing to lend your support to an entire book, some parts of which contain instructions on how to kill human beings, because a few other parts have some nice moral stories? Why not lend your support to greek mythology and claim eternal devotion to a patron god from that pantheon? Or any of the other dozens of ancient polythestic religions? Why not forego gods all together and take your moral guidance from Aesop or modern moral philosophers? If your big take-away is the moral lessons, I submit that you can find much better sources than this.

[Nancy Allen``]

This might be better off in the theism\atheism discussion thread.

[Achilles]

Agreed. Could one of the mods please snip-n-move as appropriate?