| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/12/2013 07:09:46 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I would disagree, but mostly just to replace the word God with truth.
I just wish more Christians were half as wise as you - I'd probably be far less defensively aggressive about the whole thing. |
Not to throw fuel on a fire, but why do you let someone else's lack of wisdom make you defensively aggressive? Aggression is bad for digestion, and for the planet as a whole. In the immortal words of Sly Stone, "Don't let the bastards bring you down"... |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 07:12:47 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
There are so many different belief systems out there, all claiming to be the right one and everyone else being wrong. Even if tolerant of other faiths, this underlying concept of "We are right and everyone else is an evil sinner" is usually there. This makes me question a lot of things. |
For me this is the answer in it's entirety. This simple observation rather neatly proves that almost every religion must be wrong. - The question that remains is "how wrong?" |
Interestingly enough, what you are both saying is that Religions are all wrong and Atheists are right because religions claim to be right and say Atheists are wrong...
Anyone see a smidget of irony here? |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 07:22:11 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by myqyl:
Curious... When is that "certain point later on"? |
The point of viability. |
The point of viability? I'm 54 and my wife says i probably couldn't survive on my own... Certainly a 1 year old baby would die pretty quickly if left to their own devices... This seems like a very vague line. Could you explain what you mean please? |
"Viability" in this context means the point in fetal development when the fetus obtains the physical capacity to survive outside the womb.
Are you really not familiar with this concept? |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 07:24:52 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by myqyl:
I won't judge all Atheists by the policies of the Chinese government if you don't judge all Christians by the blathering of the Westboro baptists... |
Dumb. China's policies are not dictated by disbelief in gods, while the Westboro Baptists' policies are wholly dependent upon religious belief. |
I think we had finally concluded that the Westboro clan's policies were likely dependent on money as they were all lawyers and reaping rewards by suing people... |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 07:25:01 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
The point of viability? Could you explain what you mean please? |
The Supreme Court explained this in Roe v Wade. |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 07:27:31 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
This has been an interesting thread. I've never felt that morality and religion are tied together. In fact, the atheist who does good for the sake of doing the right thing should be considered better than the person who does good for fear of retribution in the afterlife or social pressure from their church. |
That's interesting... Do you really believe that religious people act out of fear of retribution? I think you have a somewhat skewed vision of religious people. That's really far down on the list of motivations...
|
Do you not? Really? I mean, seriously, a solid 5th of the bible is about retribution.
Really, a central theme of Christianity is fear of punishment and avoidance of hell - true, people do tend to focus on the heaven and loving God aspects of the whole thing, but in reality, it's a dual motivation - and that's one reason it works so well, the stick and the carrot are in harmony.
ETA: Personal Story:
My favorite Aunt, who I do love dearly, is a bread-belt Christian - it breaks my heart, honestly, that she is truly devastated by my lack of faith in her religion - she is convinced that she will miss me in heaven, and she tells me that she cries thinking about me burning in hell, and doesn't think she can enjoy heaven if I'm not there.
Please, if you can, tell me that this isn't proof of that fear, and just how deeply it is instilled in most Chrisitans, due (I think) to the constant reinforcement from a very young age.. |
There are so many points to discuss here that I'm not sure where to start. Perhaps the fact that hell is not "retribution"? Perhaps in the fact that many people's (Religious and non-religious alike) understanding of Heaven and hell is horribly skewed. Perhaps in the fact that your aunt's belief that you can not attain heaven without "faith in her religion" is horribly flawed and un-Scriptural?
But instead, let me offer a pragmatic solution... Tell her you found God and are looking forward to eternal life with her. If your a true Atheist, why not? Is there a moral imperative that makes you cruelly be honest with her instead of simply making her happy? And if there is a moral imperative, where does it come from?
I know this is less than meaningful to you in any way, but I'm praying for you and your aunt to work this out. And I mean that is an actaul action I am doing, not a platitude to say in a forum. You are both in my prayers. |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 07:34:38 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by myqyl:
Curious... When is that "certain point later on"? |
The point of viability. |
The point of viability? I'm 54 and my wife says i probably couldn't survive on my own... Certainly a 1 year old baby would die pretty quickly if left to their own devices... This seems like a very vague line. Could you explain what you mean please? |
"Viability" in this context means the point in fetal development when the fetus obtains the physical capacity to survive outside the womb.
Are you really not familiar with this concept? |
I've heard the concept, but still haven't heard a specific definition... A newborn can not survive outside the womb without significant assistance. Neither can an elderly Alzheimer's patient. An embryo CAN survive outside the womb and many do.
For such an important issue this seems a remarkably vague definition. |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 07:37:18 AM · #33 |
It would be fun to go back and discuss the crusades. I think the OP's point could have been that the link between the negative aspects of the Crusades and religion (certainly modern religion) are as tenuous or as strong as the link between China being an atheist government and their forced abortion policy.
I think we envision the Crusades as a bunch of people rushing out somewhere with the expressed purpose of killing non-Christians. The reality is far more complex. First, they happened over three centuries. Second, they had all sorts of motives. Third, some didn't even make it to their objective and were derailed practically from the start.
For a modern day objector to think that they are gaining traction against today's religions by simply citing "the Crusades" is pretty silly, yet it happens all the time... |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 07:37:34 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by Cory:
I would disagree, but mostly just to replace the word God with truth.
I just wish more Christians were half as wise as you - I'd probably be far less defensively aggressive about the whole thing. |
Not to throw fuel on a fire, but why do you let someone else's lack of wisdom make you defensively aggressive? Aggression is bad for digestion, and for the planet as a whole. In the immortal words of Sly Stone, "Don't let the bastards bring you down"... |
Someone's gotta hold the line. I suppose I do it because I've got it in me, and I think it needs to be done. :) |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 07:37:51 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by myqyl:
The point of viability? Could you explain what you mean please? |
The Supreme Court explained this in Roe v Wade. |
At one point in our history the Supreme Court also ruled that non-Whites were not people either. It wasn't until they were declared people that they couldn't be legally killed anymore. |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 07:41:29 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
There are so many different belief systems out there, all claiming to be the right one and everyone else being wrong. Even if tolerant of other faiths, this underlying concept of "We are right and everyone else is an evil sinner" is usually there. This makes me question a lot of things. |
For me this is the answer in it's entirety. This simple observation rather neatly proves that almost every religion must be wrong. - The question that remains is "how wrong?" |
Interestingly enough, what you are both saying is that Religions are all wrong and Atheists are right because religions claim to be right and say Atheists are wrong...
Anyone see a smidget of irony here? |
Well, the least that can be said is that Atheists, as a whole, are significantly less contradictory with each other than the Judeo-Christian folks. Seems to follow that we might be more trustworthy on that basis. |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 07:44:31 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Someone's gotta hold the line. I suppose I do it because I've got it in me, and I think it needs to be done. :) |
Umm... Why does someone have to hold the line? I mean, if life is so short and when you die it's all over, why care about the line?
Back when I was an Atheists, I started as the rabid, hold the line at all cost brand... Then I evolved into a "so what?" Atheist that figured nothing was worth fighting about because nothing is really just nothing, and then you die... So why waste time fighting. Those were 3 very fun years... |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 07:46:11 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think the OP's point could have been that the link between the negative aspects of the Crusades and religion (certainly modern religion) are as tenuous or as strong as the link between China being an atheist government and their forced abortion policy. |
Not as tenuous, and not limited to the Crusades...
Originally posted by Paul:
I agree, talk of the crusades is perhaps silly in a modern context. Catholic cover ups of child abuse, Islamic abuse of women, religious faction conflicts in the middle east, sectarian conflicts between India and Pakistan or in Northern Ireland - perhaps not so much. |
|
|
|
|
04/12/2013 07:49:40 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
...
But instead, let me offer a pragmatic solution... Tell her you found God and are looking forward to eternal life with her. If your a true Atheist, why not? Is there a moral imperative that makes you cruelly be honest with her instead of simply making her happy? And if there is a moral imperative, where does it come from?
I know this is less than meaningful to you in any way, but I'm praying for you and your aunt to work this out. And I mean that is an actaul action I am doing, not a platitude to say in a forum. You are both in my prayers. |
Oh, but that really would be wrong - I don't care for people who aren't generally honest. Yes, if honesty is cruel, then so be it - I cannot, and will not lie - as not only is lying ethically wrong, there's also no way I could maintain such a lie for even a short period of time - and we are rather close, and do speak at length, reasonably often.
So, there's very good reason to not lie - in my personal system of ethics lying is equivalent to cheating and stealing. She's been praying for years, it has yet to do much good I'm afraid.
Message edited by author 2013-04-12 12:00:37. |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 07:51:11 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Well, the least that can be said is that Atheists, as a whole, are significantly less contradictory with each other than the Judeo-Christian folks. Seems to follow that we might be more trustworthy on that basis. |
WILDLY flawed logic here :) I mean really... When I was a founding member of the Atheist Student Union back in college, we couldn't agree on ANYTHING! And as a personal observation, I am far more trustworthy now then I was back then...
The contradictions in Judeo-Christianity is on specifics... We all pretty much agree on the big stuff (Loving God that created the Universe). |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 07:55:39 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by Cory:
Someone's gotta hold the line. I suppose I do it because I've got it in me, and I think it needs to be done. :) |
Umm... Why does someone have to hold the line? I mean, if life is so short and when you die it's all over, why care about the line?
Back when I was an Atheists, I started as the rabid, hold the line at all cost brand... Then I evolved into a "so what?" Atheist that figured nothing was worth fighting about because nothing is really just nothing, and then you die... So why waste time fighting. Those were 3 very fun years... |
Because the small changes that I make in the world today will propagate through time - for better or worse? Who's to say, but it does matter - just not to me. Still, this goes back to the ethics and values by which I choose to live - I value helping others, I want the world to be a good place that isn't overrun by this (forgive me) sanctioned insanity.
The line is important, because were it not for those who speak up, the religious would be so bold as to think everyone agrees with them.
As Ghandi said -
Originally posted by Mahatma Gandhi:
"A 'No' uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a 'Yes' merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble."
|
|
|
|
|
04/12/2013 07:59:46 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by Cory:
Well, the least that can be said is that Atheists, as a whole, are significantly less contradictory with each other than the Judeo-Christian folks. Seems to follow that we might be more trustworthy on that basis. |
WILDLY flawed logic here :) I mean really... When I was a founding member of the Atheist Student Union back in college, we couldn't agree on ANYTHING! And as a personal observation, I am far more trustworthy now then I was back then...
The contradictions in Judeo-Christianity is on specifics... We all pretty much agree on the big stuff (Loving God that created the Universe). |
Oh really? Loving god? You're sure about that? ;)
Atheists are clear on one point: We are on our own, one life, one chance. The critical bit here is that we're not going to gouge each others eyes out over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or other useless bits. We're far more concerned with reality, and I think that's the salient point for me. |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 08:02:26 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Oh, but that really would be wrong - I don't care for people who aren't generally honest. Yes, if honesty is cruel, then so be it - I cannot, and will not lie - as not only is lying ethically wrong, there's also no way I could maintain such a lie for even a short period of time - and we are rather close, and do speak at length, and often.
So, there's very good reason to not lie - in my personal system of ethics lying is equivalent to cheating and stealing. She's been praying for years, it has yet to do much good I'm afraid. |
Ok... Not sure why an Atheist would consider a comforting lie to be "unethical", but I can understand the "wouldn't get away with it" part.
So let me ask you, if your Aunt (and I) are right that people that live a good, ethical life and help those in need will go to heaven and that those that bred hatred and hostility will go to hell, which one do you think you're bound for? I don't know you very well at all, but from what I do know I've always believed that I'll get a great amount of joy out of being behind you in line as we walk into heaven while I repeatedly say "I told you so... I told you so..."
Explain to her that you are living a life that would make Jesus very happy even if you don't believe He is God. Ask her if Jesus would condemn you when you followed His command... (Love others as I have loved you)
It may give her comfort, and unless I misjudge you (which is certainly possible) would be absolutely true. |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 08:05:16 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by Cory:
As Ghandi said -
Originally posted by Mahatma Gandhi:
"A 'No' uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a 'Yes' merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble."
|
|
An Argument for Atheism by quoting, quite possibly, the most religious person on the last century. Bravo for life's little ironies! |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 08:05:42 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
We all pretty much agree on the big stuff (Loving God that created the Universe). |
He's a loving God, He's a jealous God, he's an angry God. It's all true. He (or she, or it) is whatever man makes him to be.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2013 08:06:44 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by Cory:
As Ghandi said -
Originally posted by Mahatma Gandhi:
"A 'No' uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a 'Yes' merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble."
|
|
An Argument for Atheism by quoting, quite possibly, the most religious person on the last century. Bravo for life's little ironies! |
Ahh, but he wasn't Christian! I don't think I've ever heard a Hindu argue about how wrong everyone else is, mostly they just have a "you can believe what you wish" attitude, which I respect. |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 08:07:56 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by myqyl:
Curious... When is that "certain point later on"? |
The point of viability. |
The point of viability? I'm 54 and my wife says i probably couldn't survive on my own... Certainly a 1 year old baby would die pretty quickly if left to their own devices... This seems like a very vague line. Could you explain what you mean please? |
"Viability" in this context means the point in fetal development when the fetus obtains the physical capacity to survive outside the womb.
Are you really not familiar with this concept? |
I've heard the concept, but still haven't heard a specific definition... A newborn can not survive outside the womb without significant assistance. Neither can an elderly Alzheimer's patient. An embryo CAN survive outside the womb and many do.
For such an important issue this seems a remarkably vague definition. |
An embryo cannot develop beyond the embryonic stage, cannot reach viability outside the womb. |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 08:10:52 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by Cory:
Oh, but that really would be wrong - I don't care for people who aren't generally honest. Yes, if honesty is cruel, then so be it - I cannot, and will not lie - as not only is lying ethically wrong, there's also no way I could maintain such a lie for even a short period of time - and we are rather close, and do speak at length, and often.
So, there's very good reason to not lie - in my personal system of ethics lying is equivalent to cheating and stealing. She's been praying for years, it has yet to do much good I'm afraid. |
Ok... Not sure why an Atheist would consider a comforting lie to be "unethical", but I can understand the "wouldn't get away with it" part.
So let me ask you, if your Aunt (and I) are right that people that live a good, ethical life and help those in need will go to heaven and that those that bred hatred and hostility will go to hell, which one do you think you're bound for? I don't know you very well at all, but from what I do know I've always believed that I'll get a great amount of joy out of being behind you in line as we walk into heaven while I repeatedly say "I told you so... I told you so..."
Explain to her that you are living a life that would make Jesus very happy even if you don't believe He is God. Ask her if Jesus would condemn you when you followed His command... (Love others as I have loved you)
It may give her comfort, and unless I misjudge you (which is certainly possible) would be absolutely true. |
Yeah.. I did try that - seemed like it would work too. Sadly, she's been raised and conditioned to believe that the only key to heaven is accepting and acknowledging the 'fact' that Jesus died for my sins, and that only through him can I find salvation.
I will say that if I am wrong, and there is a God, Heaven, Jesus(gatekeeper), etc. I only want in if people who are like me are welcome, otherwise I'd prefer the alternative - as an eternity filled with 'that sort' seems as close to Hell as anything I can possibly imagine. ;)
Message edited by author 2013-04-12 12:18:52. |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 08:13:05 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think the OP's point could have been that the link between the negative aspects of the Crusades and religion (certainly modern religion) are as tenuous or as strong as the link between China being an atheist government and their forced abortion policy. |
Not as tenuous, and not limited to the Crusades...
Originally posted by Paul:
I agree, talk of the crusades is perhaps silly in a modern context. Catholic cover ups of child abuse, Islamic abuse of women, religious faction conflicts in the middle east, sectarian conflicts between India and Pakistan or in Northern Ireland - perhaps not so much. |
|
This is the point where people start making laundry lists and comparing those lists, etc. Useless. Is there any reason to feel these conflicts are caused because the people are religious and not because the people are people (ie. this is the way people are). You mention abuse of women, but that happens worldwide AND one could point out (which has been done in other threads), the Chinese government is responsible for killing unborn women at a much higher rate than unborn men (not to mention forcing a woman to have an abortion). Isn't that highly abusive to women to kill them and take their babies away? Does it mean anything when I point it out? (I know how the conversation goes though. At this point "atheism" becomes the ephemeral ghost where nothing can be laid at its door because it isn't a "creed". But the point is if religion is the sickness, then we shouldn't expect symptoms when we don't have religion yet here we are, abusing women in an areligious society.)
Message edited by author 2013-04-12 12:21:55. |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 08:23:27 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Oh really? Loving god? You're sure about that? ;)
Atheists are clear on one point: We are on our own, one life, one chance. The critical bit here is that we're not going to gouge each others eyes out over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or other useless bits. We're far more concerned with reality, and I think that's the salient point for me. |
Ah! We are coming to the crux of it now! (no pun intended and probably none understood either :) )
You judge all (or most) religious people based on the actions of the Westboro Bozos, Saturday Morning Televangelists, and pedophiles that usurped the priesthood. This would be like me saying the crimes of the Khmer Rouge, Mao, Stalin etc were the results of their Atheism. Both statements are just plain wrong. When I was an Atheist I frankly didn't give a damn about reality. Atheists are no more unified in their vision of reality than the religious are.
In my opinion, and I truly mean no offense, the crux of the problem is people on both sides that feel they need to "hold the line"... I say screw the line... It ain't actually a "line" with two sides anyway... At best it's an infinite amount of random scribbling with everyone standing behind their own patch of it certain they are right.
The truly religious agree on one thing... That we don't know the nature of God and won't until God explains it to us after we've died. |
|
