| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/12/2013 07:10:48 PM · #101 |
| The OP also hasn't posted an image or entered a challenge since 2010. Just an observation. |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 09:34:27 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by Paul:
I'm an atheist and I haven't killed anybody. Am I doing it wrong?
|
I don't know. I'm a Christian and I haven't killed anybody. Am I doing it wrong? I kid. I'll tell you the same thing that atheists always tell me. "I never blamed you personally for killing anybody."
Originally posted by Paul:
There are plenty of people of faith who do good things - I thank them as human beings not for their religion. There are plenty of people of no faith who do good things - I thank them as human beings too.
|
Please give credit where credit is due. When I do good things it's for the sake of Christ. Not for the sake of humanity. To give credit to me is stealing credit from God. I'd rather you poop in my shoe than give me any credit for the good I do. Everything I do, I do to honor Christ.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Please speak for yourself.....this is an opinion, not fact, and therefore your premise doesn't work. We are not all bad, greedy, cruel, and horrific. Please speak for yourself and don't lump all of us into your little band of bad people.
|
Opinion? Perhaps. It is a subjective statement. However I tend to think of it as more an observation of human history than mere personal opinion. It has been argued that history is a science, you know. Further, the second step in the scientific method is observation. Nevertheless, many, many philosophers have shown that the "humanity is inherently evil" argument is logically tenable. If you don't like it, pick your bones with them.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
One other thing you may want to consider.......there is no "President of the Atheists" or some such thing, whereas your Christian leaders have long tried to justify their atrocities in "The name of the Lord".
|
To the contrary, the Chinese President is as much the "President of the Atheists" today as the King of Spain was the "King of the Christians" in the 11th century. The only reason atheists don't commit atrocities in the name of _____ supreme being is because atheists don't believe in supreme beings. Perfect example of this: North Korea. North Korea is officially atheist. There, instead of worshiping a "god" they essentially "worship" their "dear leader." They murder their own people, starve their own people, and do only-God-knows-what to their own people in the name of their "dear leader" who is, it just so happens, a (you guessed it) atheist (*gasp*).
Originally posted by JH:
I love the jump from 'atheism' to 'abortion' in paragraph 3. How are they related exactly?
|
I don't know... maybe in the same way that "Christianity" is related to "war causalities?" If person X (the King of Spain, perhaps) orders that all Y (infidels/non-Christians) be killed, then person X is at least partially responsible for the deaths of Y. Isn't that how the Crusades argument goes? All I'm saying is that in this case person X is the atheist president of China, and that Y are defenseless human babies. Same kind of connection.
Originally posted by Melethia:
The OP also hasn't posted an image or entered a challenge since 2010. Just an observation. |
Started grad school in 2010. Just finished. Looking forward to having time to get back into photography :)
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. |
Bingo. My point exactly.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
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... |
Indeed, it would be fun. Thank you for summing up my original intention for this thread so nicely.[/quote]
Exactly. It happens all the time. Hence the reason for my "rant" in the first place. |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 10:28:26 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
When I do good things it's for the sake of Christ. Not for the sake of humanity. |
I find this disturbing. |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 10:32:08 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
When I do good things it's for the sake of Christ. Not for the sake of humanity. |
I find this disturbing. |
Please explain. |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 10:39:27 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
[quote=DrAchoo] ... What you are probably saying is you consider all those examples to be "persons" which would be a legal or philosophical term to indicate they are members of a society with rights and intrinsic worth. |
I hate to nitpick, but in this country, the term "person" can also alluded to a legal entity such as a business. :O)
Ray |
Well, we all know Canada is odd... ;)
You can can correct me though Ray, because I don't know. Would a corporation actually be a "person" or have "the same rights and responsibilities as a person" in the eyes of the law? I sense it's the second and not the first. |
It's known as a "legal fiction", and yes, corporations are real people too. |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 10:45:36 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Paul:
There are plenty of people of faith who do good things - I thank them as human beings not for their religion. There are plenty of people of no faith who do good things - I thank them as human beings too.
|
Please give credit where credit is due. When I do good things it's for the sake of Christ. Not for the sake of humanity. To give credit to me is stealing credit from God. I'd rather you poop in my shoe than give me any credit for the good I do. Everything I do, I do to honor Christ.
|
Man, this is one thing that does just bug the holy fuck out of me. I see people who are rescued by SAR or First Responders, and their response is to thank God, Jesus, whatever, and never a word of thanks for the men and women who gave up their time and risked their asses to save the person.
Perhaps you see it as giving credit where credit is due, and you feel that thanking the persons who saved you would be stealing from God - but my opinion on it is that if that's the case, then we really should have just left it up to God to save your ass. |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 10:59:38 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by bohemka:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
When I do good things it's for the sake of Christ. Not for the sake of humanity. |
I find this disturbing. |
Please explain. |
To be honest I'm a bit lost for words. Who vets what Christ tells you? |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 11:15:34 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Perhaps you see it as giving credit where credit is due, and you feel that thanking the persons who saved you would be stealing from God - but my opinion on it is that if that's the case, then we really should have just left it up to God to save your ass. |
Your concern is quite unnecessary. I was merely saying that when I personally do something good I want the credit given to Christ. I never said that I would fail to give others the recognition due them for their good deeds. Quite the contrary. If I was rescued by a first responder I would most certainly be grateful to them.
Originally posted by bohemka:
To be honest I'm a bit lost for words. Who vets what Christ tells you? |
I'm simply requesting an explanation for your feeling of disturbance.
Is my giving credit to Christ any different than a soldier giving credit to his commander for an accomplished mission, or a student giving credit to their teacher for a passed exam? I think not. |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 11:34:52 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by bohemka:
To be honest I'm a bit lost for words. Who vets what Christ tells you? |
I'm simply requesting an explanation for your feeling of disturbance.
Is my giving credit to Christ any different than a soldier giving credit to his commander for an accomplished mission, or a student giving credit to their teacher for a passed exam? I think not. |
Of course it is, because those are three entirely separate and disassociated relationships. Are you just f'ng around here? |
|
|
|
04/12/2013 11:45:57 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Cory:
Perhaps you see it as giving credit where credit is due, and you feel that thanking the persons who saved you would be stealing from God - but my opinion on it is that if that's the case, then we really should have just left it up to God to save your ass. |
Your concern is quite unnecessary. I was merely saying that when I personally do something good I want the credit given to Christ. I never said that I would fail to give others the recognition due them for their good deeds. Quite the contrary. If I was rescued by a first responder I would most certainly be grateful to them.
Originally posted by bohemka:
To be honest I'm a bit lost for words. Who vets what Christ tells you? |
I'm simply requesting an explanation for your feeling of disturbance.
Is my giving credit to Christ any different than a soldier giving credit to his commander for an accomplished mission, or a student giving credit to their teacher for a passed exam? I think not. |
You have free will! No one except yourself makes your decisions. Your reasoning is akin to saying âthe devil made me do itâ when something goes wrong.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2013 12:28:41 AM · #111 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Of course it is, because those are three entirely separate and disassociated relationships. Are you just f'ng around here? |
Not at all. The relationship has little to do with my argument. My point is that a person who is in a position of authority should be credited when a person under their authority accomplishes something. Teachers have the power to set their students up for failure, or for success. If they teach well then they deserve some credit. It would be foolish for a student to claim that they accomplished all their learning and academic achievements completely on their own. In the same way, it would be foolish for me to take all the credit for my "good deeds" when I believe that Christ has authority over my life and that he is the one enabling me to do good. He deserves some credit. That's all I'm saying.
Originally posted by Stagolee:
You have free will! No one except yourself makes your decisions. Your reasoning is akin to saying âthe devil made me do itâ when something goes wrong. |
Of course I have free will. I never said that "Jesus made me do it." He enables me to do good, but he does not force me to. A teacher enables students to succeed in school, but cannot force them. Ultimately, it is up to the student to decide whether they will pass or fail. Nevertheless, the teacher still deserves some credit for enabling the student's learning. Christ enables me to do good, so I give him credit.
Why is this so hard to understand?
This is all beside the point. My original point was that the whole "religion does more harm than good" argument is flawed, illogical, invalid, and highly subjective. We should get back to the original topic.
As NikonJeb pointed out early on in this thread, it is an opinion to say that people are good are bad. Interesting. This must only mean that some people (such as myself) are of the opinion that people are inherently bad while other people (such as Jeb) are of the opinion that people are inherently good. To separate persons with properly functioning cognitive abilities (apparently) come to different opinions. May I also point out that there are differing opinions regarding the morality of such things like religious crusades, abortions, etc. For example, many people today believe that the Crusades were "bad." However, the modern day notion of "Jihad" in radical Islam is similar, in principle, to the Crusades. Interestingly, there are quite a few people who see nothing wrong with "Jihad." So, with these differing opinions, who is right? And who's to say that the other is wrong? This question get's to the center of my thinking that prompted this thread. Religious people make their good vs. bad judgments based on their moral framework, which is in turn based on the laws of their respective deity. Atheists, on the other hand, make their good vs. bad judgments based on their moral framework which is based on science, hedonism, humanism, or something else. Who's right? Who's wrong? Who has the right to sit on their high horse and claim that they have the corner on doing good, and the other side only does "more harm than good?" As long as there are two completely different moral frameworks at play there will always be "two sides to the coin" and any judgment of what or who is "good" is completely subjective. And that is why I started this thread. You say "religion does more harm than good," I say "atheism does more harm than good." Equally subjective statements, and equally piss poor arguments against religion (or atheism for that matter). |
|
|
|
04/13/2013 01:33:33 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Please speak for yourself.....this is an opinion, not fact, and therefore your premise doesn't work. We are not all bad, greedy, cruel, and horrific. Please speak for yourself and don't lump all of us into your little band of bad people.
|
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Opinion? Perhaps. It is a subjective statement. However I tend to think of it as more an observation of human history than mere personal opinion. It has been argued that history is a science, you know. Further, the second step in the scientific method is observation. Nevertheless, many, many philosophers have shown that the "humanity is inherently evil" argument is logically tenable. If you don't like it, pick your bones with them. |
Sorry.......I choose to see the inherent good and decency in the human being. If you want to dwell on the bad, hey, that's your choice.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
One other thing you may want to consider.......there is no "President of the Atheists" or some such thing, whereas your Christian leaders have long tried to justify their atrocities in "The name of the Lord". |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
To the contrary, the Chinese President is as much the "President of the Atheists" today as the King of Spain was the "King of the Christians" in the 11th century. The only reason atheists don't commit atrocities in the name of _____ supreme being is because atheists don't believe in supreme beings. Perfect example of this: North Korea. North Korea is officially atheist. There, instead of worshiping a "god" they essentially "worship" their "dear leader." They murder their own people, starve their own people, and do only-God-knows-what to their own people in the name of their "dear leader" who is, it just so happens, a (you guessed it) atheist (*gasp*). |
Well, to me your analogy doesn't really hold water, but maybe that's just me.
Despotic dictator who demands absolute fealty=God
Hey, I wouldn't have gone there, but if you insist.....
|
|
|
|
04/13/2013 02:03:35 AM · #113 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
You say "religion does more harm than good," I say "atheism does more harm than good." Equally subjective statements, and equally piss poor arguments against religion (or atheism for that matter). |
But they're not equal in reality as religion is used as justification for actions, both good and bad, and in the case of bad things done, "Well, I did it 'cause my religion says so.".
There is no band of organized atheists doing things and blaming it on a lack of God. They're just people, doing things for their own motivations.
I simply don't understand the premise that somehow atheism is some kind of group thing. It's not. It simply means that a person believes there is no God. It's not a movement, an active group of like-minded people assembled for a purpose......
Just out of curiosity.......you were here not so long ago and somewhat of an interesting fellow. What happened that you're so jaded and bitter now?
|
|
|
|
04/13/2013 06:06:55 AM · #114 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Just out of curiosity.......you were here not so long ago and somewhat of an interesting fellow. What happened that you're so jaded and bitter now? |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Started grad school in 2010. Just finished. |
|
|
|
|
04/13/2013 12:33:48 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Simmer down you fence riding freak! ;) |
By fence you mean science right? Do you only ride it when there's a paycheck involved? ;)
Message edited by author 2013-04-13 16:46:15. |
|
|
|
04/13/2013 02:16:37 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Simmer down you fence riding freak! ;) |
By fence you mean science right? Do you only ride it when there's a paycheck involved? ;) |
I was just joking about the agnostic bit. It really was just meant in fun. The atheists and theists pausing just long enough to jump on the agnostic... |
|
|
|
04/13/2013 02:38:35 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
... Who's right? Who's wrong? Who has the right to sit on their high horse and claim that they have the corner on doing good, and the other side only does "more harm than good?" As long as there are two completely different moral frameworks at play there will always be "two sides to the coin" and any judgment of what or who is "good" is completely subjective. |
At last... a Christian who seems to admit that Atheists are NOT amoral ... could this be true? :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
04/13/2013 02:42:09 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
[quote=DrAchoo] ... What you are probably saying is you consider all those examples to be "persons" which would be a legal or philosophical term to indicate they are members of a society with rights and intrinsic worth. |
I hate to nitpick, but in this country, the term "person" can also alluded to a legal entity such as a business. :O)
Ray |
Well, we all know Canada is odd... ;)
You can can correct me though Ray, because I don't know. Would a corporation actually be a "person" or have "the same rights and responsibilities as a person" in the eyes of the law? I sense it's the second and not the first. |
It's known as a "legal fiction", and yes, corporations are real people too. |
Sorry for not answering your question yesterday Doc, but I was right busy with driving lessons, shooting, involvement with a charitable organizations, tactical driving and a few other things.
 Cory provided a very good summary of the answer I had hoped to provide and the laws are essentially the same in the USA and Canada.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/13/2013 04:55:39 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Simmer down you fence riding freak! ;) |
By fence you mean science right? Do you only ride it when there's a paycheck involved? ;) |
I was just joking about the agnostic bit. It really was just meant in fun. The atheists and theists pausing just long enough to jump on the agnostic... |
I knew that but was waiting on the confirmation. :P |
|
|
|
04/13/2013 09:37:00 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
But they're not equal in reality as religion is used as justification for actions, both good and bad, and in the case of bad things done, "Well, I did it 'cause my religion says so.".
|
In a sense they are not equal because atheism is not a set of beliefs that can be used to justify any actions. On the other hand, most atheists that I know still have beliefs and instead of basing their beliefs on religious principles they base their beliefs on the principles of science. And the principles of science have been used as justification for doing all sorts of crazy things. For example, Joseph Mengele (Nazi "doctor") did all sorts of evil things and he used science to justify his actions.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
There is no band of organized atheists doing things and blaming it on a lack of God. They're just people, doing things for their own motivations.
I simply don't understand the premise that somehow atheism is some kind of group thing. It's not. It simply means that a person believes there is no God. It's not a movement, an active group of like-minded people assembled for a purpose......
|
This is true, but some famous writers/speakers (Dawkins & Co.) have sort of become spokespeople for the massive following of atheists that they have gathered to themselves. In a way, Dawkins and others have become leaders of a pro-atheist movement. And where there are leaders and numerous followers there is an organization, even if it is not an official or particularly well structured organization.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Just out of curiosity.......you were here not so long ago and somewhat of an interesting fellow. What happened that you're so jaded and bitter now? |
I'm not necessarily a jaded and bitter person (at least I don't think that I am). I'm just bitter about abortion and decided to rant about it (this is the place for that, right?) after learning about the Gosnell abortion "clinic" that I referred to at the end of my original post.
Originally posted by RayEthier:
At last... a Christian who seems to admit that Atheists are NOT amoral ... could this be true? :O)
Ray |
I have never claimed that atheists are amoral people. Many atheists are very moral in the sense that they do things that I interpret as being "good." I do think that atheist lack a logical basis for their morality, but that doesn't mean that all atheists are amoral. They have morals, they just can't explain them logically. But that's been discussed ad nauseum in other threads. |
|
|
|
04/13/2013 09:45:12 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
The OP also hasn't posted an image or entered a challenge since 2010. Just an observation. |
But less than two years is still ok, right? |
|
|
|
04/13/2013 10:16:07 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I do think that atheist lack a logical basis for their morality, but that doesn't mean that all atheists are amoral. They have morals, they just can't explain them logically. |
There you have made an obvious mistake. Logic is the domain of the atheist.That does not mean it is always good logic, but their actions are based on logic and perception. Religion assumes belief in the supernatural, the supposition that something exists outside our sensory ability, and is therefore not logical.
Read Zarathustra, Kant or any of the more modern "Moral Rationalist" and you can see that a morality based on rational thought is not just existant, but the basis of western thinking. The fact that theists place faith in scriptures (that is the moral rationalism of long dead prophets) rather than having to invent their own code of conduct based on their experiences just means they do not have to reinvent the wheel for themselves. They hop on a ready made bandwagon.
And of course which passages, from which books of scripture are chosen to highlight or ignore, is made on rational choice. No meat Fridays, or refraining from stoning adulterers, are things that were once part of the true faith, and have now been redacted based on moral choice. Pointing to a book that purports to be the word of God, does not make a moral code rational. Figuring out why that book points you on the path to be a better person may, but you have to make a choice. |
|
|
|
04/13/2013 10:45:26 PM · #123 |
This is an argument really not worth arguing. Not whilst so much hurt and hunger and anger pain are currently ruining our world and our people and ourselves.
I am playing end games and although I honestly believe that my soul will end up in a better place than this, I have a great distrust in so-called religion; be it theism or atheism. I have a simple philosophy that says we are born, we will die. In crossing the Rubicon all the arguments of this world is not going to take my hand; I will cross alone into death. Death an unknown quantity, an entity not one of us can say anything about with any authority. Not that it matters. Death is death, a harsh reality for some, a moment of peaceful rest for others.
What matters is what I do and how I live whilst in the consciousness of life. This is what I know because I am aware. What happens the moment the lights are turned off, no one knows. Atheists have their logical thoughts/beliefs and the religious have their believes they cling too.
Who is right? Does it matter? Really? For me now, no, it is just a war of words, a dictionary of descriptions. Whilst living, I would rather talk about things that touches life. Being good to people. NOT being judgemental. Not hurting others. Moral choices that any, and almost every human being can make. Good morals are the nature of man. I do not need books and philosophies to tell me how to live a good life, what is wrong and what is right.
Live, friends, live a full life. When you die, and you will, nothing that you believed or not believed in will change your destiny. How you lived your life, that will be your legacy. That alone.
Love you all my friends. |
|
|
|
04/13/2013 11:57:51 PM · #124 |
Beautifuly said Doc.
Lets be truly honest with ourselves and embrace the "don't know mind" We strive to put labels on anything we can't completly comprehend and our insecurity pushes us into corners that we think will protect us. Whether it be the voice that pushes us towards a dogmatic religion or the voice that guides us towards an athiest veiw, both have as their motor the denial of the fact that we truly don't know. The unknown engenders fear, it gnaws at our solidity and it drives us to blind conclusions, only by embracing it without judgment can we find peace within. Beyond religion, beyond atheism, beyond self, or as Rumi put it:
Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing,
there is a field. I'll meet you there.
When the soul lies down in that grass,
the world is too full to talk about.
Ideas, language, even the phrase "each other" doesn't make any sense.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2013 12:22:11 AM · #125 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I do think that atheist lack a logical basis for their morality, but that doesn't mean that all atheists are amoral. They have morals, they just can't explain them logically. |
There you have made an obvious mistake. Logic is the domain of the atheist.That does not mean it is always good logic, but their actions are based on logic and perception. Religion assumes belief in the supernatural, the supposition that something exists outside our sensory ability, and is therefore not logical.
Read Zarathustra, Kant or any of the more modern "Moral Rationalist" and you can see that a morality based on rational thought is not just existant, but the basis of western thinking. The fact that theists place faith in scriptures (that is the moral rationalism of long dead prophets) rather than having to invent their own code of conduct based on their experiences just means they do not have to reinvent the wheel for themselves. They hop on a ready made bandwagon.
And of course which passages, from which books of scripture are chosen to highlight or ignore, is made on rational choice. No meat Fridays, or refraining from stoning adulterers, are things that were once part of the true faith, and have now been redacted based on moral choice. Pointing to a book that purports to be the word of God, does not make a moral code rational. Figuring out why that book points you on the path to be a better person may, but you have to make a choice. |
I didn't say that atheists lack logic. I said they lack a logical basis for morality. Certainly an individual atheist makes moral decisions based on logic everyday. That does not mean, however, that their moral choices are logically defensible. As you pointed out, atheists have "to invent their own code of conduct based on their experiences." Experiences may aid a person in making moral choices, and they might even be logical choices. But experience is subjective. What is moral for one person might be immoral to another. What is logical to one person may be illogical to another. Humanity needs more than experience, feeling, and intuition in order to define "morality." Both science and religion claim universal laws. The difference is that religion proposes established laws that some people disagree with, whereas science proposes established laws that are only partially discovered.
If you base your life on science, then you are basing your life on many things that are yet unproven.
If you base your life on religion, then you are basing your life on many things that cannot be proven.
Either way, whether you admit it or not, you are a person of faith. Faith is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" (Merriam-Webster). At least with religion, the moral guidelines are somewhat explicit. With science, morality has to be logically deduced, which I believe is currently impossible. At the end of the day, I believe that it is just as hard to live as a religious person in a society that largely rejects your moral framework, as it is to live as an atheist with a moral framework that often lacks a sturdy logical foundation. |
|
