The Theism/Atheism Discussion

[Achilles]

:whistles: That's one reason. Even if it isn't true.

But as some of the other respondents in that thread point out, there's nothing to show that your story is a case for faith. To take things a step further, what about those religions that insist that medicine is not used. Wouldn't faith be dangerous is some cases? Considering that differences in faith is one of the most predominate cause of conflict in our world, isn't it safe to say that faith has been lethal for a great number of people?

 

Because it was portrayed as fiction. By comparing records of the film's President to real life, they would know that he wasn't serving in 1996, Bill Clinton was. Actors such as Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum would be credited for the roles they played in the film, assuming we are keeping records and have the Internet in the future it'd just be a simple matter of looking it up.

I'm afraid I've failed to adequately express my point.

 

Exactly, and for people to come out, this is for Samual as well, for people to come out and say 'ZOMGWTF THERE IZ NO GOD LOLZ!1!!11ONE!1!!11ELEVEN!1!!11 U R RETARDED FOR BELIEVING IN RELIGION LOLZ!1!!11ONE!1!!11ELEVEN!1!!11' is utter arrogance, and I know there is a world of diffirence between choosing not to believe in religion and slamming it with comments like this but the sad fact is people do beat people into the ground because they believe in religion, and they bring down their non belief by doing so.

I'm not sure what relevance this has to the point that I made in the section that you quoted. I do not agree that religion should be off limits or given a pass during open debate. I find it a little hypocritical that prostletizing via missions or witnessing is seen as noble work, while pointing out that there is no foundation in fact for any religion is viewed as "utter arrogance".

 

It's interesting you point this out because lately I've been thinking about things we see on the Internet, TV and such, and how especially what you find on the Internet it tends to get criticised as not being creditble. Sure it's usually because someone doesn't agree with it but it does happen. And I'm getting to the point where I wouldn't trust any given source. So to answer your question, I can present whatever evidence of, say, the first king of the Aztec Empire, but there is the possibility of it being wrong. Like how Billy Cohen was going to be a Navy SEAL but turned out to be a Marine, I think.

The point, which you appear to concede, is that we cannot be certain about anything that has taken place in the past. We have a certain degree of confidence in some events and historical figures based on the amount (and quality) of the evidence that we have for them. Meanwhile a majority of human beings claim to have absolute certainty about a handful of events and people for which we have absolutely zero evidence. I struggle to understand how that works.

 

Creditble testimony; the sort of thing Berkowitz went on with would likely put him in a mental institute, that he may have said that to get a lighter sentance is neither here nor there, is very important. I'll paint you a picture: say a police station is bombed, an officer and a member of the public is killed, the police investigate likely suspects while they gather evidence and find out it was semtex, one of the suspects asks if it was semtex used and says how an ex commando had stolen some to sell, on the strength of that testimony he is questioned and made to reveal who he sold it to, on the basis of that testimony they investigate the buyer and he admits to making a bomb out of the semtex and selling it, and another testimony reveals that the bomber was saying that he's been waiting years to pay back the police for putting him in jail, the police are able to arrest the bomber because they followed the testimonies until they found the evidence and the truth. In the case of religion however every time we follow the testimonies we find no evidence, so we keep plugging away until we do.

I'm well aware of how testimony works in our legal system. The "bumpers" that exist are a) the assumption that the individuals giving testimony are telling the truth and b) those that are found to not be telling the truth are punished. Remove either of bumpers and testimony is worthless. That was my point. My apologies for not being more specific earlier.

 

My point of view? People who try and convince others that they are wrong regardless of what religion, if any, they follow, are afraid, they're afraid of losing followers, they're afraid of people believing in something they don't believe in and they're afraid that they may be wrong because they don't have the power of some mythical being, and the more they try and beat people down with their religion, or lack of it, the more scared they are. That's not a knock on people following their beliefs or nonbeliefs, or those who discuss them, it's those who go beyond the call of duty to push their beliefs on others.

Belief, and specifically religious belief, can have very real consequences. September 11th, the Transit Bombings in London, the length and breadth of the conflict in Ireland, Somalia, etc, etc are evidence of this. To say that faith is harmless and that those who chose to base their level of believe on the amount of evidence are foolish is to not examine the situation as it is.

 

Ah, hypocracy. I thought science was meant to be evil. Why? Because it might reveal something those who believe in religion don't want to hear? If science could settle the matter once and for all you'd think deacons the world over would jump at the chance. They're not exactly queing up around the block.

Agreed. Unfortunately, because God is a supernatural explanation, He/She/It/They can't be measure via scientific means. To do so would be to instantly revoke His/Hers/Its/Theirs supernatural status.

[Nancy Allen``]

But as some of the other respondents in that thread point out, there's nothing to show that your story is a case for faith. To take things a step further, what about those religions that insist that medicine is not used. Wouldn't faith be dangerous is some cases? Considering that differences in faith is one of the most predominate cause of conflict in our world, isn't it safe to say that faith has been lethal for a great number of people?

 

A little common sense goes a long way. It says in the Bible that you cannot go to the toilet. I've yet to see one Christian who doesn't. Take 'though shalt not kill' to it's ultimate and you're expected to get down on your knees and pray for the forgiveness of whoever is about to put a bullet in the back of your head. I'm game if you are.

 

I'm not sure what relevance this has to the point that I made in the section that you quoted. I do not agree that religion should be off limits or given a pass during open debate. I find it a little hypocritical that prostletizing via missions or witnessing is seen as noble work, while pointing out that there is no foundation in fact for any religion is viewed as "utter arrogance".

 

Saying that it's wrong for people to make comments like I demonstrated isn't giving religion a pass. The same can be said of any topic. People shouldn't make such comments on religion, or Atheism, or really anything, because it's wrong to make comments like that.

 

Belief, and specifically religious belief, can have very real consequences. September 11th, the Transit Bombings in London, the length and breadth of the conflict in Ireland, Somalia, etc, etc are evidence of this. To say that faith is harmless and that those who chose to base their level of believe on the amount of evidence are foolish is to not examine the situation as it is.

 

So, what? We put religion on trial for the crimes of the individual? And what happens to, say, Muslims if some court were to find Islam guilty of the crime of terrorism?

[Samuel Dravis]

Exactly, and for people to come out, this is for Samual as well, for people to come out and say 'ZOMGWTF THERE IZ NO GOD LOLZ!1!!11ONE!1!!11ELEVEN!1!!11 U R RETARDED FOR BELIEVING IN RELIGION LOLZ!1!!11ONE!1!!11ELEVEN!1!!11' is utter arrogance, and I know there is a world of diffirence between choosing not to believe in religion and slamming it with comments like this but the sad fact is people do beat people into the ground because they believe in religion, and they bring down their non belief by doing so.

I'd agree that it is arrogance with regards to claiming an absolute knowledge of the question. Similar arrogance, then, shows on the other side of the coin.

 

I personally care very little what anyone spends their free time on, whether it's religion or something else. Hey, it's their life to do with as they see fit. The only problems I have with religion, really, come up when it affects other people. If this effect is good - and in a lot of cases it is, no doubt about that - then great.

 

However, if people use religion to justify something I'd consider an unnecessary restriction or just wrong, then I'd ask them what basis they have for their statements. If they can't give a rational one, then as far as I can tell it's just an opinion - and opinions really have no business deciding other people's lives for them.

 

Sure, some might take it as offensive or arrogant, my dismissal of their opinions. I'm not sure what they'd be trying to accomplish though. If they had a rational reason for their position, then they'd have already shown it to me. Since they didn't, then the only person they have to be angry with is themselves. I certainly didn't make them try to defend the indefensible.

[Achilles]

A little common sense goes a long way. It says in the Bible that you cannot go to the toilet. I've yet to see one Christian who doesn't. Take 'though shalt not kill' to it's ultimate and you're expected to get down on your knees and pray for the forgiveness of whoever is about to put a bullet in the back of your head. I'm game if you are.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record: I'm not sure what relevance this has to the point that I made in the section that you quoted. I'm really unclear as to what I'm supposed to take away from your reply. Help?

 

Saying that it's wrong for people to make comments like I demonstrated isn't giving religion a pass. The same can be said of any topic. People shouldn't make such comments on religion, or Atheism, or really anything, because it's wrong to make comments like that.

This is exactly what I was referencing. Why shouldn't such comments be made (thereby giving religion a pass)? For almost any other enterprise we engage in as human beings, some expectation exists that we act rationally and have good reasons for our beliefs. This expectation doesn't seem to exist for religion. What's more, it's almost taboo to even speak about having such an expectation.

 

So, what? We put religion on trial for the crimes of the individual? And what happens to, say, Muslims if some court were to find Islam guilty of the crime of terrorism?

I suppose that's one possible response, however I don't imagine that choice will accomplish very much. Another option that might be more productive would be to shed the taboo of religious discussion, refuse to accept, "well, that's just what I believe" as a perfectly rational response, and encourage others to truly examine the basis of their belief.

 

I don't advocate that this should be done at gunpoint. Nor do I think atheists should crash religious services or attack people wearing crosses around their necks on the street. However, if the subject of religion does come up in conversation, I don't see why I should be expected to sit back and refrain from voicing my observations just because it might put the faithful in the uncomfortable position of having to defend their beliefs.

[SilentScope001]

I suppose that's one possible response, however I don't imagine that choice will accomplish very much. Another option that might be more productive would be to shed the taboo of religious discussion, refuse to accept, "well, that's just what I believe" as a perfectly rational response, and encourage others to truly examine the basis of their belief.

 

I don't think that even possible at all. I think that all rational discussion breaks down to "Well, that's just what I believe", and I think we have to accept that rather than go and attempt to attack it. All beliefs are formed by assumptions after all, and these assumptions cannot be backed up, so in the end, all arguments are made to justify the belief. As long as you attack the warrants, you can destroy all beliefs, in Science or in Religion. Even Atheism (you say it is an abscene of belief, but if so, why not abandon belief in Science and its Method, since that may be wrong as well and there is no proof that observations are correct).

 

We have to resort to "That's just what I believe"...because it's true. I believe in Science. It seems to be applicable, has the answers to everything, etc. I have no reason to believe in Science, it may be wrong, but I made a choice to believe in Science. That's just what I, along with many other human beings, believe, even though I may be wrong. Replace Science with Religion, and you just the justification.

[Nancy Allen``]

However, if people use religion to justify something I'd consider an unnecessary restriction or just wrong, then I'd ask them what basis they have for their statements. If they can't give a rational one, then as far as I can tell it's just an opinion - and opinions really have no business deciding other people's lives for them.

 

Frankly, using religion to justify something pisses me off. That's what terrorists do. You really think they believe in Islam? If they did they wouldn't commit terrorist acts.

 

At the risk of sounding like a broken record: I'm not sure what relevance this has to the point that I made in the section that you quoted. I'm really unclear as to what I'm supposed to take away from your reply. Help?

 

Okay. Though shalt not kill has been more commonly interpreted in recent times as 'Though shalt not murder'. The reason for the change is because common sense dictates there are times, in war for example, or in self defence, where we must kill. We kill animals for food, or because they're sick. We put murderers and pedophiles to death. So if we were to examine 'Though shalt not kill' a great number of us would be guilty. Hence the reason for the reinterpretation 'Though shalt not murder'.

 

This is exactly what I was referencing. Why shouldn't such comments be made (thereby giving religion a pass)? For almost any other enterprise we engage in as human beings, some expectation exists that we act rationally and have good reasons for our beliefs. This expectation doesn't seem to exist for religion. What's more, it's almost taboo to even speak about having such an expectation.

 

Well, do people say 'you're a ****wit to not believe in religion'? No, I would hope not, because it's wrong to make such a comment full stop. The same as it would be to make such comments on religion, or on topics such as homosexuality, racism, politics, really anything. We don't make anti gay comments around homosexuals, racist comments around ethnic groups or Bush bashing around Republicans...well that last one is debateable, out of respect for those who hold those beliefs and are those type of people. We don't want to upset them.

 

And yes, religion, like issues such as politics, the war, homosexuality and racism can be a more toey subject than most. It shouldn't be, I think it's more wrong to discuss something like persecuting Muslims because they are terrorists than discussing the validity of religion, but it is.

 

I suppose that's one possible response, however I don't imagine that choice will accomplish very much. Another option that might be more productive would be to shed the taboo of religious discussion, refuse to accept, "well, that's just what I believe" as a perfectly rational response, and encourage others to truly examine the basis of their belief.

 

A crusade to stop people from the fallacy of believing in religion?

 

I don't advocate that this should be done at gunpoint. Nor do I think atheists should crash religious services or attack people wearing crosses around their necks on the street. However, if the subject of religion does come up in conversation, I don't see why I should be expected to sit back and refrain from voicing my observations just because it might put the faithful in the uncomfortable position of having to defend their beliefs.

 

And yes, despite the thoughts of some you shouldn't have people at gunpoint on their religion. But certainly if the topic comes up you should be free to discuss your thoughts on religion. Just don't go around making comments like 'you're a ****wit to believe in religion', that's akin to bombing abortion clinics.

[Achilles]

Frankly, using religion to justify something pisses me off. That's what terrorists do.

What about embryonic stem cell research? Or abortion? Or the cherry-picked scripture that was the basis for the abolition of slavery? Some of these things are good, while others are bad. If you apply that standard to some of them, then you have to apply it to all.

 

FWIW, I absolutely agree with you. There are ethical arguments for every truly moral issue that we have. Religion is completely unnecessary for moral behavior. Therefore using it as justification should be upsetting.

 

You really think they believe in Islam? If they did they wouldn't commit terrorist acts.

Do you have any reason to believe that they do not? Pretty sure their holy book tells them to kill non-believers just the same as ours (meaning Western Christians). Muslims have extremists. Christians have extremists.

 

Okay. Though shalt not kill has been more commonly interpreted in recent times as 'Though shalt not murder'. The reason for the change is because common sense dictates there are times, in war for example, or in self defence, where we must kill. We kill animals for food, or because they're sick. We put murderers and pedophiles to death. So if we were to examine 'Though shalt not kill' a great number of us would be guilty. Hence the reason for the reinterpretation 'Though shalt not murder'.

I appreciate you clarifying the argument. Unfortunately, I still don't understand how that is associated with the section that you quoted.

 

Here it is again:

 

But as some of the other respondents in that thread point out, there's nothing to show that your story is a case for faith. To take things a step further, what about those religions that insist that medicine is not used. Wouldn't faith be dangerous is some cases? Considering that differences in faith is one of the most predominate cause of conflict in our world, isn't it safe to say that faith has been lethal for a great number of people?

Thanks in advance.

 

Well, do people say 'you're a ****wit to not believe in religion'?

No, it tends to sound more like, "you're a sinner and you're going to spend eternity burning in hell". Which is clearly a more appropriate display of grace, tolerance, and brotherly love.

 

No, I would hope not, because it's wrong to make such a comment full stop.

In other word, "No, it doesn't happen because that would be wrong". Unfortunately, such sentiments don't actually stop things like that from happening.

 

The same as it would be to make such comments on religion, or on topics such as homosexuality, racism, politics, really anything. We don't make anti gay comments around homosexuals, racist comments around ethnic groups or Bush bashing around Republicans...well that last one is debateable, out of respect for those who hold those beliefs and are those type of people. We don't want to upset them.

Actually those are all factually incorrect. Those things do happen. All the time.

 

A crusade to stop people from the fallacy of believing in religion?

I don't know if I'd use the word "crusade". "Campaign" would probably be more appropriate. Also, I would probably rearrange the last few words of that sentence.

 

Just don't go around making comments like 'you're a ****wit to believe in religion', that's akin to bombing abortion clinics.

Most of the non-believers I've had experience with tend to avoid personal attacks. There's a huge difference between calling someone a "****wit" and pointing out that their beliefs are based on delusion. One is a personal attack while the other is not.

[Nancy Allen``]

What about embryonic stem cell research? Or abortion? Or the cherry-picked scripture that was the basis for the abolition of slavery? Some of these things are good, while others are bad. If you apply that standard to some of them, then you have to apply it to all.

 

Well, if you worry about the sancity of your soul, don't do it, and don't support it. As I understand it God will sort out dealing with those who take part in it.

 

My thoughts on these topics? Stem cell research is playing God isn't it? I believe in the betterment of the human race, but am more familiar with the theory of gene therapy, I think it's the same thing. Abortion? That's an icky moral subject but overall I think if the mother and child would really be worse off then it's for the better they do it, especially in the event of an unwanted or forced pregnancy. I don't know what cherry picked scripture abolished slavery but I'm glad it did, it's morally reprehensible.

 

Do you have any reason to believe that they do not? Pretty sure their holy book tells them to kill non-believers just the same as ours (meaning Western Christians). Muslims have extremists. Christians have extremists.

 

Again it falls down to common sense. The part about laws overiding religion is a good place to start. Terrorism is illegal in America. Hijacking and suicide bombing is illegal. Therefore, religious extremists must curb their faith to coexist with society, I think it's so that extremists stop committing acts that would be frowned upon by the general public but I have no basis for that, it's how I interpret that section.

 

I appreciate you clarifying the argument. Unfortunately, I still don't understand how that is associated with the section that you quoted.

 

Here it is again:

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Would faith be dangerous or even lethal in some cases? In terms of people using dogma to preach killing and dieing for their God, absolutely. We've seen it with Islam and we are seeing it now with Christianity. The people who do go to these extremes are certainly in the minority, Al Qaeda has been condemned by Islamic clerics the world over. There are still those who preach hatred though, and as sensible people we know that is wrong. The growing...militarisation? of Christianity is disturbing as well. I haven't heard of Christian based terrorism but it could happen, and were it to it would lessen the religion. And you can point to things such as the Crusades and the history of the Middle East. I think religion for the most part is taught by sensible people, and most of those who recieve the message are sensible people. In my view for someone to look at religion and get it into their minds that killing for their God is a good idea is the same as those who play violent video games and then go out and kill, they arn't right to begin with.

 

No, it tends to sound more like, "you're a sinner and you're going to spend eternity burning in hell". Which is clearly a more appropriate display of grace, tolerance, and brotherly love.

 

Well that's their problem, and regardless of what way you say it making comments like that and not respecting the right for others to be entitled to their beliefs is wrong.

 

In other word, "No, it doesn't happen because that would be wrong". Unfortunately, such sentiments don't actually stop things like that from happening.

 

No unfortunetly it doesn't. We know pedophillia is wrong but despite our best efforts to stop it it still happens.

 

Actually those are all factually incorrect. Those things do happen. All the time.

 

I should probably say we shouldn't do these things, we are taught that they are wrong and I think we know that they are wrong. It doesn't stop it from happening but the point is we know that if we value the sensibilities of others, not to mention our teeth that might get rammed down our throats were we to make such comments, we wouldn't say such things.

 

I don't know if I'd use the word "crusade". "Campaign" would probably be more appropriate. Also, I would probably rearrange the last few words of that sentence.

 

Admirable. Were it me I would be more inclined to campaign against issues that are well rooted in how dangerous and wrong they are, drugs, crime, lack of justice, but that's just me. Perhaps the danger of letting your religion and beliefs get you in hot water, such as being preached to kill.

 

Most of the non-believers I've had experience with tend to avoid personal attacks. There's a huge difference between calling someone a "****wit" and pointing out that their beliefs are based on delusion. One is a personal attack while the other is not.

 

Exactly, and you know which one to avoid at all costs, even if some deacons as you've demonstrated don't.

[Achilles]

Well, if you worry about the sancity of your soul, don't do it, and don't support it. As I understand it God will sort out dealing with those who take part in it.

Unfortunately, I don't think this response addresses the point that I made. Your statement was that religion should have no place in public policy decicion making. I pointed out that it does, sometimes for good and sometimes for bad.

 

My thoughts on these topics? <snip>

There are existing threads for both of these topics. I will be more than happy to respond to your points there.

 

Again it falls down to common sense.

So you're saying that Muslims don't really believe in jihad because of "common sense"?

 

The part about laws overiding religion is a good place to start. Terrorism is illegal in America. Hijacking and suicide bombing is illegal. Therefore, religious extremists must curb their faith to coexist with society, I think it's so that extremists stop committing acts that would be frowned upon by the general public but I have no basis for that, it's how I interpret that section.

I think the terrorists were more than aware that their actions were going to violate some national laws. The fact is that many terrorists are on record stating that they are following a "higher law". This goes for Muslim extremists that suicide bomb Iraqi convenience stores as well as Christian extremists that bomb abortion clinics.

 

Would faith be dangerous or even lethal in some cases? In terms of people using dogma to preach killing and dieing for their God, absolutely. We've seen it with Islam and we are seeing it now with Christianity. The people who do go to these extremes are certainly in the minority, Al Qaeda has been condemned by Islamic clerics the world over. There are still those who preach hatred though, and as sensible people we know that is wrong. The growing...militarisation? of Christianity is disturbing as well. I haven't heard of Christian based terrorism but it could happen, and were it to it would lessen the religion. And you can point to things such as the Crusades and the history of the Middle East. I think religion for the most part is taught by sensible people, and most of those who recieve the message are sensible people. In my view for someone to look at religion and get it into their minds that killing for their God is a good idea is the same as those who play violent video games and then go out and kill, they arn't right to begin with.

I don't think the problem is as isolated as you would suggest. Link.

 

Well that's their problem, and regardless of what way you say it making comments like that and not respecting the right for others to be entitled to their beliefs is wrong.

I don't agree that militant, dogmatic thinking is "their problem". You are aware of so-called "hate crimes" aren't you? Those are the perpetrator's "problems". They aren't the ones that end up in the hospital or dead. We don't say, "well if the KKK wants to maim and kill people of other races, then that's their problem" do we?

 

(Full disclosure: I don't agree with the concept of "hate crimes". Assault is a assault and our government should be equally harsh with all violent offenders, regardless of their motivations. My 2 cents).

 

No unfortunetly it doesn't. We know pedophillia is wrong but despite our best efforts to stop it it still happens.

If you agree that such arguments don't solve the problem, then why are you advocating them in this thread? Please help me understand which part of your argument I am missing.

 

I should probably say we shouldn't do these things, we are taught that they are wrong and I think we know that they are wrong. It doesn't stop it from happening but the point is we know that if we value the sensibilities of others, not to mention our teeth that might get rammed down our throats were we to make such comments, we wouldn't say such things.

So you are retracting your earlier statement that people are not verbally harassed by people that hate them?

 

Admirable. Were it me I would be more inclined to campaign against issues that are well rooted in how dangerous and wrong they are, drugs, crime, lack of justice, but that's just me. Perhaps the danger of letting your religion and beliefs get you in hot water, such as being preached to kill.

Do we only have to choose one issue to stand behind? Can I not campaign for rational discourse on religion while standing up for other social issues? Is it safe to say that there might be some other social issues that are at an impasse because of our failure to have rational discourse on religion (abortion and stem-cell research, for instance)? Considering that religion promotes in-group/out-group bias which clearly leads to conflict all over the world, don't you think crime would be reduced significantly it we eliminated the basis for such biases? I think we would.

 

Exactly, and you know which one to avoid at all costs, even if some deacons as you've demonstrated don't.

I believe that a "deacon" is a religious officer.

 

If you and I are agreeing that I've made no personal attacks, then I'm not sure where "****wit" came from.

[Nancy Allen``]

Unfortunately, I don't think this response addresses the point that I made. Your statement was that religion should have no place in public policy decicion making. I pointed out that it does, sometimes for good and sometimes for bad.

 

I'm not sure if religion should or should not have a place in public policy decision making but I think it shouldn't be used as a club to beat down any decision or to go against what is honestly going to be good for people.

 

So you're saying that Muslims don't really believe in jihad because of "common sense"?

 

I would argue that people such as Al Qaeda can say they commit terrorist acts because of their religion and point to texts in their Quran to justify Jihad. There's a few ways to look at this: they take the parts out of context rather than look at the whole, this is honestly how they see Islam despite the views of religious leaders, personally I think it's an excuse to hide behind but I'm the blunt type.

 

I think the terrorists were more than aware that their actions were going to violate some national laws. The fact is that many terrorists are on record stating that they are following a "higher law". This goes for Muslim extremists that suicide bomb Iraqi convenience stores as well as Christian extremists that bomb abortion clinics.

 

Then I suggest to them that they read again their religious texts. It says right there, I can find it if you like, that they are to respect the laws of the land when their religion says otherwise.

 

I don't think the problem is as isolated as you would suggest. Link.

 

That's beliefs. How does that indicate they would commit criminal acts?

 

I don't agree that militant, dogmatic thinking is "their problem". You are aware of so-called "hate crimes" aren't you? Those are the perpetrator's "problems". They aren't the ones that end up in the hospital or dead. We don't say, "well if the KKK wants to maim and kill people of other races, then that's their problem" do we?

 

By it being their problem I mean they have the problem of not giving a stuff about other people's feelings, those who delight in making racist comments to ethnic groups, anti gay comments to homosexuals, ect. These people are the scum of the earth and we should do everything to stop them.

 

If you agree that such arguments don't solve the problem, then why are you advocating them in this thread? Please help me understand which part of your argument I am missing.

 

I don't. I think we should do what we can to stop it, but the fact of the matter is it does. We shouldn't tolerate it but it does, and whatever we can do to stop it we should.

 

So you are retracting your earlier statement that people are not verbally harassed by people that hate them?

 

By saying that we don't make racist comments and the like I'm talking about the overwhelming majority. There are those that still do and as I said we should eradicate them, yesterday.

 

Do we only have to choose one issue to stand behind? Can I not campaign for rational discourse on religion while standing up for other social issues?

 

No you should do what you can. However you're not Superman, that's not a knock you should do what you can, but you shouldn't do more than you can, neither should you be expected to. A man who takes on the weight of the world's problems will over be crushed by them.

 

Is it safe to say that there might be some other social issues that are at an impasse because of our failure to have rational discourse on religion (abortion and stem-cell research, for instance)?

 

Yes I think it's fair to say that.

 

Considering that religion promotes in-group/out-group bias which clearly leads to conflict all over the world, don't you think crime would be reduced significantly it we eliminated the basis for such biases? I think we would.

 

But then what do we do when racial hatred leads to conflict? Do we kill all the black people because of the race riots Los Angelas had faced. What about violent protests against government? Should there be death camps for those opposed to whoever is in power?

 

If you and I are agreeing that I've made no personal attacks, then I'm not sure where "****wit" came from.

 

From the basis that saying things like 'you're a ****wit to not believe in religion' is wrong. It's wrong. Regardless of people making comments like that it's the wrong thing to do.

[Achilles]

I'm not sure if religion should or should not have a place in public policy decision making but I think it shouldn't be used as a club to beat down any decision or to go against what is honestly going to be good for people.

The unfortunate reality is that it already happens. I guess it comes down to what you're prepared to do about it.

 

I would argue that people such as Al Qaeda can say they commit terrorist acts because of their religion and point to texts in their Quran to justify Jihad. There's a few ways to look at this: they take the parts out of context rather than look at the whole, this is honestly how they see Islam despite the views of religious leaders, personally I think it's an excuse to hide behind but I'm the blunt type.

What evidence do you have to support the hypothesis that Islam is a peaceful religion? Same question for Christianity.

 

Then I suggest to them that they read again their religious texts. It says right there, I can find it if you like, that they are to respect the laws of the land when their religion says otherwise.

I've stated before and I state again that I don't think more reading of religious texts will help reduce religious violence.

 

That's beliefs. How does that indicate they would commit criminal acts?

Religious texts promote, what we would today consider, criminal acts. Can you tell me how many atheists are incarcerated in the U.S.? How are the crime rates in the country's most religious areas?

 

By it being their problem I mean they have the problem of not giving a stuff about other people's feelings, those who delight in making racist comments to ethnic groups, anti gay comments to homosexuals, ect. These people are the scum of the earth and we should do everything to stop them.

How do you suggest we do that?

 

I don't. I think we should do what we can to stop it, but the fact of the matter is it does. We shouldn't tolerate it but it does, and whatever we can do to stop it we should.

Actually you have. Post #105 for example. That's how this whole sub-topic got started

 

By saying that we don't make racist comments and the like I'm talking about the overwhelming majority. There are those that still do and as I said we should eradicate them, yesterday.

Wow. "eradicate". And you claim that atheists are extreme in their views.

 

No you should do what you can. However you're not Superman, that's not a knock you should do what you can, but you shouldn't do more than you can, neither should you be expected to. A man who takes on the weight of the world's problems will over be crushed by them.

I don't think that cartoonish super-powers are a prerequisite.

I think contributing toward the resolution of social problems is a key element of good citizenship. My 2 cents.

 

But then what do we do when racial hatred leads to conflict? Do we kill all the black people because of the race riots Los Angelas had faced. What about violent protests against government? Should there be death camps for those opposed to whoever is in power?

Didn't you earlier suggest eradication for those that you felt crossed a line? Seems to me that these would be "solutions" that you would promote.

 

From the basis that saying things like 'you're a ****wit to not believe in religion' is wrong. It's wrong. Regardless of people making comments like that it's the wrong thing to do.

Ah, so this is non sequitur. Thanks for clarifying.

[Rasputin1st]

Sorry this anouncement is a little late but..........Happy National Atheist's Day............"The fool said in his heart there is no God."-Psalm 53:1

[Samuel Dravis]

Sorry this anouncement is a little late but..........Happy National Atheist's Day............"The fool said in his heart there is no God."-Psalm 53:1

You might be surprised at the fact that many atheists would agree with your quote. Only a fool would say he knows something to be true when evidence cannot be obtained on the subject in question.

[JediMaster12]

I know that, but the Ark is meant to be able to do the sort of thing we saw in the film. It says in the Bible that anyone who approaches it will surely be put to death, and there's bits and pieces floating around on what it can do. Here's a couple of sites on the matter.

Actually to approach the Ark, there are certain requirements that the High Priest must perform so that his body, mind and soul are clean before God. I believe that it was the descendants of Aaron that could do this. Leviticus and Exodus are a bit sketchy for me but I believe that is it.

 

Religious texts promote, what we would today consider, criminal acts. Can you tell me how many atheists are incarcerated in the U.S.? How are the crime rates in the country's most religious areas?

Have you looked at Cuba? Yes we associate them with Communism when in fact Castro was Nationalist and he resorted to facism. With crime though, I had a teacher go there and he said that crime was very low because it is not innocent until proven guilty but guilty until proven innocent and that it was very hard to get proven innocent. Cuba has Spanish ancestry and no doubt that they still follow the principles of Catholicism. Maybe it is an obscure example but one I just happened to remember.

[Achilles]

You might be surprised at the fact that many atheists would agree with your quote. Only a fool would say he knows something to be true when evidence cannot be obtained on the subject in question.

Indeed.

*wonders if Rasputin1st knows that National Athiests Day is a religious attempt at satire. *

 

Have you looked at Cuba? Yes we associate them with Communism when in fact Castro was Nationalist and he resorted to facism. With crime though, I had a teacher go there and he said that crime was very low because it is not innocent until proven guilty but guilty until proven innocent and that it was very hard to get proven innocent. Cuba has Spanish ancestry and no doubt that they still follow the principles of Catholicism. Maybe it is an obscure example but one I just happened to remember.

You appear to assume that there is a causal relationship at play here where the evidence for your conclusion is unsubstantiated.

 

Would it be more appropriate to say that atheism is responsible for the conditions in Cuba, or would it be better to say that a facist, dictatorial regime is the culprit? Regardless, introducing this strawman does not answer my questions about atheism here in the U.S.

 

Take a look at the UN Human Development Index. The U.S. (heavily Christian) usually shows up in the (lower end of the) top 10, but Norway has been in the top spot for the last 7 years. Norway is also known as the most non-religious country in Western Europe. I don't think it's a stretch to say that religion hinders social progress rather than promotes it.

[Nancy Allen``]

The unfortunate reality is that it already happens. I guess it comes down to what you're prepared to do about it.

 

Anything possible. Too often religion has caused action or inaction when it shouldn't have otherwise. Less should be done to appease them if what they oppose is of benefit.

 

What evidence do you have to support the hypothesis that Islam is a peaceful religion? Same question for Christianity.

 

Islam, from my understanding of it, is a decidedly more war like religion. However it is my belief that about 99% of Muslims and those who follow Islam would rather function in society that work towards Jihad. People can look at Christianity's Old Testement and cherry pick verses that promote war, this isn't done away with but with the coming of Jesus Christ peace, forgiveness, are meant to be the watchwords.

 

Religious texts promote, what we would today consider, criminal acts. Can you tell me how many atheists are incarcerated in the U.S.? How are the crime rates in the country's most religious areas?

 

Religious texts, such as burning animals for sacrifice, people don't do that anymore. Maybe part of the problem is those who are very much stuck to the old ways. As for the statistics of crime in Christian and Atheist areas, I have no idea, I'm not even sure if there are religious zones and Atheist zones. I do know that the crime rate is much higher in America than Canada and Japan, I don't think Japan is a very religious country the way America especially under the Bush administation is. They also don't have nearly the same access to guns which people say is a contributing factor.

 

How do you suggest we do that?

 

There's hate crimes for example, I know you're against them, to tell the truth I am as well. This thing has gotten so out of hand that calling someone black is racist. I wonder what it is when we call someone white. The point is people know that it's wrong, very rarely can we say someone doesn't know any better. There's a law called provocation, meaning if you said something that causes someone to attack you then you could find yourself in bother as well. Unfortonetly police arn't too interested in chasing this up, too much work. But that's one solution, to point out that if you cop a smack in the mouth for having a go at someone who follows religion, at an Atheist, at someone who's black, who's white, or for whatever reason you might have to have a go at someone you can't expect to get any support.

 

Actually you have. Post #105 for example. That's how this whole sub-topic got started

 

'Using religion as justification pisses me off, Though shalt not kill amended, it's wrong to make hurtful comments, some subjects are more sensitive than others, asking about this being a crusade to stop the fallacy of believing in religion', you mean that I say that it happens means that I accept it? I don't. I know there are mad people in the Middle East who want to kill us all, no way I would accept that, but that's how things stand and that's not going to change until something is done about it.

 

Wow. "eradicate". And you claim that atheists are extreme in their views.

 

That's because people like this cross religious boundries. There are scum who are Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Athiest, Buddist, Hindu and some cooked up witchcraft nonsense. People who don't believe they have to abide by things such as the social contract and the rules regulations and laws of society. It'd be great if we could say 'kill all the Christians and the problem will go away', but the problem won't go away, all it means is there's a few less of them to worry about.

 

Didn't you earlier suggest eradication for those that you felt crossed a line? Seems to me that these would be "solutions" that you would promote.

 

As I said these things cross religious racial and cultural grounds. There's scant little seperating a black Atheist who kills a woman and steals her car and a white Christian who kidnaps, rapes and then kills a six year old girl. Both are about as far apart as you can get, yet no punishment is good enough for either of them.

 

Ah, so this is non sequitur. Thanks for clarifying.

 

You understand that it's wrong. That's the point I was trying to get across.

[Achilles]

Anything possible. Too often religion has caused action or inaction when it shouldn't have otherwise. Less should be done to appease them if what they oppose is of benefit.

So are you now arguing that religion should be involved? I'm having difficulty keeping up.

 

Islam, from my understanding of it, is a decidedly more war like religion.

Didn't you earlier state that the extremists were taking their religious doctrine out of context? Does Islam promote violence or doesn't it?

 

However it is my belief that about 99% of Muslims and those who follow Islam would rather function in society that work towards Jihad.

Ok. What is this opinion based on? What type of society do you think they want to build?

 

People can look at Christianity's Old Testement and cherry pick verses that promote war, this isn't done away with but with the coming of Jesus Christ peace, forgiveness, are meant to be the watchwords.

Well, I suppose that's one way of looking at it. Based on my readings of the Bible, I would say the opposite is closer to the truth. Also, Christ's demeanor and purpose can be highly debated based which Gospel and/or book of the NT you read. There is no one clear, definitive vision of who Jesus was. Biblical scholars haven't even laid to rest the nuts and bolts of his sacrifice. As with any fictional character, there is a lot of room for interpretation.

 

Religious texts, such as burning animals for sacrifice, people don't do that anymore.

Did you mean religious acts? I'm sure that satan worshippers and voodoo practitioners (not to equate the two groups) might disagree with you here.

 

Maybe part of the problem is those who are very much stuck to the old ways.

Like those that view a 1800 year old text as their sole source of guidance?

 

As for the statistics of crime in Christian and Atheist areas, I have no idea, I'm not even sure if there are religious zones and Atheist zones.

Crime rate by state (2004)

 

Let's use aggrivated assault as an example:

 

Highest - South Carolina (606.7). 92% Christian

 

Lowest (comparison limited to similar population) - Kentucky (130.5). 47% not affiliated with any religion

 

Do I have a slam-dunk case on the causal relationship between religiousity and violence? Absolutely not, but niether do I think this is a coincidence.

 

I picked aggrivated assault at random, however I suspect we'll find similar results for any other stat you'd like to look at.

 

I do know that the crime rate is much higher in America than Canada and Japan, I don't think Japan is a very religious country the way America especially under the Bush administation is. They also don't have nearly the same access to guns which people say is a contributing factor.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

 

There's hate crimes for example, I know you're against them, to tell the truth I am as well. This thing has gotten so out of hand that calling someone black is racist.

Depending on how you say it, it certainly is!

 

I wonder what it is when we call someone white. The point is people know that it's wrong, very rarely can we say someone doesn't know any better. There's a law called provocation, meaning if you said something that causes someone to attack you then you could find yourself in bother as well. Unfortonetly police arn't too interested in chasing this up, too much work. But that's one solution, to point out that if you cop a smack in the mouth for having a go at someone who follows religion, at an Atheist, at someone who's black, who's white, or for whatever reason you might have to have a go at someone you can't expect to get any support.

So you'd promote more laws against discrimanatory behavior? I think that this isn't necessarily a bad idea, but if the current laws haven't eliminated discrimination, what makes you think that more laws will? At some point, don't we have to address the problem rather than the symptoms?

 

'Using religion as justification pisses me off, Though shalt not kill amended, it's wrong to make hurtful comments, some subjects are more sensitive than others, asking about this being a crusade to stop the fallacy of believing in religion', you mean that I say that it happens means that I accept it? I don't. I know there are mad people in the Middle East who want to kill us all, no way I would accept that, but that's how things stand and that's not going to change until something is done about it.

I'm having difficulty deciphering this.

 

That's because people like this cross religious boundries.

So it's ok to eradicate people that we don't agree with?

 

There are scum who are Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Athiest, Buddist, Hindu and some cooked up witchcraft nonsense.

Atheists can't call Christianity "nonsense" but you can apply that label to Wicca? Can't have it both ways.

 

People who don't believe they have to abide by things such as the social contract and the rules regulations and laws of society. It'd be great if we could say 'kill all the Christians and the problem will go away', but the problem won't go away, all it means is there's a few less of them to worry about.

The only group that I know of that wants to kill Christians is Muslims. And most of them just want you to convert. Or at least leave their holy lands alone.

 

As I said these things cross religious racial and cultural grounds. There's scant little seperating a black Atheist who kills a woman and steals her car and a white Christian who kidnaps, rapes and then kills a six year old girl. Both are about as far apart as you can get, yet no punishment is good enough for either of them.

I hope you don't have political aspirations. I'll tell you right now: I'm voting for the other guy

 

Seems to me that violence is only unacceptable when it isn't you weilding it.

[Nancy Allen``]

I'll try and explain this as simply as I can, on the proviso that there's no easy solutions given to what I write (such as, say, 'Islam is a violent religion, outlaw Islam, wipe out the violence') because the answers arn't nearly as cut as dry as that, or probably as I'll put them below for that matter.

 

So are you now arguing that religion should be involved? I'm having difficulty keeping up.

 

Religion should be involved, but not over and above everything else.

 

Didn't you earlier state that the extremists were taking their religious doctrine out of context? Does Islam promote violence or doesn't it?

 

I did, it does and extremists take up promoting that violence, Jihad.

 

Ok. What is this opinion based on? What type of society do you think they want to build?

 

They're strangers in a strange land, they want to fuction as part of society. We'd be fish out of water too in some of their countries. Can you imagine me having to abide by the laws they have in Islamic countries? No thanks.

 

Well, I suppose that's one way of looking at it. Based on my readings of the Bible, I would say the opposite is closer to the truth. Also, Christ's demeanor and purpose can be highly debated based which Gospel and/or book of the NT you read. There is no one clear, definitive vision of who Jesus was. Biblical scholars haven't even laid to rest the nuts and bolts of his sacrifice. As with any fictional character, there is a lot of room for interpretation.

 

He was tortured by the Romans and crucified. Passion of the Christ gives a pretty blow by blow account, though it's not actually a Christian source. What do you mean by the nuts and bolts of his sacrifice? A day by day account of Jesus' life?

 

Did you mean religious acts? I'm sure that satan worshippers and voodoo practitioners (not to equate the two groups) might disagree with you here.

 

Christians don't do it anymore, far as I know. Though I did hear one story about a witch's belongings being burned and the Christians saying she should be burning as well. That's not on.

 

Like those that view a 1800 year old text as their sole source of guidance?

 

Those who believe their religion puts them above the law, that their religion gives them the right to commit violent acts.

 

Crime rate by state (2004) :snip:

 

Did they look at how many Christians and Atheists there were and then how many of them commited the offenses?

 

Depending on how you say it, it certainly is!

 

The wording, tone of voice, ect surely, but just saying someone is black, c'mon.

 

So you'd promote more laws against discrimanatory behavior? I think that this isn't necessarily a bad idea, but if the current laws haven't eliminated discrimination, what makes you think that more laws will? At some point, don't we have to address the problem rather than the symptoms?

 

What is the problem? Religion? Not enough education that the type of behavior is unacceptable? Or simple people with too much powder up the ass and not enough kicking it?

 

So it's ok to eradicate people that we don't agree with?

 

Those who don't wish to function as part of a society, who live by their own terms at the expense of others, shouldn't be a part of society. Does that mean killing them? No. Harsh words on my part. A spell in the lockup on the other hand...

 

Atheists can't call Christianity "nonsense" but you can apply that label to Wicca? Can't have it both ways.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of a cult, but no, fair point, we should respect the beliefs of others regardless of what they are, up until the point they hurt others. The point is it doesn't matter what religion, if any, you pick, you'll get bad eggs in all of them.

 

The only group that I know of that wants to kill Christians is Muslims. And most of them just want you to convert. Or at least leave their holy lands alone.

 

What I'm saying is the theory of 'get rid of this religion, you get rid of the problem', it won't work.

 

I hope you don't have political aspirations. I'll tell you right now: I'm voting for the other guy

 

I'll tell you right now I wouldn't take the job if I was begged to. It's a hell of a job, the voters hate you, the press crucify you and you can have the perfect solution to the world's woes that pleases everybody and if your opponents don't attack it to the point where your own team turns on you then some roadblock or another is thrown up to stop it.

 

Seems to me that violence is only unacceptable when it isn't you weilding it.

 

You noticed? That's probably true, I'm the Butheress of Abu Gharib, a Nazi Stormtrooper and I have a photo of Palpatine next to my bed. Well, that's the story going around on parts of the forum anyway.

 

Well, maybe not Palpatine, maybe Anakin.

[Achilles]

Religion should be involved, but not over and above everything else.

Thanks for clarifying.

Why? What does religion bring to the discussion that isn't already offered by modern ethics? Better yet: What does religion bring to the discussion that is superior to modern ethics?

 

Name as many "wedge" issues as you can. How many of them are "wedge" issues because of religious arguments that have no basis in ethics or morality (in other words, how many of them contain an argument that sounds like "because the Bible says so")?

 

I did, it does and extremists take up promoting that violence, Jihad.

Where do extremists get the concept of Jihad? No matter how many times we circle this argument, the facts aren't going to change: the Bible and the Qu'ran promote violent behavior. We call them extremists, but the fact remains that if adherence to holy texts is a measure of faithfulness, then these people are the only ones getting into Heaven/Paradise.

 

They're strangers in a strange land, they want to fuction as part of society. We'd be fish out of water too in some of their countries. Can you imagine me having to abide by the laws they have in Islamic countries? No thanks.

Huh? Middle Easterners are strangers in their homelands? How does that work?

 

He was tortured by the Romans and crucified.

According to what extant historical document? I'm pretty sure that all we have are several incomplete fictional texts. If my information is incorrect, please let me know.

 

Passion of the Christ gives a pretty blow by blow account, though it's not actually a Christian source.

The Passion of the Christ is a movie. It was based on the accounts provided in the Bible. It's fiction based on fiction. Do you have another source?

 

What do you mean by the nuts and bolts of his sacrifice? A day by day account of Jesus' life?

Was Jesus a man or was he a God. Was he separate from God or another just another face? Why was the sacrifice necessary? How did Jesus' sacrifice differ from other sacrifices with Judaism?

 

Keep in mind, I'm not interested in your opinion on these matters rather what the scholars say. This is a small sample of contested issues within Christianity.

 

Christians don't do it anymore, far as I know. Though I did hear one story about a witch's belongings being burned and the Christians saying she should be burning as well. That's not on.

My point is that "religion" extends beyond the borders of Christianity.

 

Those who believe their religion puts them above the law, that their religion gives them the right to commit violent acts.

I'm not sure how this comment is related to the point that I was making.

 

Did they look at how many Christians and Atheists there were and then how many of them commited the offenses?

If you take a look at the Federal Bureau of Prisons data, you'll find that about 84% of people in prison subscribe to some flavor of Christianity. By way of comparison 0.2% of inmates are Atheists.

 

83% of U.S. population is Christian. 84% of prison population is Christian.

8% of U.S. population are Atheists. 0.2% of prison population are Atheist.

 

Compare those figures to the figures I referenced earlier.

 

The wording, tone of voice, ect surely, but just saying someone is black, c'mon.

The point is, it depends on how you "just" say it.

 

What is the problem? Religion? Not enough education that the type of behavior is unacceptable? Or simple people with too much powder up the ass and not enough kicking it?

The problem is not enough rational discussion about beliefs. How many people do you think would continue to maintain discriminatory beliefs after it became embarrassing to do so? By declaring certain topics "off-limits", we create pockets where such beliefs can exist without fear of examination. Get rid of the pockets and get rid of the beliefs.

 

Those who don't wish to function as part of a society, who live by their own terms at the expense of others, shouldn't be a part of society. Does that mean killing them? No. Harsh words on my part. A spell in the lockup on the other hand...

Who gets to determine what those terms are? What criteria will they be required to use to ensure that those terms are just? What do you suggest we do with these "outsiders"? How do your beliefs compare to the principles outlined in the Bill of Rights?

 

What I'm saying is the theory of 'get rid of this religion, you get rid of the problem', it won't work.

What evidence is your opinion based on?

 

I'll tell you right now I wouldn't take the job if I was begged to. It's a hell of a job, the voters hate you, the press crucify you and you can have the perfect solution to the world's woes that pleases everybody and if your opponents don't attack it to the point where your own team turns on you then some roadblock or another is thrown up to stop it.

Considering that your views sound rather dictatorial, I don't think you'd have to worry about elections or opposition for very long.

 

You noticed? That's probably true, I'm the Butheress of Abu Gharib, a Nazi Stormtrooper and I have a photo of Palpatine next to my bed. Well, that's the story going around on parts of the forum anyway.

 

Well, maybe not Palpatine, maybe Anakin.

You had me at "eradicate".

[The Source]

Now, in case you don't know, Atheists such as myself are pretty much discriminated against more than anyone these days. Surveys have stated that less than 3% of parents would want their child marrying an Atheist, George H.W. Bush (our current president's father) once stated that he didn't know whether Atheists should be considered American citizens, we are stereotyped as being immoral and evil and I've even heard some complete idiots (my own parents included) who have compared my people to terrorists. There are even those who believe that Atheists DO believe in God, but are simply in denial (that's where the "There are no Atheists in foxholes" saying comes from.) I am curious as to what all my fellow forumites think of Atheists. More so, I am curious to hear the opinions of those of you who do believe in God, or even dislike Atheists. However, even though I condone anything basically because I simply wish to hear the truth and don't care how harsh it is, nothing will stop a moderator from stopping things from going out of control. So for those of you who might dislike or look down on my people, I hope you can clearly state your opinion and still stay in the boundaries of the Forum's rules.

Even though I am a Christian, I have no bias towards Atheists. Religion is not for everyone. Sorry to hear that you have had a hard time with being an Atheist. Believe or not believe in anything or nothing at all. It really doesn't matter to me where you stand. If you are a nice person who has a set of personal morals, which do not conflict with logic, I have absolutely no problem in what you do or not believe.

[Jae Onasi]

You had me at "eradicate".

 

 

"I'll take parodies of chick flicks for 500, Alex"

[Nancy Allen``]

Thanks for clarifying.

Why? What does religion bring to the discussion that isn't already offered by modern ethics? Better yet: What does religion bring to the discussion that is superior to modern ethics?

 

Ah, you know, people don't want millions of angry Christians, Jews and Muslims breathing down their necks.

 

Okay, that's a pretty cynical and Atheist way of looking at it but seriously, that's partly true. I think that it's because in any given society if you want morality and ethics you look at religion, which is meant to be a pillar of such things that is meant to be superior. I think it's because we change to suit the morality of the times when we shouldn't and religion is set in stone.

 

As an aside, I remember a Simpsons episode when the priest says of gambling 'If the government declares it law it's no longer immoral'. I think there's a lot of truth in that statement in that despite religion the law stands. That's probably why we see such religious opposition to things, as they could well be seen to be immoral, but once they are passed they have to stand by them.

 

Name as many "wedge" issues as you can. How many of them are "wedge" issues because of religious arguments that have no basis in ethics or morality (in other words, how many of them contain an argument that sounds like "because the Bible says so")?

 

Cloning, stem cell research, gene therapy, not executing or punishing a woman who had drugs on her (the infamous Schapelle Corby and the Muslim religion in Indonesia screaming for her blood). Uh, my brain hurts thinking about it. Three of the four stem, uh, no pun intended, from the arguement of playing God, and the fourth with punishing drug smugglers, I think it has to do with punishing sinners, but I really have no idea.

 

Where do extremists get the concept of Jihad? No matter how many times we circle this argument, the facts aren't going to change: the Bible and the Qu'ran promote violent behavior. We call them extremists, but the fact remains that if adherence to holy texts is a measure of faithfulness, then these people are the only ones getting into Heaven/Paradise.

 

And yet there are those truely dedicated Christians, Muslims, ect who are very much against war. Yes, a few do think they are honoring their God but I still think it's a bit of an excuse to persecute what they don't understand and can't tolerate.

 

Huh? Middle Easterners are strangers in their homelands? How does that work?

 

In our countries they are strangers. I read about a Croatian basketball player and how he tried fitting in. Same thing.

 

According to what extant historical document? I'm pretty sure that all we have are several incomplete fictional texts. If my information is incorrect, please let me know.

 

The texts of Matthew, John, Paul and others in the New Testement of the Bible. This is how the book is made up, as well as texts such as Exedus which details Moses and the Jews leaving Egypt, Solomon, of King Solomon, Corinthians and Galations which tells of visits to those people and Revelations which details how we will all die. I know, charming. Any other sources I can point to? Nup, I haven't bothered to look. But I might, given the right incentive.

 

Was Jesus a man or was he a God. Was he separate from God or another just another face? Why was the sacrifice necessary? How did Jesus' sacrifice differ from other sacrifices with Judaism?

 

Hmmm, let me think. The first part is debated but I think Jesus was God made flesh. Jesus was God's son, essentially God so that we might see him, as it says that God is so great we cannot see him. His sacrifice was nessecary to absolve the world of sin. Before God would wipe out sin, physically wipe it out, such as using evil Spartan like warriors to destroy the entire kingdom of Niniva, innocent and guilty alike, because of how sinful it was. Such as having armies destroy other kingdoms, telling the soldiers to maim, rape, pillage slaughter and burn everything, women, children. Or the great flood where God was going to destroy it all because of sin. Jesus's sacrifice differs from Judaism in that they don't see Jesus as the Messiah, that's as basically as I can put it particularly because I'm not sure of the details.

 

My point is that "religion" extends beyond the borders of Christianity.

 

Of course. Atheism is about the only place where it stops.

 

I'm not sure how this comment is related to the point that I was making.

 

Those that view a 1800 year old text as their sole source of guidance? Those who read the texts and think they would honor their God by killing people or they can use religion as an excuse are the problem.

 

If you take a look at the Federal Bureau of Prisons data, you'll find that about 84% of people in prison subscribe to some flavor of Christianity. By way of comparison 0.2% of inmates are Atheists.

 

83% of U.S. population is Christian. 84% of prison population is Christian.

8% of U.S. population are Atheists. 0.2% of prison population are Atheist.

 

Compare those figures to the figures I referenced earlier.

 

Aha, that's what I was looking for. So of the 8% of Atheists in America such a small percentage of them are criminals. It's interesting. I wonder what crimes they were convicted for, that could make for further reading. Especially if these Atheists were arrested for speaking out against religion.

 

The problem is not enough rational discussion about beliefs. How many people do you think would continue to maintain discriminatory beliefs after it became embarrassing to do so? By declaring certain topics "off-limits", we create pockets where such beliefs can exist without fear of examination. Get rid of the pockets and get rid of the beliefs.

 

So we get right back to the issue of get rid of religion, or beliefs, you get rid of the problem. Has it occured to you that a lot of problems don't stem from religion?

 

Who gets to determine what those terms are? What criteria will they be required to use to ensure that those terms are just? What do you suggest we do with these "outsiders"? How do your beliefs compare to the principles outlined in the Bill of Rights?

 

Arresting gangs of youths tearing neighbourhoods aparts and having them cool off in a prison cell is already done. Charging drunks who get into fights is already done. People are even sent to the church for a change of scenary. I think this works well. It's not without it's problems, but by the same token we'll keep Judge Dredd well out of the hands of legislators, they might put the idea of a police state and legal death squads into practice.

 

What evidence is your opinion based on?

 

We can look at history as an example, when religion was banned in the Soviet Union and Hitler tried to exterminate the Jews, but we don't really need to. People will still be just as currupt, violent and criminal without religion. Those who seek conflict will use politics and racism as a reason for it, and with religion outlawed those topics will become topics of conflict anyway.

[Emperor Devon]

religion is set in stone.

 

Sometimes *too* set in stone, in my opinion. Simple morality is completely inflexible in its "tenants" and much harder to use to justify things that violate them. There is no way you can say murder is moral, for instance.

 

Religion, however, can override simple morality. When you bring God into the whole thing, you bring in something that can be used to justify any action no matter how immoral. Look at the case of that one mother who drowned her children a few months ago - from a moral perspective, murdering children is a bad thing. But introduce religion into it and that changes things. What if she killed them to save their souls from Satan, as she claimed? There, you've just justified a perfectly monstrous act with an appeal to authority.

 

When you introduce a power as high as God to something, you completely negate your own sense of morals - they are inferior to God. Worse yet, you can't ever question the will of God, no matter how immoral He may appear.

 

With this you can do the most evil of acts and justify it all with that a higher authority (God) directed you to do it. (Doesn't that sound an awful lot like the "I was only obeying orders" excuse a lot of post-WWII Nazis used?) It's been done more than a few times - look at the 4rd Crusade if you want another example. By God's will, the Crusaders were supposed to conquer Constantinople. Despite how such an action was obviously immoral in how it resulted in the near-destruction of one of the most cultured and wealthy cities in the world at that time, God wanted it so it had to be done.

 

Yes, religion is set in stone - which is especially dangerous considering that religion itself is not morality, but rather an idea that is supposed to uphold morality. Introduce a being whose unquestionable word can override our own earthly views of morality and justify acts which obviously are not moral, and you've chosen a pretty bad thing to set in stone.

[Achilles]

Ah, you know, people don't want millions of angry Christians, Jews and Muslims breathing down their necks.

In other words, to pander to the majority regardless of how valid or invalid their views might be?

 

Okay, that's a pretty cynical and Atheist way of looking at it but seriously, that's partly true. I think that it's because in any given society if you want morality and ethics you look at religion, which is meant to be a pillar of such things that is meant to be superior. I think it's because we change to suit the morality of the times when we shouldn't and religion is set in stone.

Sounds like you're finally acknowledging my argument that true believers should be following the violent instructions included in their holy texts. Somehow I still have the impression that you'll contradict that elsewhere in this response.

 

Before we move on: You only answered one of my questions. What are your thoughts on the rest?

 

As an aside, I remember a Simpsons episode when the priest says of gambling 'If the government declares it law it's no longer immoral'. I think there's a lot of truth in that statement in that despite religion the law stands. That's probably why we see such religious opposition to things, as they could well be seen to be immoral, but once they are passed they have to stand by them.

Doesn't seem like much of a system of morals then.

 

Cloning, stem cell research, gene therapy, not executing or punishing a woman who had drugs on her (the infamous Schapelle Corby and the Muslim religion in Indonesia screaming for her blood). Uh, my brain hurts thinking about it. Three of the four stem, uh, no pun intended, from the arguement of playing God, and the fourth with punishing drug smugglers, I think it has to do with punishing sinners, but I really have no idea.

I don't know if Corby counts as a wedge issue. So 100% of the issues you listed are religious in nature. Wouldn't it be nice if we could leave religion out of it and examine each of these things on their ethical merits alone?

 

And yet there are those truely dedicated Christians, Muslims, ect who are very much against war.

Those are called "moderates". Not the same thing.

 

Yes, a few do think they are honoring their God but I still think it's a bit of an excuse to persecute what they don't understand and can't tolerate.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the holy texts tell us specifically to do that. Am I misunderstanding you?

 

In our countries they are strangers. I read about a Croatian basketball player and how he tried fitting in. Same thing.

Location has nothing to do with it. Where do you think the extremist come from? Even if I were to entertain your hypothesis, it would quickly fall apart after I looked around and noticed all the immigrant Latins, Asians, and Europeans in my neighborhood that aren't terrorists.

 

The texts of Matthew, John, Paul and others in the New Testement of the Bible. This is how the book is made up, as well as texts such as Exedus which details Moses and the Jews leaving Egypt, Solomon, of King Solomon, Corinthians and Galations which tells of visits to those people and Revelations which details how we will all die. I know, charming. Any other sources I can point to? Nup, I haven't bothered to look. But I might, given the right incentive.

All of which are fiction. Paul's letters have clear authorship, however Paul admits that he's never actually seen Jesus. None of the Gospels are eyewitness accounts.

 

Hmmm, let me think.

Per my earlier message, I'm not asking for your opinion. I'm asking you to point to a single source that has an undisputed answer for any or all of these questions.

 

Of course. Atheism is about the only place where it stops.

Even though you earlier tried to exclude other belief systems. That was my point.

 

Those that view a 1800 year old text as their sole source of guidance? Those who read the texts and think they would honor their God by killing people or they can use religion as an excuse are the problem.

Really? They're just doing what their Gods have told them to do.

 

Aha, that's what I was looking for. So of the 8% of Atheists in America such a small percentage of them are criminals. It's interesting. I wonder what crimes they were convicted for, that could make for further reading. Especially if these Atheists were arrested for speaking out against religion.

Freedom of Speech. Such an arrest would never hold up. They were probably convicted of something terrible enough to get them thrown in prison. The point is that a disproportionate percentage of inmates are atheists. So based on the evidence, who is more likely to display illegal/immoral behavior? A religious person or a non-religious person? What does this say about "religion being the sole source of morality"? Or even a good source of morality for that matter?

 

So we get right back to the issue of get rid of religion, or beliefs, you get rid of the problem. Has it occured to you that a lot of problems don't stem from religion?

Absolutely. My sore feet have nothing to do with religion.

 

Let's list all the modern social issues. Then we can make a list of all the ones that have religious ties. Sound like a plan?

 

Also, you didn't answer my question

 

Arresting gangs of youths tearing neighbourhoods aparts and having them cool off in a prison cell is already done. Charging drunks who get into fights is already done. People are even sent to the church for a change of scenary. I think this works well. It's not without it's problems, but by the same token we'll keep Judge Dredd well out of the hands of legislators, they might put the idea of a police state and legal death squads into practice.

You didn't answer any of my questions.

 

We can look at history as an example, when religion was banned in the Soviet Union and Hitler tried to exterminate the Jews, but we don't really need to. People will still be just as currupt, violent and criminal without religion. Those who seek conflict will use politics and racism as a reason for it, and with religion outlawed those topics will become topics of conflict anyway.

Fascist regimes have bigger problems than atheism. Also, as I've pointed out before, Hitler was a Catholic, not an Atheist. In other words, there's no causal relationships. Would you like to try another source?

[Nancy Allen``]

Maybe I'm not giving you the answers you want to hear. Maybe I'm not saying 'religion is evil, we must stop it at all costs'. The problem isn't as cut and dry as you might like to make it out to be. We cannot just lump every Christian, Jew and Muslim in the one box. By doing that the innocent are punished as well as the guilty.