Why religion is good and atheism is evil

[jay gw]

That's not exactly what I'm discussing, but catchy title = more responses (generally).

Here is why atheism cannot be the dominant philosophy.

- Other than the fact it's been tried several times, and failed each time. The Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea are all atheist states. Each is failing or has failed totally. So did Nazism, also atheistic.

Besides the historical record, there is this, the fatal weakness, with atheism:

Atheism has no universally accepted way of assigning value to human life or to societies.

Everything else has values assigned to it, by markets. If I want a car, I look for one in my range etc.

Isn't the treatment you give to someone based on their value to you? It's not? Then what is it based on?

Even judging a person's character is assigning value. Atheistic philosophy has absolutely no accepted method for doing this.

The second major and fatal flaw with atheism is:

Atheism provides no justification for NOT exploiting others. In fact, the societies just mentioned who are atheistic have committed the worst human rights abuses of any societies in human history.

Legal codes exist everywhere. Are they successful in preventing mistreatment or abuse? Nope. They are completely unsuccessful in preventing every person from maximizing their individual and selfish interest. Exploitation is more successful than honest labor. Just ask slave owners. Do legal codes prevent this? Nope. Never have, never will. They may "scare" people into behaving, but are largely inconsequential.

Here is where religion comes in, and why it has originated/spread to all parts of the world. There is no society, save the ones mentioned above, that has had no religion of any kind. Even primitive societies have some form of it.

Without a reason for exploiting and abusing people, why shouldn't I? Can you explain that "Well, if you do it, then maybe someone else will do it to you." Wow. Powerful. Snooze.

So, in its essence, here is what religion is: Religion is the method by which values are assigned to human and social traits and behaviors. There is no other method created to do this. The second thing religion is, is a regulator for human interaction.

Btw, you will not be able to refute this. Not to dissuade anyone, but just have to warn you.

[espritch]

Atheism has no universally accepted way of assigning value to human life or to societies.

Religion also offers no universally accepted way of assigning value to human life or to societies. The Old Testament proclaimed that "Thou shalt not kill". The same testament also frequently ordered the Israelites to put every man, woman, and child from neighboring tribes to the sword. It also commanded the stoning of unruly children and adulterers, etc. Obviously, the value placed on human life was conditional; dependent on how well a person adhered to a set of beliefs and behaviors deemed acceptable. Other religions have done much the same but applied different standards as to what constituted acceptable behavior. There has never been any universally accepted way of assigning value to human life or society. Therefore, if this is the primary purpose of religion, then it can only be judged as an abject failure.

[Kitty Chan]

I suppose part of it would be to think beyond north americas borders where we like it or not have been based on judeo christian values as they say.

We were not raised by the sort of governments you speak of. In fact those that are old enough to remember WW2 are passed on. I am in the last generation that had a grandpa that could tell us what it was like.

The younger generations have no concept of what those regimes are like, I barely do. Most now do not realise that there is a benefit to the values north america was founded on. More over they do not realise the sacrifice of their grandfathers to ensure this generations current situation.

Those on this board who are atheists do not align themselves with the countries you speak of but it is a fact that those countries do not value their citizens save for a means to a end. :)

[Ecce Homo]

Originally posted by jay gw
That's not exactly what I'm discussing, but catchy title = more responses (generally).

Here is why atheism cannot be the dominant philosophy.

- Other than the fact it's been tried several times, and failed each time. The Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea are all atheist states. Each is failing or has failed totally. So did Nazism, also atheistic.

Besides the historical record, there is this, the fatal weakness, with atheism:

Atheism has no universally accepted way of assigning value to human life or to societies.

Everything else has values assigned to it, by markets. If I want a car, I look for one in my range etc.

Isn't the treatment you give to someone based on their value to you? It's not? Then what is it based on?

Even judging a person's character is assigning value. Atheistic philosophy has absolutely no accepted method for doing this.

The second major and fatal flaw with atheism is:

Atheism provides no justification for NOT exploiting others. In fact, the societies just mentioned who are atheistic have committed the worst human rights abuses of any societies in human history.

Legal codes exist everywhere. Are they successful in preventing mistreatment or abuse? Nope. They are completely unsuccessful in preventing every person from maximizing their individual and selfish interest. Exploitation is more successful than honest labor. Just ask slave owners. Do legal codes prevent this? Nope. Never have, never will. They may "scare" people into behaving, but are largely inconsequential.

Here is where religion comes in, and why it has originated/spread to all parts of the world. There is no society, save the ones mentioned above, that has had no religion of any kind. Even primitive societies have some form of it.

Without a reason for exploiting and abusing people, why shouldn't I? Can you explain that "Well, if you do it, then maybe someone else will do it to you." Wow. Powerful. Snooze.

So, in its essence, here is what religion is: Religion is the method by which values are assigned to human and social traits and behaviors. There is no other method created to do this. The second thing religion is, is a regulator for human interaction.

Btw, you will not be able to refute this. Not to dissuade anyone, but just have to warn you.


In this morass of non sequiturs and glaring inaccuracies,
let me just point out this: Atheism is not an ideology. It means "without theism", nothing more. A person can be an atheist and still subscribe to moral codes attributed to religion.
To say that atheism has been tried and has failed in various nations is a school example of a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by espritch
Religion also offers no universally accepted way of assigning value to human life or to societies. The Old Testament proclaimed that "Thou shalt not kill". The same testament also frequently ordered the Israelites to put every man, woman, and child from neighboring tribes to the sword.

Back in the day as I like to say :) you have to remember that was a new world, people (not just Jews) trying to find their way, a rag tag bunch that did not have any values of each other. Thats why God did step in and bring direction and values because the land could not take the way it was. By the way the neighbouring tribes were also doing quite well killing other tribes.

War was common place then and through history, humans are really good at it. Just about everyone has been at odds with their neighbour at some point in time. After WW2 it slowed down with" civilized nations" but war did not stop. And now we are in it again.

I also notice the Jews were taken over quite often and the romans were pretty good at war too. When God said kill them all (which was not the case each time) the reason was that sometimes when they took prisoners then the other tribes values would soak into Jewish culture and eventually mess them up. Sort of like being conqured from within, a trojan horse thing.

To say that God ordered the Jews to attack the neighbouring tribe is a point but its not the whole picture.

:)

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Ecce Homo
A person can be an atheist and still subscribe to moral codes attributed to religion.


Of course a atheist can subscribe to moral codes attributed to religion, why not, thats actually good.

But what about when those moral codes are not available to you? Like they are not in other parts of the world. And alot of atheists claim religion is woo woo which is their opinion now. But if (Im gonna change this to God) is so marginalized to unimportant.

Then theres a danger the future generations will not grow with the moral compass this generation had. And then becomes the stuff of bad sci fi.

[jay gw]

Obviously, the value placed on human life was conditional; dependent on how well a person adhered to a set of beliefs and behaviors deemed acceptable.

It's called a society. Societies do have to control people once in a while.

Atheism is not an ideology.

Then why did the Soviet Union ban religion? Why does China? Why does Cuba? Why does North Korea? Why does the United States separate government from religion?

post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy

The Atheist Bible. Whatever.

[rastamonte]

Originally posted by jay gw
Atheism provides no justification for NOT exploiting others. In fact, the societies just mentioned who are atheistic have committed the worst human rights abuses of any societies in human history.


What about the human rights abuses of theistic societies. The Dark Ages, the Inquisition, the Crusades?


Legal codes exist everywhere. Are they successful in preventing mistreatment or abuse? Nope. They are completely unsuccessful in preventing every person from maximizing their individual and selfish interest. Exploitation is more successful than honest labor. Just ask slave owners. Do legal codes prevent this? Nope. Never have, never will. They may "scare" people into behaving, but are largely inconsequential.

Here is where religion comes in, and why it has originated/spread to all parts of the world. There is no society, save the ones mentioned above, that has had no religion of any kind. Even primitive societies have some form of it.



Yet religion hasn't saved any of those societies from the problems mentioned above. The slave owners were deeply religious.

[c4ts]

Did he just the Nazis were atheistic?

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan

Then theres a danger the future generations will not grow with the moral compass this generation had. And then becomes the stuff of bad sci fi.

Are you aware of the treatment religion has been given in Sci-Fi? Herbert's Dune series springs to mind.

Morality has to be cultivated regardless of religon, otherwise it's prone to dramatic and catastrophic failures. (Jonestown, Scientology, etc...)

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by c4ts
Did he just the Nazis were atheistic?

Hitler may have been an atheist. He sure did like to call on Christianity to justify his actions, though.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
Here is why atheism cannot be the dominant philosophy.

- Other than the fact it's been tried several times, and failed each time. The Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea are all atheist states. Each is failing or has failed totally. So did Nazism, also atheistic.

Firstly, National Socialism was not atheistic. they were theistic, for just the reasons you go on to mention.

Second, the "atheism" of communism was a case the government not wanting to share power with the church. It had nothing whatsoever to do with belief. Most "communists" still believed, just not in public.

But let's say that's not true- let's pretend that a primary goal of communism was the eradication of belief in a deity. It would have still failed in this- for similar reasons you cannot legislatively force babies to walk; most aren't ready. it requires a resonably high level of intelligence, psychological stability, and emotional maturity to live without a god. The common mass of humanity aren't going to meet that standard in one way or another, and no law or government can make them so.

[Cosmo]

Originally posted by jay gw
So did Nazism, also atheistic.


I'll ignore the other glaring errors in your post and concentrate on this one.

Try this quote...

God gave the savior to the German people. We have faith, deep and unshakeable faith, that he was sent to us by God to save Germany.
--Hermann Goering, speaking of Hitler

Not good enough? Here's another:

Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.... We need believing people.
-- Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933

There has been no greater source of intolerance, murder, and destruction in human history than religion. You, my friend, are ignoring the entire negative face of religion in favor of accepting what good you see in it. Religion has been used to justify the most hideous, despicable deeds in human history, from the Crusades to Bush's holy Iraqi War - and no amount of debating on your part will change that.

It's time to get real and grow up.

[Kopji]

Beginning with an understanding that rational human beings benefit from living in a benign universe, logically it follows that particular human beings may gain substantial emotional satisfaction from acts which they perceive to make the world a better place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism


Kindness is a better survival model and has a higher chance of passing on your genes. Is that so hard?

[Zombified]

Strawman, strawman, burning bright
In the forums of the night
What Internet hand or eye
Could pose thy logic gone awry?

In what faulty posts unwise
Burnt the error of disguise?
On what bluff dare he aspire?
What the hand dare seize the mire?

And what vapor and what fart
Could twist the reason of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to bleat
What limp hand and shuffled feet?

What the clamor? What the claim?
On what planet is thy brain?
What the hell, man? What lame gas…
Can its fatal errors grasp?

When posters threw down replies,
And refuted all the lies,
Did He smile his post to see?
Did He who made the lamb troll thee?

Strawman, strawman, burning bright
In the forums of the night
What Internet hand or eye
Dare pose thy logic gone awry?

[evildave]

If a billion people believe a billion different things, some of them are going to be closer to the "right thing" than others. Knowing they don't possess the "ultimate truth", many of this billion will continue to seek the truth. Some will get further away, some will get nearer. Some may even get as close to "right" as is possible.

If a billion people believe one thing, and it's wrong, a billion people are simply wrong. If they persist in believing the wrong thing, and never seek the right thing, then they have elevated their ignorance to "truth", and will never seek the truth. This sort of stagnation seems evil to me.

For instance, if the population that is only supposed to believe in the "official" truth believe (for instance) that talking to their hands will make it rain, and that doing anything else will cause them great harm, like 'eternal damnation for their lack of faith', they will pray and build temples instead of get off their knees and build those 'damnable' dams and aqueducts.

The landscape of the Earth is sprinkled liberally with the ruins of dead civilizations that believed their "faith" in gods would make their problems go away, and in a way they were right: they died off, or were conquered/scattered by more practical minded people. No problem.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by jay gw
[blah blah blah]

[b]So, in its essence, here is what religion is: Religion is the method by which values are assigned to human and social traits and behaviors. There is no other method created to do this. The second thing religion is, is a regulator for human interaction.
By your little definition here, care to explain how Marxism is not a religion?

You may also like to note that atheism and religion are not strictly antonyms. See: Buddhism.

[nelsondogg]

Originally posted by jay gw
...- Other than the fact it's been tried several times, and failed each time. The Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea are all atheist states. Each is failing or has failed totally...

Uh, those countries were/are communistic states. Its the economic system of communism that failed.

Why does the United States separate government from religion?

So is the US also to be included of your list of horrible countries that has no universally accepted way of assigning value to human life or to societies?

In fact, the societies just mentioned who are atheistic have committed the worst human rights abuses of any societies in human history.

How do you explain the history of the US, with its slavery, Jim Crow laws, genocide of the Native Americans etc., etc.?

[Stitch]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan

We were not raised by the sort of governments you speak of. In fact those that are old enough to remember WW2 are passed on. I am in the last generation that had a grandpa that could tell us what it was like.


I think my parents would be rather upset to find out that they are actually dead!

There are plenty of people from WW2 that are still alive (it finished in 1945 - only 59 years ago), not so many from WW1 however.

[Stitch]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan


War was common place then and through history, humans are really good at it. Just about everyone has been at odds with their neighbour at some point in time. After WW2 it slowed down with" civilized nations" but war did not stop. And now we are in it again.


What makes you think that war is no longer common place since 1945?? That they are called "conflict" or "incursion" or "scuffle" is just playing with words. Here are a few conflicts that have taken place in the last 50 years or so

Korean War 1950–53
Malayan Emergency 1948–60
Indonesian-Malaysian Confrontation 1963–66
Vietnam War 1962–73
Gulf War 1990–91

Great Britain alone has been involved in more than 20: http://www.britains-smallwars.com/main/index1.html and that's without including all the covert operations carried out by special forces.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by jay gw
Btw, you will not be able to refute this. Not to dissuade anyone, but just have to warn you.

Just by writing this lifegazery assertion you have spared me the trouble to refute anything.

[The Mighty Thor]

The second major and fatal flaw with atheism is:

Atheism provides no justification for NOT exploiting others. In fact, the societies just mentioned who are atheistic have committed the worst human rights abuses of any societies in human history.

Both points are blatant falsehoods.

If the Bible is your 'moral compass' I think if you read it you will find that it contains many examples of human rights abuses, starting with the iniquitous (though mythical) story of the Flood.

Since, as you say, societies have historically been religious in one form or another, then human rights abuses throughout history have been carried out, condoned by religion, and sponsored by religion. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the Witchhunts, the warring factions of divided Judaism, Christianity and Islam, are just some areas where you will find the most horrendous and immoral human rights abuses.

Did the Christian Spanish Conquistadors uphold the human rights of the natives of South America? Did the Christian invaders of North America uphold the human rights of native Americans? Did the Christian invaders of Africa uphold the human rights of the natives?

Are you so morally corrupt in your nature that you need fear of Hellfire to stop you from NOT exploiting others?

Can't you think of any reasons why kindness and altruism should be applied to our lives without having God with a big stick?

You conveniently take a very one-sided view of history.

Would you be a sociopath if you did not fear God?

[Operaider]

Atheism has no universally accepted way of assigning value to human life or to societies.

Everything else has values assigned to it, by markets. If I want a car, I look for one in my range etc.

Isn't the treatment you give to someone based on their value to you? It's not? Then what is it based on?

Even judging a person's character is assigning value. Atheistic philosophy has absolutely no accepted method for doing this. This is why I fear religious people. You seem to be implying that man is intrinsically evil, and that only a fear in God is keeping him in check. I on the other hand don't believe there is a God, yet for some reason I have yet to become a murdering rapist. I must be an anomaly. Where as you seem to need a belief in God to prevent you from flying off the handle. Perhaps religion does have a purpose.

Plus, you seem to be missing the glaring obvious.

Even if we were to assume that all of those countries were atheist and failed because they were.

Even if we were to assume that atheism causes people to be devoid of morals.

This still doesn't mean that there is a God.

The whole world could implode due to atheism, and it still wouldn't mean that the atheists were wrong.

Luckily for us, the picture you painted is almost the exact opposite of reality. I don't see to many atheists flying planes into buildings. When’s the last time an atheist bombed an abortion clinic. Look at all those peaceful religious people in that utopia known as the Middle East.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by jay gw
That's not exactly what I'm discussing, but catchy title = more responses (generally).


True.


Originally posted by jay gw
Here is why atheism cannot be the dominant philosophy.


Atheism is not a philosophy. Just as Theism isn't.


Originally posted by jay gw
- Other than the fact it's been tried several times, and failed each time. The Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea are all atheist states. Each is failing or has failed totally.


1. Those are Communism or Socialism, i.e. ideologies.

2. The jury on China failing is still out.


Originally posted by jay gw
So did Nazism, also atheistic.


Debatable.


Originally posted by jay gw
Besides the historical record, there is this, the fatal weakness, with atheism:

Atheism has no universally accepted way of assigning value to human life or to societies.


Indeed. A mere lack of belief in God(s) says nothing whatsoever about human value. Just as a belief in God(s) doesn't either.

You'd have to dig deeper.


Originally posted by jay gw
Everything else has values assigned to it, by markets. If I want a car, I look for one in my range etc.


Yes, and you can do so regardless of whether you believe in God or not.


Originally posted by jay gw
Isn't the treatment you give to someone based on their value to you? It's not? Then what is it based on?

Even judging a person's character is assigning value. Atheistic philosophy has absolutely no accepted method for doing this.


Atheism is not a philosophy and indeed has no way to do such. Just as Theism hasn't.


Originally posted by jay gw
The second major and fatal flaw with atheism is:

Atheism provides no justification for NOT exploiting others.


Indeed. A mere lack of belief in God(s) says nothing whatsoever about exploiting others. Just as a belief in God(s) doesn't either.

You'd have to dig deeper.


Originally posted by jay gw
In fact, the societies just mentioned who are atheistic have committed the worst human rights abuses of any societies in human history.


Ever heard of the 30 years war. A couple of measly bible verses.


Originally posted by jay gw
Legal codes exist everywhere. Are they successful in preventing mistreatment or abuse? Nope.


Yes, they are. Otherwise they wouldn't exist in the first place.


Originally posted by jay gw
They are completely unsuccessful in preventing every person from maximizing their individual and selfish interest.


Yes, and why exactly should that be prevented???


Originally posted by jay gw
Exploitation is more successful than honest labor.


It is the optimal use/exploitation of labour that makes a successful economy.


Originally posted by jay gw
Just ask slave owners. Do legal codes prevent this? Nope. Never have, never will.


Oh, yes they have. There are laws against slavery and methinks they tend to work.


Originally posted by jay gw
They may "scare" people into behaving, but are largely inconsequential.


Of course that is how it works.


Originally posted by jay gw
Here is where religion comes in, and why it has originated/spread to all parts of the world.


It is philosophy and ideology what comes in here actually.


Originally posted by jay gw
There is no society, save the ones mentioned above, that has had no religion of any kind.


The ones mentioned above had religions too.


Originally posted by jay gw
Even primitive societies have some form of it.


Sure.


Originally posted by jay gw
Without a reason for exploiting and abusing people, why shouldn't I? Can you explain that "Well, if you do it, then maybe someone else will do it to you." Wow. Powerful. Snooze.


It is up to you to pick philosophy, ideology etc.


Originally posted by jay gw
So, in its essence, here is what religion is: Religion is the method by which values are assigned to human and social traits and behaviors.


Is it?


Originally posted by jay gw
There is no other method created to do this. The second thing religion is, is a regulator for human interaction.


Is it?


Originally posted by jay gw
Btw, you will not be able to refute this. Not to dissuade anyone, but just have to warn you.


No, you will not be able to refute my refutation. Just have a go at it.

BTW, nobody here will be impressed with your logical fallcies, such as the Atheistic society <-> religious society false dichotomy, your Atheism-is-a-philosophy Straw Man etc., and you reasoning skills in general that seems to make heavy use of non-sequiturs.

More BTW, I am an Atheist and favour very much a pluralist society. And I think I am not alone with that on these boards.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
Hitler may have been an atheist. He sure did like to call on Christianity to justify his actions, though.

The only evidence for Hitler's supposed atheism is Table Talks, which is unreliable at best.

Anyway, it doesn't matter what Hitler believed because the man was insane.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Stitch
What makes you think that war is no longer common place since 1945?? That they are called "conflict" or "incursion" or "scuffle" is just playing with words. Here are a few conflicts that have taken place in the last 50 years or so

Korean War 1950–53
Malayan Emergency 1948–60
Indonesian-Malaysian Confrontation 1963–66
Vietnam War 1962–73
Gulf War 1990–91



You don't see any significant difference in scale between the "World Wars" and the "Gulf War"?

From a cultural impact standpoint, most of the West has been at relative piece since 1945, or at least since 1973 with the end of the Vietnam conflict; "wars" are confined to small, brush-fire affairs that are dealt with by professionals and don't have any significant impact on the larger population as a whole.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Back in the day as I like to say :) you have to remember that was a new world, people (not just Jews) trying to find their way, a rag tag bunch that did not have any values of each other. Thats why God did step in and bring direction and values because the land could not take the way it was.

Yeah, he did a bang up job, didn't he? Stopped war in its tracks. Oh, wait . . .

Yet another glaring example of a huge failure by "god" trotted out as an example of success. Bizarre.

[Jellby]

Originally posted by new drkitten
You don't see any significant difference in scale between the "World Wars" and the "Gulf War"?

From a cultural impact standpoint, most of the West has been at relative piece since 1945, or at least since 1973 with the end of the Vietnam conflict; "wars" are confined to small, brush-fire affairs that are dealt with by professionals and don't have any significant impact on the larger population as a whole.

Go tell that to people in Middle-East, ex-Yugoslavia, half Africa, South America.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by new drkitten
You don't see any significant difference in scale between the "World Wars" and the "Gulf War"?

From a cultural impact standpoint, most of the West has been at relative piece since 1945, or at least since 1973 with the end of the Vietnam conflict; "wars" are confined to small, brush-fire affairs that are dealt with by professionals and don't have any significant impact on the larger population as a whole.

I'd have to say that the World Wars were the anomoly. and the level of conflict evidenced by the Gulf War the norm, before and after.

[Gastric ReFlux]

[pre-emptive strike]

You have not refuted me, I win!

:cs:

[/pre-emptive strike]

[Michael Redman]

Ants must have religion. Otherwise, they would not cooperate, but would act selfishly and kill each other for no reason. Only religion can make individuals act for the good of the society.

The argument is so foolish as to be laughable, except that the person who is proposing this argument is admitting to have no reason than the fear of divine retribution for following social norms, not killing and torturing others, etc. This person is describing himself as a complete sociopath, deviod of any compassion for his fellow, ready to strike at the lifting of the divine threat. He assumes all other people are the same. Kind of creepy. (But I guess it explains all the torture and mass murder in the name of god.)

[jay gw]

The slave owners were deeply religious.

No they weren't. The institution of slavery is not supported by anything Jesus said or did.

If the Bible is your 'moral compass' I think if you read it you will find that it contains many examples of human rights abuses

Are they abuses that have no context, or is there a "moral" to the story of why humans suffer? Read it again.

Did the Christian Spanish Conquistadors uphold the human rights of the natives of South America?

Saying Hernan Cortes was a good Catholic is like saying Hitler was a good Lutheran. Totally false. Spanish Conquistadors wanted two things: money, and power.

You seem to be implying that man is intrinsically evil, and that only a fear in God is keeping him in check.

No! What I'm saying is that man is POTENTIALLY evil. And exactly what is your method for preventing it? Or are you one of these fools that thinks you can turn your back on anybody and "hope for the best"?

A mere lack of belief in God(s) says nothing whatsoever about exploiting others.

Oh yes it does. It says there's nothing to stop you from doing it.

[Gastric ReFlux]

Originally posted by jay gw

Oh yes it does. It says there's nothing to stop you from doing it.

Yes, there is. It's called a conscience, a useful evolutionary trait for members of a social species. Just because the more religious like to symbolize their conscience into an omniscient and omnipotent being, that doesn't mean the conscience is absent from the atheistic.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
Saying Hernan Cortes was a good Catholic is like saying Hitler was a good Lutheran. Totally false. Spanish Conquistadors wanted two things: money, and power.

If you can be religious, but not "good" religious, then it stands to reason that religion fails at the task you assign it. Because their religious beliefs certainly didn't "stop them from doing it".

How can you assert that the Spanish conquest of the Americas was about "money and power", yet claim the Communist takovers in Asia were about religion?

Is communism your sole example of "bad atheism"?

How many holy wars have been started by atheist Buddhists?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by jay gw
That's not exactly what I'm discussing, but catchy title = more responses (generally).

Here is why atheism cannot be the dominant philosophy.

- Other than the fact it's been tried several times, and failed each time. The Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea are all atheist states. Each is failing or has failed totally. So did Nazism, also atheistic.

First of all, in the countries you named, communism was the dominant philosophy, not atheism. Atheism is only a part of communism, it does not compromise the whole. Do your homework before you say anything like that.

Second of all, if you'd done any research whatsoever, you'd find some of those so-called "failing" countries aren't exactly failing, particularly China, and those that are have political failures dealing with how the country is governed, particularly a system of planned economics, which is a symptom of communism unrelated to its athiestic aspects. But if you'd studied anything about those countries or communism you might know that. Don't just blindly take up a position and pull up some examples you copied of a website or something, do your frikkin' research! Learn something for a change!

Third of all, the Nazis weren't exactly atheistic. How is it possible to be athiestic and at the same time value Teutonic heritage and believe in an Aryan Jesus?? Here's a way to test your theory: Go find a bunch of neo-Nazis. Call them atheists and see what happens.

Fourth of all, you dismissed your point. Good. Because it was wrong in at least three ways to begin with.

Besides the historical record, there is this, the fatal weakness, with atheism:

Atheism has no universally accepted way of assigning value to human life or to societies.

Everything else has values assigned to it, by markets. If I want a car, I look for one in my range etc.

Isn't the treatment you give to someone based on their value to you? It's not? Then what is it based on?

Even judging a person's character is assigning value. Atheistic philosophy has absolutely no accepted method for doing this.
That's because atheism has nothing. It's just what happens when you take away the bullsh*t of religion. There are plenty of other sources an atheist can derive their morality from. Sociology, philosophy, psychology, common sense, Muppet Babies (etc)... You treat this as though atheists can't have morality, but you don't have the courage to go out and actually say it, and so you haven't even shown how it is a flaw. You aren't even judging it appropriately, assuming that it must be some sort of philosophy or religion with a standard set of positive beliefs. You might as well say a diamond's fatal flaw is its poor nutritional value, becasue that's about as much sense as you are making.

The second major and fatal flaw with atheism is:

Atheism provides no justification for NOT exploiting others. In fact, the societies just mentioned who are atheistic have committed the worst human rights abuses of any societies in human history.
You said historical examples were irrelevant early on. You lied!

Legal codes exist everywhere. Are they successful in preventing mistreatment or abuse? Nope. They are completely unsuccessful in preventing every person from maximizing their individual and selfish interest. Exploitation is more successful than honest labor. Just ask slave owners. Do legal codes prevent this? Nope. Never have, never will. They may "scare" people into behaving, but are largely inconsequential.
Evidently you've never read a slave narrative, or you'd find out how religious reasons were used to justify slavery. Some slave owners even quoted the Bible while whipping their slaves.

Here is where religion comes in, and why it has originated/spread to all parts of the world. There is no society, save the ones mentioned above, that has had no religion of any kind. Even primitive societies have some form of it.
Gee, things were so much better in Medieval Europe where there were no atheistic societies. Nobody was being exploited then! :rolleyes:

Without a reason for exploiting and abusing people, why shouldn't I? Can you explain that "Well, if you do it, then maybe someone else will do it to you." Wow. Powerful. Snooze.

So, in its essence, here is what religion is: Religion is the method by which values are assigned to human and social traits and behaviors. There is no other method created to do this. The second thing religion is, is a regulator for human interaction.

Btw, you will not be able to refute this. Not to dissuade anyone, but just have to warn you. [/B]

Of course I won't be able to refute this. I won't need to. Because you have failed to prove your point so reprehensibly that this pile of idiotic divel you call an "argument" is an insult to logic and rhetoric.

[The Cats Venm]

Originally posted by jay gw
No! What I'm saying is that man is POTENTIALLY evil. And exactly what is your method for preventing it? Or are you one of these fools that thinks you can turn your back on anybody and "hope for the best"?


Religion has failed as a method of preventing 'evil' acts. Hell is an empty threat.

Are you one of these fools that think you can turn your back on anybody who claims to be religious and you will always be safe?


Atheism makes no attempt to impose morals on people. It simply removes the idea of a god from the picture and as a result recognises people as creating their own morals for their mutual benefit.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by jay gw
The slave owners were deeply religious.
No they weren't. The institution of slavery is not supported by anything Jesus said or did.


Whether slavery is supported by anything that Jesus said or did is irrelevant. Salvery in the US was however defended with the Bible in hand. (Gen 9:18-29 esp. verse 26)


Originally posted by jay gw
Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
A mere lack of belief in God(s) says nothing whatsoever about exploiting others.
Oh yes it does. It says there's nothing to stop you from doing it.



Oh, a belief in God says there's nothing to stop you either. Sometimes even - see above - the justification is directly derived from a religious text, and by that, from God.


Edit because I made a mistake in the tags and mixed up who said what

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by jay gw
No they weren't. The institution of slavery is not supported by anything Jesus said or did. The Bible clearly supports the institution of slavery: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/slavery.html

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by jay gw
No they weren't. The institution of slavery is not supported by anything Jesus said or did.


This is irrelevent, and in fact, your comment really does disservice to your argument.

Even if you are correct that the bible does not support slavery, the fact that religious people (not atheists) still supported slavery indicates that apparently their religions did not agree with the supposed "universally accepted way of assigning value to human life."

Thus, whereas you criticized atheism because it does not provide a universally accepted way of assigning value to human life, it is obvious that religion doesn't either. Oh sure, as long as it is a single religion, their might be a common view, but since no religion is universally accepted, the assigned value cannot be universally accepted. At which point, you are stuck with, some religions put more value on human life than others, which is not all that different from what you would say about atheists.

[jay gw]

There are plenty of other sources an atheist can derive their morality from. Sociology, philosophy, psychology, common sense, Muppet Babies

Here we see the atheist hard at work formulating his value system.....

First of all, in the countries you named, communism was the dominant philosophy, not atheism. Atheism is only a part of communism, it does not compromise the whole.

Who said it was the whole? What I said was that there is a REASON that Communism was atheistic, as was Nazism.

Atheism makes no attempt to impose morals on people.

Do you know why? It's because atheists DON'T WANT ANY MORALS. Don't be ashamed. Lots of people want the freedom to do anything they want to, at any time. Whether what they're doing is right or not, doesn't really matter to them.

The Bible clearly supports the institution of slavery:

Every single reference you provided refers to "servants" honoring their "masters". I'm sure Blacks in 18th century America thought of themselves as "servants". I'm sure they did.

Even if you are correct that the bible does not support slavery, the fact that religious people (not atheists) still supported slavery indicates that apparently their religions did not agree with the supposed "universally accepted way of assigning value to human life."

You have so totally screwed your own argument here, I will have to point it out. In the ATHEISTIC government of the United States, slave owners managed to perpetuate the institution of slavery FOR 100 PERCENT ECONOMIC REASONS. The reasons should be so obvious, that atheistic states DON'T PLACE VALUE ON HUMAN LIFE. I just got through saying that. I don't suppose this has occured to you. If you seriously believe that in the United States governmental system, that Quakers or Amish who argued against slavery FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS could fight rich and powerful slaver owners then YOU ARE A COMPLETE IDIOT.

Not meaning to be rude, but honestly. Get real.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Jay, have you perchance mislaid a sockpuppet? He's about 1" tall, spews senseless garbage, and claims he's not a troll. If it sounds like yours, please come pick it up at your earliest convenience.

[Polux]

Originally posted by jay gw
What I'm saying is that man is POTENTIALLY evil. And exactly what is your method for preventing it?

Atheism is not a doctrine that prevents men to be evil (it isn't even a doctrine). However, being free from religion at least takes away the evil that may come with religion.
Religion doesn't keep men from being evil. Take a look at history.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jay gw
Who said it was the whole? What I said was that there is a REASON that Communism was atheistic, as was Nazism.

Right. The government didn't want to compete with nor share power with the clergy.

And Nazis were not atheists, they were theists in just the same way Bush is.


Originally posted by jay gw
Do you know why? It's because atheists DON'T WANT ANY MORALS. Don't be ashamed. Lots of people want the freedom to do anything they want to, at any time. Whether what they're doing is right or not, doesn't really matter to them.

"The freedom to do anything they want to, at any time" is liberty. Having that freedom, and self-limiting your behaviour to avoid hurting others, is morals.

[Angel]

Originally posted by jay gw
That's not exactly what I'm discussing, but catchy title = more responses (generally).

Here is why atheism cannot be the dominant philosophy.
You mean atheism, the default position that all human beings are born into?

This is like saying that disbelief in Santa Claus cannot be the dominant philosophy.
- Other than the fact it's been tried several times, and failed each time. The Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea are all atheist states. Each is failing or has failed totally. So did Nazism, also atheistic.
This is a strawman. Just because certain countries, people and governments adopted atheism, or were atheists, this has no bearing on the validity of atheism. Should we conclude facts about theism since most Middle Eastern countries are based on theism? What about the Holy Crusades?
Besides the historical record, there is this, the fatal weakness, with atheism:

Atheism has no universally accepted way of assigning value to human life or to societies.
Even if true, this is irrelevant. Atheist is a position of non-belief. We can assign value to life in other ways, but invoking a magical sky daddy to do it for you isn't an answer, it's an ad hoc explanation.
Everything else has values assigned to it, by markets. If I want a car, I look for one in my range etc.

Isn't the treatment you give to someone based on their value to you? It's not? Then what is it based on?

Even judging a person's character is assigning value. Atheistic philosophy has absolutely no accepted method for doing this.
How about this: treat others as you would like to be treated. Sounds pretty simple to me. And despite that religions have tried to claim this principle as their own, it's pretty simple, and works for most atheists. Problem solved!

In any event, even if atheism meant that life was worthless and valueless, this still wouldn't make it wrong. Something's veracity is not determined by it's moral implications.
The second major and fatal flaw with atheism is:

Atheism provides no justification for NOT exploiting others. In fact, the societies just mentioned who are atheistic have committed the worst human rights abuses of any societies in human history.
This is yet another strawmen. Does belief in the Loch Ness monster provide any justification for NOT exploiting others? The two things are totally unrelated. As such, this is a non-sequitor too.

We could mention the number of wars and deaths that have been committed in the name of theism, but that seems far too easy to refute this pathetic argument.
Legal codes exist everywhere. Are they successful in preventing mistreatment or abuse? Nope. They are completely unsuccessful in preventing every person from maximizing their individual and selfish interest. Exploitation is more successful than honest labor. Just ask slave owners. Do legal codes prevent this? Nope. Never have, never will. They may "scare" people into behaving, but are largely inconsequential.

Here is where religion comes in, and why it has originated/spread to all parts of the world. There is no society, save the ones mentioned above, that has had no religion of any kind. Even primitive societies have some form of it.
This is because humans have sought to make sense of the world around them. When unable to, they invented mythical beings to do so. "Why does it thunder?" "Thor makes it!" No mystery here. Gods are mythical being invented by humans.

Pretending that we can't have morality unless Big Daddy says so is patronising, pathetic, and irresponsible.

Without a reason for exploiting and abusing people, why shouldn't I? Can you explain that "Well, if you do it, then maybe someone else will do it to you." Wow. Powerful. Snooze.
If you really believe this, I suggest you check yourself into the nearest institution. You see, there are laws in society to protect us from people like you. Would you rape someone if you weren't a theist? Would you rape someone if God told you to? (You know, like he does in the bible??)
So, in its essence, here is what religion is: Religion is the method by which values are assigned to human and social traits and behaviors. There is no other method created to do this. The second thing religion is, is a regulator for human interaction.
Nonsense. Religion is the worship and belief in mythical beings, used to controlling people and/or giving them a hope in life, because they cannot find one for themselves. It avoids fear of death and pretends to give a reason for life and morality. However, since death is unavoidable, and morality and purpose are possible without religion, religion is useless. Not to mention superstitious nonsense.
Btw, you will not be able to refute this. Not to dissuade anyone, but just have to warn you.
Arrogance and ignorance all one post; how efficient of you.

I could refute more difficult "arguments" in my sleep. This was easy. Please present something better next time; you might want to actually know something about philosophy and atheism too!

[Marquis de Carabas]

That may very well be the best first post I've ever read. Welcome to the boards, Angel.

:clap:

[Angel]

cheers Marquis de Carabas!

i just hope the original poster returns to reply.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by jay gw



Every single reference you provided refers to "servants" honoring their "masters".


Yeah, I'm really quite glad that those ancient Biblical types made a point of speaking modern English so that you could split these semantic hairs. Or, as you put it yourself:



Not meaning to be rude, but honestly. Get real.

Let's look at some of these quotations with a little more historical accuracy. Let's start out with Lev. 25:39 :


Lev 25:39 And if your brother becomes poor beside you and sells himself to you, you shall not compel him to serve as a bondman (a slave not eligible for redemption),

This is a very clear illustration of exactly what the Hebrew thought on slavery was; there were clear caste distinctions among the servants, and one was specifically not allowed to put Hebrews ("your brother," literally) into the lowest caste.

The word used for this lowest caste was "ebed," literally a worker, more often translated "servant" or "slave."

Now let's look at what one is explicitly permitted to do to an "ebed."


Ex 21:20 "If a man strikes his male or female slave ("ebed") with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished.

Ex 21:21 "If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.




Ex 21:2 "If you buy a Hebrew slave ("ebed"), he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment.

Ex 21:3 "If he comes alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him.

Ex 21:4 "If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone



Ex 21:32 "If the ox gores a male or female slave ("ebed"), the owner shall give his or her master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.



Lev 25:44 'As for your male and female slaves ("ebed") whom you may have--you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you.

Lev 25:45 'Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession.

Lev 25:46 'You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.



How exactly does "ebed" differ from chattel slavery?

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by jay gw
Every single reference you provided refers to "servants" honoring their "masters". I'm sure Blacks in 18th century America thought of themselves as "servants". I'm sure they did. Don't be a fool. These quotes are not referring to people who have chosen the profession of servant:

Ex.21:2 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant...."

Ex.21:7 "If a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant...."

Ex.22:3 "If he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."

Tim.6:1 -2 "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed."

Eph.6:5-9 "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:

Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. "

The Bible condones the institution of slavery.

Also, you seem to believe nobody feels compassion for their fellow humans. Don't you care about other people? Do you only refrain from doing evil because you fear God's wrath? Do you only tolerate other people becasue God demands it?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by new drkitten

How exactly does "ebed" differ from chattel slavery?
Oh, that's an easy one. God doesn't approve of the latter. :D

[Jellby]

This whole subject reminds me of "La mauvaise réputation", by Georges Brassens. French lyrics and English translation here: http://home.earthlink.net/~kulsetsiyi/brassens-new/brassens2.htm

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Oh, that's an easy one. God doesn't approve of the latter. :D

I suppose I did walk into that one, didn't I. I would still be interested, though, if Jay has a "real" answer beyond the obvious cop-out. I suspect, though, like most fundamentalists, that his knowledge of Biblical text doesn't extend past 1611.....

[Angel]

Originally posted by new drkitten
that his knowledge of Biblical text doesn't extend past 1611.....
What's 1611??



Also, you might be interested to know that jay has posted the identical thread over at Infidels.org. The link is here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=102114

...and he has met similar destruction of his curiously "undestructable" argument.

[Gastric ReFlux]

Originally posted by Angel
What's 1611??



Also, you might be interested to know that jay has posted the identical thread over at Infidels.org. The link is here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=102114

...and he has met similar destruction of his curiously "undestructable" argument.

1611 is the year of the King James version of the Bible being first put out.

[The Cats Venm]

Originally posted by jay gw
Lots of people want the freedom to do anything they want to, at any time. Whether what they're doing is right or not, doesn't really matter to them.


You are right, lots of people do want the freedom to do anything they want to and don't care about the impact on others.

Most of those people also use a god to 'justify' their actions. It's easy to ignore ones conscience when an omni-god is backing you up.

[jay gw]

You mean atheism, the default position that all human beings are born into?

Children I've met would stab me in the eye with a pencil to get that toy out of my hands. I'm not exactly sure what your point is here.

Just because certain countries, people and governments adopted atheism, or were atheists, this has no bearing on the validity of atheism.

It does if it's the only belief system allowed and the governments then commit genocide.

How about this: treat others as you would like to be treated. Sounds pretty simple to me. And despite that religions have tried to claim this principle as their own, it's pretty simple, and works for most atheists. Problem solved!

Wow, all those thousands of years of philosophers toiling and you've managed to come up with the answer!

In any event, even if atheism meant that life was worthless and valueless, this still wouldn't make it wrong.

Oh. I'm not sure just how to respond to this one.....

Does belief in the Loch Ness monster provide any justification for NOT exploiting others?

Now who's making the strawman? Religion = the Loch Ness monster. If you honestly believe that there is ABSOLUTELY nothing to religion, despite every society creating, teaching and perpetuating it, then what you're really saying is that most of humanity is incredibly stupid and wasteful. Wow, what happened to that "atheists love humanity too"?

It avoids fear of death and pretends to give a reason for life and morality.

As opposed to drifting through life from one whim to the next, or operating by a private, isolated code of ethics?

The Bible condones the institution of slavery.

You may interpret that from some of the Old Testament quotes. Jesus however did not believe in slavery. Neither do Hindus. Neither do Buddhists.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by jay gw
Children I've met would stab me in the eye with a pencil to get that toy out of my hands. I'm not exactly sure what your point is here.
Maybe you need to learn how to work with children.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just because certain countries, people and governments adopted atheism, or were atheists, this has no bearing on the validity of atheism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It does if it's the only belief system allowed and the governments then commit genocide.
Er, no it doesn't. Even if every atheist who ever lived was a right bastard, that says nothing at all about whether there is a god (the issue that atheism applies to, after all...the only one).


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about this: treat others as you would like to be treated. Sounds pretty simple to me. And despite that religions have tried to claim this principle as their own, it's pretty simple, and works for most atheists. Problem solved!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, all those thousands of years of philosophers toiling and you've managed to come up with the answer![/b]
Actually, a good deal of the history of moral philosophy is involved with how best to apply the golden rule. It is simple to state, but can be complex in ramifications.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In any event, even if atheism meant that life was worthless and valueless, this still wouldn't make it wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh. I'm not sure just how to respond to this one.....[/b]
It's simple. You acknowledge the obvious truth of the statement and move on.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does belief in the Loch Ness monster provide any justification for NOT exploiting others?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now who's making the strawman? Religion = the Loch Ness monster. If you honestly believe that there is ABSOLUTELY nothing to religion, despite every society creating, teaching and perpetuating it, then what you're really saying is that most of humanity is incredibly stupid and wasteful. Wow, what happened to that "atheists love humanity too"?
Wow, you managed to construct a strawman while accusing someone else of doing so. I'm impressed.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It avoids fear of death and pretends to give a reason for life and morality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As opposed to drifting through life from one whim to the next, or operating by a private, isolated code of ethics?
Do you ever worry about running out of storage space for all the straw?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible condones the institution of slavery.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You may interpret that from some of the Old Testament quotes. Jesus however did not believe in slavery. Neither do Hindus. Neither do Buddhists.
Provide references for Jesus. As for Buddhism, would those be the atheist buddhists? Just curious.




All quotes inside quotes are Angel's. I couldn't be buggered to code it all. Sue me.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by jay gw


Jesus however did not believe in slavery.....


Interesting that so many of his followers did not follow his example..

What good is a religion if the followers do not embrace it's precepts?


P.S. Is Jesus God ?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by jay gw
Jesus however did not believe in slavery.

Really? Can you provide a single quote attributed to Jesus where he expresses an opinion against slavery?

Remember, by your own standards, quotes about "servants" don't cut it.....

[Polux]

Originally posted by jay gw

It does if it's the only belief system allowed and the governments then commit genocide.


No. Not allowing other beliefs is not inherent of atheism. You can have an atheist government and still any beliefs allowed. It is even weird to talk about atheist govnermnets... the people in power may have their own beliefs where there is separation of Church and State, but the government wouldn't rule on belief, because that's an imposition. Atheism is not to be imposed either. Individuals are either atheists or not. If you are referring to someone imposing their atheism, that is not just atheism, that's an atheist stupid.
Also, if an atheist commits genocide, that's a stupid who is an atheist AND genocidal. You fail to show how one thing leads to the other, if that is what you meant.
And of course, there are many examples of theists who have imposed their beliefs on others and committed genocide based on those beliefs, so there's no argument against atheism with that.

[Lord Emsworth]

.

[jay gw]

Can you provide a single quote attributed to Jesus where he expresses an opinion against slavery?

Do the "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" quotes count.....?

Also, if an atheist commits genocide, that's a stupid who is an atheist AND genocidal. You fail to show how one thing leads to the other, if that is what you meant.

So the two have no connection? Then please discuss my examples of ALL the atheist societies like China, North Korea, Soviet Union, Nazis being genocidal. Strange.

Btw, this is directed at P�lux,

Was this Argentinian military leader:

http://www.yendor.com/vanished/junta/acosta.jpg

a "good Christian"?

His name is Jorge Eduardo Acosta. He murdered French nuns at the Church of Santa Cruz in Argentina.

How about him?

http://www.yendor.com/vanished/junta/agosti.jpg

Or him?

http://www.yendor.com/vanished/junta/bignone.jpg

All these men killed thousands of people in Argentina. These men were all atheists.

http://www.yendor.com/vanished/junta.html

[Marquis de Carabas]

I hope this won't turn into a pissing contest about who offs more people, theists or atheists. That is horribly off the point.

Jay, what you need to establish about the above men is not that they are atheists who kill. You need to show a causal link between their atheism and their violence. It would also be nice if you showed a causal link between theism and lack of violence.

If you can do neither of these things, you've got nothing.

[kuroyume0161]

Proppin' up that strawman,
beatin' it with a stick,
All the do-dah day.

Jay, you've mastered the art of the fallacy. Everything you've said contradicts all of the facts.

1. Nazis were far from atheists. They were Teutonic Aryans and believed, in the least, in the Teutonic Gods, but mainly stayed friendly and allegient to Christianity. At best, the elite Nazis were Pagans - just for your edification, pagans are those people who are non-mainstream religious and not atheists.

2. Communism was a governmental-economic model. And to repeat again: To avoid clashes with religious authority (e.g.: Orthodox Greek Christianity) in order to enforce this model, religion was curtailed.

Repeat after me:
Communism != Atheism
Communism != Atheism
Communism != Atheism
Communism != Atheism
Communism != Atheism
Communism != Atheism
Communism != Atheism
Communism != Atheism
Communism != Atheism
Communism != Atheism
Communism != Atheism

Does it start drilling into your armored-plated skull yet?

3. The Bible condones and instructs on slavery (as well as mass murder, how to divy up the possessions and virgins of the conquered, when to stone people, among other niceties). Support for slavery from within the Bible has been used often times to condone slavery.

4. Morals do not come from God, they come from an empathetic sociological need for species survival. Amazingly, social animals don't regularly go around killing and raping each other either. Do they receive their morals from God? Wouldn't that signify that animals have souls? Down, down the slippery slope...

5. Let's see. Christianity - the perfect religion. After Constantine made it the official Roman religion, those who did not adbicate were imprisoned, tortured, and/or put to death. Christians spent much effort in sending Crusaders (ya know, armed soldiers with pikes, swords, armor, siege weapons) into the Middle East to capture Jerusalem. How moral... Then they institued the Holy Inquisition to purge heresy and witchcraft from Europe, later the New World, and anywhere else they could enforce it. This involved torture (both mental and physical) and all sorts of inventive ways to execute people, including burning alive, iron maidens, the rack (and its ingenious related devices), use of rats, pikes, hanging, removal of entrails, if it was painful and disgusting, they enjoyed it the more. Several dozen wars were faught between different Christian factions, Christians and Jews, Christians and Muslims...

The Epitome of Christian Morality

With morals like these, who needs atheism as a cause of the lack thereof.

Kuroyume

[drkitten]

Originally posted by jay gw
Do the "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" quotes count.....?



Actually, no, they don't. They're not at all responsive to the question at hand.

But don't let me stop you from trying to find some responsive quotes.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by jay gw
Do the "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" quotes count.....? Treat your slaves nice? No, that doesn't count. Jesus had plenty of opportunity to condemn slavery if he wished. Besides, other new testiment authors clearly condone slavery, and they wouldn't if god didn't want it in his book, right?


I keep asking this, and I'll continue until you answer:

Don't you have any genuine compassion for other people? Do you only tolerate people and refrain from hurting and killing people because you're afraid of disobeying god and being punished?

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by jay gw

Was this Argentinian military leader:

http://www.yendor.com/vanished/junta/acosta.jpg

a "good Christian"?

His name is Jorge Eduardo Acosta. He murdered French nuns at the Church of Santa Cruz in Argentina.

How about him?

http://www.yendor.com/vanished/junta/agosti.jpg

Or him?

http://www.yendor.com/vanished/junta/bignone.jpg

All these men killed thousands of people in Argentina. These men were all atheists.

http://www.yendor.com/vanished/junta.html

Oh my ghod! Those guys are all "white guys". I guess that means that all white guys are murderers!

(They may be Latino, I can't really tell. If so, please substitute Latino for "white guys" above. The point is the same.)

[drkitten]

Originally posted by jay gw

So the two have no connection? Then please discuss my examples of ALL the atheist societies like China, North Korea, Soviet Union, Nazis being genocidal.

Not much to discuss. It's the fallacy of the unrepresentative sample, combined with outright factual inaccuracy. Using similar "logic," I can prove that all and only odd numbers are prime :


3 is prime
5 is prime
7 is prime
9 is prime(*)
11 is prime
13 is prime
and of course
1 is not prime, but it's not odd(*) either.
...

(*) factual inaccuracy is irrelevant here, because one should never let inconvenient facts stand in the way of The Truth That God Has Showered Upon Us.

In particular -- the Nazi's were were not atheist. The Soviet Union was not atheist. On the other hand, the Netherlands have among the highest percentage of atheists in the world, no established state religion, and are not genocidal. Similar statistics hold for the Czech Republic.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Oh my ghod! Those guys are all "white guys". I guess that means that all white guys are murderers!

(They may be Latino, I can't really tell. If so, please substitute Latino for "white guys" above. The point is the same.)
No, that's not it at all. It doesn't matter that they were white. The important point is they all allowed themselves to be photographed. People who get their pictures taken kill Argentinians.

You cannot refute this.

[jay gw]

Jay, what you need to establish about the above men is not that they are atheists who kill. You need to show a causal link between their atheism and their violence.

So people that kill defenseless people, including nuns, are really religious but just show it in a "different" kind of way?

How about the fact that the Argentinian government honored Nazis? How about the president of Argentina, Juan Peron, PUBLICALLY supporting Adolf Hitler?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by jay gw
So people that kill defenseless people, including nuns, are really religious but just show it in a "different" kind of way?

How about the fact that the Argentinian government honored Nazis? How about the president of Argentina, Juan Peron, PUBLICALLY supporting Adolf Hitler?
I think you're lost. The Super Happy Nonsequitur Thread is here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46104).

[TruthSeeker]

Originally posted by jay gw
So people that kill defenseless people, including nuns, are really religious but just show it in a "different" kind of way?

How about the fact that the Argentinian government honored Nazis? How about the president of Argentina, Juan Peron, PUBLICALLY supporting Adolf Hitler?


In a documentary I watched last night on the CBC, they claimed that George Bush's grandpa was one of Hitler's bankers. So, while his son was fighting the war, he was supporting Hitler...nice Christian behaviour if you ask me.

And of course, his GWB is a born-again Christian who has killed how many Iraqi citizens again?



N.B. I have not had time to verify the truth of the CBC report but I have no reason to doubt it

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by jay gw
Do the "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" quotes count.....?


Firstly, "Love thy neighbor" comes form the OT. Secondly it can easily be argued the the descendants of Canaan are not our neighbors and should, whilst serving the descendants of Sem and Japhet, turn the other cheek, s'il vous plait.


Originally posted by jay gw
So the two have no connection? Then please discuss my examples of ALL the atheist societies like China, North Korea, Soviet Union, Nazis being genocidal. Strange.


Or we could discuss
• the Ancient Hebrews, (kill 'em all, 'cept for the female virgins)
• those nations involved in the 30 year war (Catholics against Protestants),
• the Confederacy (do you want a quote from Jefferson Davies? He disagrees with your Bible interpretation),
• those perpetrating the inquisitions,
• Muslims at the Hindukush,
• WW I where Kaiser fought against Czar (you know that Kaiser and Czar are a bit more than absolutist monarchs, don't you?),
• do I need to mention how such good Christian nations as the British Empire, Spain, Portugal etc. behaved (you know, for example, the millions of native Americans (that reminds me of the Atzecs and their human sacrifices (which in turn reminds me of the ancients Hebrews)) were killed) in their Colonies
• and you have not forgotten those quotations by Adolf Hiltler and the fact that Nazi Germany still was society with a high percentage of Christians (Catholic and Protestant)
• ...

And what about the fact that pluralist societies with a high percentage of Atheists and Agnostics such as the Netherlands, France, Germany, Canada etc. seem to be thoroughly disinterested in going to war or committing genocide???


None of this however will help determining whethere there actually is a God or not, but it is an excellent argument against an omnibenevolent One.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by jay gw
So people that kill defenseless people, including nuns, are really religious but just show it in a "different" kind of way? Different from what? Different that the way "really religious" people have always massacred people of different faiths?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by jay gw
So people that kill defenseless people, including nuns, are really religious but just show it in a "different" kind of way?



No. Religious people that kill defenseless people, including nuns, are murderers.

Irreligious people that kill defenseless people, including nuns, are murderers.

Blond people that kill defenseless people, including nuns, are murderers.

But you don't suddenly become irreligious, or blond, a hundred ninety centimeters tall, left-handed, or a gifted saxophone player, by committing multiple murders. Nor do you become an atheist by learning to play the saxophone, left-handed by bleaching your hair, or a murderer by not believing in God.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
I suppose part of it would be to think beyond north americas borders where we like it or not have been based on judeo christian values as they say.

We were not raised by the sort of governments you speak of. In fact those that are old enough to remember WW2 are passed on. I am in the last generation that had a grandpa that could tell us what it was like.

The younger generations have no concept of what those regimes are like, I barely do. Most now do not realise that there is a benefit to the values north america was founded on. More over they do not realise the sacrifice of their grandfathers to ensure this generations current situation.

Those on this board who are atheists do not align themselves with the countries you speak of but it is a fact that those countries do not value their citizens save for a means to a end. :)
Are you for real? I have a grandpa that fought the Russians in Finland, I have friends whose fathers fled Estonia, one during the Nazi occupation, one during the Sovjet occupation.
Most of the young people especially in Europe have a very good sense of the wars in Europe, the wars that you Americans have been blissfully protected from, except Pearl Harbour.

You make a false connection between religiosity and values. I for one am a violent defender of democracy and market economy.

The connection is NOT between violence and atheism, the connections is between lack of democracy and violence. If you can’t see that…

Or your whole post was a ironic joke! In that case, hilarious :)

[kuroyume0161]

the wars that you Americans have been blissfully protected from, except Pearl Harbour

Well, maybe recently in history. But you forget about:

The French and Indian War
American Revolutionary War
War of 1812 (where Washington D.C. was taken by the British)
The Mexican-American War (although might be considered to be mainly on Mexican territory).
American Civil War
and, of course, the one you mentioned: Pearl Harbor (WWII)

Although technologically outnumbered, wars and battles between the Native Americans and United States went on for nearly a century.

Kuroyume

[c4ts]

Somehow I don't think he got the point that you can insert morals into anything...

[jay gw]

And what about the fact that pluralist societies with a high percentage of Atheists and Agnostics such as the Netherlands, France, Germany, Canada etc. seem to be thoroughly disinterested in going to war or committing genocide???

Did they ban religion? They are not the kind of countries I'm talking about.

The connection is NOT between violence and atheism, the connections is between lack of democracy and violence.

It's you who don't see the connections. Many countries with no democracy are peaceful.

Why are atheist countries NEVER peaceful?

It's the fallacy of the unrepresentative sample

What's unrepresentative about the Soviet Union, North Korea etc. having both atheism as their main doctrine, AND having human rights violations? There are representative of both.

I forgot to mention Cambodia. Do you know how many Cambodians the ATHEIST Khmer Rouge killed? About TWO MILLION. In a tiny country!!!

Yes, I know that other types of countries have human rights violations.
Yes, I know that people have misinterpreted religion and used it for atrocities.
Yes, I know that there are "nice" atheists.

But you continue to ignore the facts that among atheistic societies, there are many more atrocities. Sorry, but you can't keep avoiding that fact!

The reason for that is the the value of human life is very low to atheists. They don't care about life!

[drkitten]

Originally posted by jay gw

But you continue to ignore the facts that among atheistic societies, there are many more atrocities. Sorry, but you can't keep avoiding that fact!


What "fact"? Argument by repeated assertion? Is that how your epistemological system works?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by jay gw

The reason for that is the the value of human life is very low to atheists. They don't care about life!
Here is the root of every logical fallacy you spout. Atheism has nothing, nothing, to do with caring or not caring about life. It has to do only with not believing in a god or gods. How much someone cares about human life is not a function of their opinion on the existence of god(s).

Unless you can provide that causal link, instead of another strawman or nonsequitur. Are you up to it?

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by jay gw
Did they ban religion? They are not the kind of countries I'm talking about.


No, of course not. We were talking about Atheistic societies and now all of a sudden these do not count any longer.

There is nothing in Atheism that says: Thou shalt ban religion


Originally posted by jay gw
It's you who don't see the connections. Many countries with no democracy are peaceful.


Example?


Originally posted by jay gw
Why are atheist countries NEVER peaceful?


And what about the fact that pluralist societies with a high percentage of Atheists and Agnostics such as the Netherlands, France, Germany, Canada etc. seem to be thoroughly disinterested in going to war or committing genocide???

Seems very peaceful to me.


Why is it that religion NEVER succeeds in breeding peaceful societies? Like it utterly failed in the case of

• the Ancient Hebrews, (kill 'em all, 'cept for the female virgins)
• those nations involved in the 30 year war (Catholics against Protestants),
• the Confederacy (do you want a quote from Jefferson Davies? He disagrees with your Bible interpretation),
• those perpetrating the inquisitions,
• Muslims at the Hindukush,
• WW I where Kaiser fought against Czar (you know that Kaiser and Czar are a bit more than absolutist monarchs, don't you?),
• do I need to mention how such good Christian nations as the British Empire, Spain, Portugal etc. behaved (you know, for example, the millions of native Americans (that reminds me of the Atzecs and their human sacrifices (which in turn reminds me of the ancients Hebrews)) were killed) in their Colonies
• and you have not forgotten those quotations by Adolf Hiltler and the fact that Nazi Germany still was society with a high percentage of Christians (Catholic and Protestant)
• ...


Originally posted by jay gw
What's unrepresentative about the Soviet Union, North Korea etc. having both atheism as their main doctrine, AND having human rights violations? There are representative of both.


There were lots of religous folk in Soviet Russia, and the NC is busily deifing one of their glorious leaders. Yes, deifing! Like in religion.


Originally posted by jay gw
I forgot to mention Cambodia. Do you know how many Cambodians the ATHEIST Khmer Rouge killed? About TWO MILLION. In a tiny country!!!


Very sad indeed.


Originally posted by jay gw
Yes, I know that other types of countries have human rights violations.


For example all those Islamic nations, no? Islam itself is one big human rights violation.


Originally posted by jay gw
Yes, I know that people have misinterpreted religion and used it for atrocities.


Silly no true Scotsman. You are big into these too.

To me it seems like we can only be thankful for the folks who persistently keep on misinterpreting their religions.


Originally posted by jay gw
Yes, I know that there are "nice" atheists.

But you continue to ignore the facts that among atheistic societies, there are many more atrocities. Sorry, but you can't keep avoiding that fact!


And what about the fact that pluralist societies with a high percentage of Atheists and Agnostics such as the Netherlands, France, Germany, Canada etc. seem to be thoroughly disinterested in going to war or committing genocide???


Originally posted by jay gw
The reason for that is the the value of human life is very low to atheists. They don't care about life!


And what is the reason for these?

• the Ancient Hebrews, (kill 'em all, 'cept for the female virgins)
• those nations involved in the 30 year war (Catholics against Protestants),
• the Confederacy (do you want a quote from Jefferson Davies? He disagrees with your Bible interpretation),
• those perpetrating the inquisitions,
• Muslims at the Hindukush,
• WW I where Kaiser fought against Czar (you know that Kaiser and Czar are a bit more than absolutist monarchs, don't you?),
• do I need to mention how such good Christian nations as the British Empire, Spain, Portugal etc. behaved (you know, for example, the millions of native Americans (that reminds me of the Atzecs and their human sacrifices (which in turn reminds me of the ancients Hebrews)) were killed) in their Colonies
• and you have not forgotten those quotations by Adolf Hiltler and the fact that Nazi Germany still was society with a high percentage of Christians (Catholic and Protestant)
• ...

[jay gw]

And what about the fact that pluralist societies with a high percentage of Atheists and Agnostics such as the Netherlands, France, Germany, Canada etc. seem to be thoroughly disinterested in going to war or committing genocide???

Weren't they religious 10 years ago? What about 20? Atheism in Europe is modern. And, the fact is that democracy and the threat of UN action keeps them from banning religion. Which, if they could, they would. Just like they ALWAYS do.

You would have to SHOW that the reason they are peaceful is because they're atheist.

But it's not.

Let me ask you this: why did democracy develop ONLY in religious societies?

I'm going to bet no one will try to answer that one.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by jay gw

[b]Let me ask you this: why did democracy develop ONLY in religious societies?
Perhaps because democracy developed at a time when every society was religious?

I'm going to bet no one will try to answer that one.
Don't go to Vegas. You're bad with wagers.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by jay gw
Weren't they religious 10 years ago? What about 20? Atheism in Europe is modern. And, the fact is that democracy and the threat of UN action keeps them from banning religion. Which, if they could, they would. Just like they ALWAYS do.

You would have to SHOW that the reason they are peaceful is because they're atheist.

But it's not.

Let me ask you this: why did democracy develop ONLY in religious societies?

I'm going to bet no one will try to answer that one.



To me it seems they're both children of the Enlightenment.

[wolfgirl]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Back in the day as I like to say :) you have to remember that was a new world, people (not just Jews) trying to find their way, a rag tag bunch that did not have any values of each other. Thats why God did step in and bring direction and values because the land could not take the way it was. Or people created religion as a way to instill order on society. (Religion is the opiate of the masses, after all.)

Gods did not create man, man created gods.

Just another way of explaining things...

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by wolfgirl
Or people created religion as a way to instill order on society. (Religion is the opiate of the masses, after all.)

Gods did not create man, man created gods.

Just another way of explaining things...

Indeed. It seems to me that jay gw may be saying that god doesn't exist, but we must keep the facade going in order to instill morals into people...

But the problems with religion teaching morals have already been gone over. I've already said that I think a moral person will be moral regardless of their religion or non-religion, and an immoral person will be immoral wether they believe in god or not...

Seeing as how we have yet to see a causal link between atheism and immoral behavior.

[wolfgirl]

Originally posted by jay gw
Do you know why? It's because atheists DON'T WANT ANY MORALS. Don't be ashamed. Lots of people want the freedom to do anything they want to, at any time. Whether what they're doing is right or not, doesn't really matter to them. Aaaaahhhhhh...and here we get to the heart of the matter. Good ol' jay thinks we're all evil baby-eaters. He can't comprehend that we can be the good, decent, law-abiding citizens, loving parents, good and supportive spouses, contributors to charity, etc., etc., etc. that I'd venture to guess most of us here are.

Let's get one thing straight. You can't know anything about my morals or anyone's morals by knowing if they believe in your god, some other god, or not god at all. All you can know is what god they believe in. They may or may not accept the code of ethics that goes with their religion. They may accept it but be unable to live it.

RELIGION AND MORALITY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. ONE CAN HAVE RELIGION WITHOUT MORALITY...SURELY EVEN YOU KNOW THAT. AND NOW IT'S TIME FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT ONE CAN HAVE MORALITY WITHOUT RELIGION.

I live a good, full and happy life. I have never killed anyone, have never stolen from anyone, try not to hurt anyone or anything if I can avoid it. I love animals and the earth. I dearly love my husband and my kids and my friends. I take care of my elderly mother. I've worked hard for what I have. I give money to charitable causes. I try to have as much fun as I can because I know that my time here is all I have; I don't expect anything else after I die. And I believe with all my heart that since there are no gods to guide us or punish us, it is up to us, and only us, to make the world the best place we can for all of us that are stuck on it for a few decades together.

Please do not tell atheists what we want or what we believe. It's rude. And condescending. And insulting. And quite frankly it pisses me off! :mad: Nothing makes me angrier than people assuming that I'm not moral because I'm not religious. The one has nothing to do with the other.

If it is too hard for you to imagine living a moral life without religion, which means that you have to have the threat of eternal punishment to cause you to live morally, then I feel sorry for you. And a little frightened of you. But don't drag the rest of us that don't need that threat into your delusions just to make yourself feel better.

[wolfgirl]

Originally posted by jay gw
Children I've met would stab me in the eye with a pencil to get that toy out of my hands. I'm not exactly sure what your point is here. Just as we are all born atheist, we are all born amoral. We have to be taught morals. Some parents do a good job of this, some don't. Some religious parents do a good job of this, some don't. Some atheist parents do a good job of this, some don't. Teaching children religion doesn't automatically teach them morals. And they can be taught morals without being taught religion.

You teach a child right and wrong. They don't have to know about gods to get that.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Angel
cheers Marquis de Carabas!

i just hope the original poster returns to reply.

Welcome to R&P, which should be changed to "the troll baiting board," where you can argue with nuts until you feel smart in comparison (which doesn't take very long). Not that I believe these people are actual trolls, but they're awfully close in comparison.

[jay gw]

Aaaaahhhhhh...and here we get to the heart of the matter. Good ol' jay thinks we're all evil baby-eaters. He can't comprehend that we can be the good, decent, law-abiding citizens, loving parents, good and supportive spouses, contributors to charity, etc., etc., etc. that I'd venture to guess most of us here are.

You're assuming that the posters here are good parents, contributors to charity etc. But the question is: why would an atheist CARE?

Just as we are all born atheist, we are all born amoral. We have to be taught morals. Some parents do a good job of this, some don't. Some religious parents do a good job of this, some don't. Some atheist parents do a good job of this, some don't. Teaching children religion doesn't automatically teach them morals. And they can be taught morals without being taught religion.

And here we have the answer to why atheism can't work as a social philosophy. Thank you. Yes, the beliefs of the parents don't automatically mean good parenting. But I've never, not once, heard how an atheist parent teaches morals. Please enlighten us.

Welcome to R&P, which should be changed to "the troll baiting board,"

I am not a troll. Thank you.

[Z]

It's easy. You teach your kids to do what is best for everyone. To do no harm, nor, through inaction, allow harm to be done. To live and let live. To not judge others, nor make false assumptions.

You teach them how to make the world a better place than it is today - not through 'morals' but through simple value judgements. It's really easy to do - you just consider: does this decision harm others, or not? If no, then it's safe; if yes, then it needs to be weighed vs. potential benefit.

For example: Driving through a school zone at 55 mph with the lights flashing: potentially hazardous and highly irresponsible. Two men having anal sex in a committed and monogamous relationship? Rather responsible, and only mildly hazardous - if one of the two is a virgin. Proclaiming that group 'C' is evil and committing sin, because they don't believe in The Book? Very hazardous and ignorant.

[Skeptical Greg]

Jeeesus in a Volvo station wagon! This guy doesn't know when he's beaten badder than a man with a banana in his pants in a room full of monkeys.....

I think I may be on to something though..

Consider this ... jay gw ... I keep seeing " gay jw "

What could it mean ?

[c4ts]

You know who this guy reminds me of?

Jedi Knight.

[Cosmo]

Originally posted by c4ts
You know who this guy reminds me of?

Jedi Knight.


I hope so, c4ts, for your sake. The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Cosmo

I hope so, c4ts, for your sake. The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am.


For those of you who missed out him, Jedi Knight was the first to start threads on things like Hitler's atheism and how putting atheists in a gas chamber would make them all believe in god with their last dying breaths. Oh, and Martian civilization.

Some guy, that JK was. I had hoped his case was unique...

[Cosmo]

Originally posted by c4ts
For those of you who missed out him, Jedi Knight was the first to start threads on things like Hitler's atheism and how putting atheists in a gas chamber would make them all believe in god with their last dying breaths. Oh, and Martian civilization.

Some guy, that JK was. I had hoped his case was unique...

Oops. Looks like that one went right over my head. :D Oh well... at least I got a Vader quote out, right? It wasn't a completely useless post. :)

[Operaider]

Originally posted by jay gw
You're assuming that the posters here are good parents, contributors to charity etc. But the question is: why would an atheist CARE?For the same reason most people care. If you see someone starving, you feel bad for them and give them food. If you see the little guy getting picked on, you stand up and help him. If you can help someone, you do it, because you remember a time when you needed help. We do what’s right because it's the right thing to do. Not because we're afraid some vindictive deity will shake his head in disappointment if we don't.
And here we have the answer to why atheism can't work as a social philosophy. Thank you. Yes, the beliefs of the parents don't automatically mean good parenting. But I've never, not once, heard how an atheist parent teaches morals. Please enlighten us. The same way anyone else teaches morals. Explaining that its wrong to do cruel things to others because you wouldn't want the same thing done to you. Likewise with kind acts. It's not like it takes a rocket scientist to teach these basic concepts. You don't need to be told that it's God's will to know not to kill, steal, or rape



I am not a troll. Thank you. [/QUOTE]

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Cosmo
Oops. Looks like that one went right over my head. :D Oh well... at least I got a Vader quote out, right? It wasn't a completely useless post. :)

Oh, he was on the Light Side of the force all right. Or the Dark. I don't know, he kept changing his avatar. Anyway he did say he was a Jedi.

[Kopji]

And here we have the answer to why atheism can't work as a social philosophy. Thank you. Yes, the beliefs of the parents don't automatically mean good parenting. But I've never, not once, heard how an atheist parent teaches morals. Please enlighten us.

Atheism is not a social philosophy, it is simply a realization, or perhaps an affirmation. An atheist could follow any number of philosophers, even religious figures like Jesus, and remain an atheist.

As for parenting, you lead by example, just like religious parents do. By being honest and treating people fairly. Encouraging a love of science and nature, looking for wonder and awe in the smallest of things as well as the greatest.

And I can safely say, that after having met some of my kids religious friends, mine are far less screwed up. Does any thinking religious person really think that an environment of threats and fear will have any beneficial effect? I know many who do not and I would not offend them by implying they are so shallow.

I would not make the mistake of judging all religious people by the few I have met or read about in the news.

And for all the talk of Hitler being an atheist, he seems a rather bad one:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." - Mein Kampf

Yes, be very afraid of those who only pretend to believe and yet lead believers on. The ancient machine of religious authority is ever ready to be used as a weapon against it's own followers, as long as it stays in power.

...Synopsis of the reports, written between 1994 and 1998, are posted on NCR's website. One egregious case was of a priest who got a nun pregnant and forced her to have an abortion--another sin in the eyes of the church. She died of complications in the procedure. Then the abusive priest officiated at her funeral.
linky (http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/new/inthenews/042502MississippiLink.htm)

So naturally I am interested in the religious social philosophy at work there, saving the world from atheists.
Tell me all about the honor of a god who requires faith as a response to predatory abuse done in his name.

Just write all in this little box []
Should be plenty of room...

[Anders]

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
Well, maybe recently in history. But you forget about:

The French and Indian War
American Revolutionary War
War of 1812 (where Washington D.C. was taken by the British)
The Mexican-American War (although might be considered to be mainly on Mexican territory).
American Civil War
and, of course, the one you mentioned: Pearl Harbor (WWII)

Although technologically outnumbered, wars and battles between the Native Americans and United States went on for nearly a century.

Kuroyume
Do really want me to list European wars? Wars that make wars on American soil seem lika a walk in the park.

[Anders]

Originally posted by jay gw
Weren't they religious 10 years ago? What about 20? Atheism in Europe is modern. And, the fact is that democracy and the threat of UN action keeps them from banning religion. Which, if they could, they would. Just like they ALWAYS do.

You would have to SHOW that the reason they are peaceful is because they're atheist.

But it's not.

Let me ask you this: why did democracy develop ONLY in religious societies?

I'm going to bet no one will try to answer that one.
Well, all dictatorships that you refer to, was religous prior to the "revolution". So, with your logic, religioun caused dictatorship.

Cuba was Catholic,
North Korea was Buddhist
China as well,
Germany was christian, catholic (south) and protestant(north)
Russia was orthodox christian
Argtentina, catholic
Peru, catholic also after the pinochet takeover
Spain under franco, catholic also after takeover
Italy, catholic, also during Mussolini
Greec...
I could go on forever listing religous former dictarorships.

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by Anders
Do really want me to list European wars? Wars that make wars on American soil seem lika a walk in the park.

No need ... you'd need an encyclopedia. :0)

Just keeping it a little more honest.

Kuroyume

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by jay gw
You're assuming that the posters here are good parents, contributors to charity etc. But the question is: why would an atheist CARE?



And here we have the answer to why atheism can't work as a social philosophy. Thank you. Yes, the beliefs of the parents don't automatically mean good parenting. But I've never, not once, heard how an atheist parent teaches morals. Please enlighten us.



I am not a troll. Thank you. Please answer this:

Is the only reason you care about other people because god commands it? Do you have no compassion for your fellow humans other than what you are obliged to by threat of damnation?

[RamblingOnwards]

I see the light.

And it applies to so many other things to, like the belief that the world doesn't have edges. If the world doesn't have edges, then there is no reason for people not to just travel on, and on, and on... What's to keep people at home, being productive and taking care of their kids if they aren't afraid of falling of the edge of the world? Consider this - divorce rates have gone up in all countries that don't believe in this. We must tell everyone that the world has edges. It may not be true, but it's for the good of society.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by jay gw
Was this Argentinian military leader:

http://www.yendor.com/vanished/junta/acosta.jpg

a "good Christian"?

His name is Jorge Eduardo Acosta. He murdered French nuns at the Church of Santa Cruz in Argentina.

How about him?

http://www.yendor.com/vanished/junta/agosti.jpg

Or him?

http://www.yendor.com/vanished/junta/bignone.jpg

All these men killed thousands of people in Argentina. These men were all atheists.

http://www.yendor.com/vanished/junta.html

Wow, balding causes evil!!!! Or perhaps people wearing ties is the cause. Or perhaps they are evil because they are white. This is an obvious logical fallacy, though I can't remember the exact name of this fallacy.

Seriously jay gw, this method of demonizing your opponents can be used against all; blacks, whites, democrats, christians, even against people named Jay. I bet I could find several cases of people called Jay that have done something criminal, and I can then present it in a case about how people with that name are evil. This is a lowlife tactic, one that racists, nazists and other haters use.

And by the way, as other people have pointed out; Nazism wasn't atheistic. You can find Hitler quotes for or against religion, so it's really impossible to find out what that lunatic thought exactly about that subject.

You have not provided any evidence whatsoever that these people committed evil because of their atheism. It's a fact that throughout history people of all beliefs have committed attrocities.

[jay gw]

To me it seems like we can only be thankful for the folks who persistently keep on misinterpreting their religions.

Enrollment in Catholic schools: over 7.5 million

Black Catholics in Africa: 100 million, Catholic schools are sometimes the only ones in Africa, due to lack of public education.

So instead you choose to focus on the Torquemada types of history.

What people who say, "Religion is evil because of X atrocity" are saying is that the colonization of America and other places is evil because of some witch burnings by the religious pioneers. The Puritans were the first ones to build big settlements in the United States. Just because they enforced the interpretation of the bible with harsh punishments a few times does not mean the society was valueless.

But the problems with religion teaching morals have already been gone over. I've already said that I think a moral person will be moral regardless of their religion or non-religion, and an immoral person will be immoral wether they believe in god or not...

In other words, it's pointless to teach morality or ethics. Furthermore, having a socially accepted ethics, widely accepted in a community, is useless.

Wrong.

Well, all dictatorships that you refer to, was religous prior to the "revolution". So, with your logic, religioun caused dictatorship.

There are very few religious dictatorships. In fact, the only real one might be Iran. Just because a dictator takes over and the population is religious, Catholic/Buddhist whichever, does not mean it is a religious dictatorship. The leaders of those revolutions are mostly NOT religious. Military dictators and communists don't frequent churches, as any educated person would know.

You have not provided any evidence whatsoever that these people committed evil because of their atheism. It's a fact that throughout history people of all beliefs have committed attrocities.

Yes, I've provided evidence. The evidence is that, since atheism does not provide for the value of human life, it does not assign any value to it, that atheists naturally commit atrocities. History is my evidence.

[Marquis de Carabas]

How the hell does one get

In other words, it's pointless to teach morality or ethics. Furthermore, having a socially accepted ethics, widely accepted in a community, is useless.


from

But the problems with religion teaching morals have already been gone over. I've already said that I think a moral person will be moral regardless of their religion or non-religion, and an immoral person will be immoral wether they believe in god or not...

Jay, do you honestly not see how here, and at other points throughout this thread, you miscast your fellows' posts so they're simpler to deal with. In other words, are you blind to your strawmen, or are you unscrupulous?

[Skeptical Greg]

Would you throw your children into a fire?

[Anders]

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
No need ... you'd need an encyclopedia. :0)

Just keeping it a little more honest.

Kuroyume
Well, we were talking 20:century, didn't we? Europe is still bloodier. Not a great achivement though.

Lets see if I can remeber high school history:

- Spanish civil war
- WW1
- WW2
- Finland vs Russia (Could be argued to be part if WW2 but anyways, it's kinda personal)
- Uppraising and short civil war in Hungery 1956
- Uppraising and short civil war in Tjeckoslovakia 1968
- Balkan wars 1912 and in the 90:s
- Greek vs Turkey in the 20:s
- Greec civil war in the 40s (after WW2)

Anyways, all quite religous countries.

[Marquis de Carabas]

The evidence is that, since geology does not provide for the value of human life, it does not assign any value to it, that geologists naturally commit atrocities.

[jay gw]

I've already said that I think a moral person will be moral regardless of their religion or non-religion, and an immoral person will be immoral wether they believe in god or not...

This means exactly that. What it says, right there, is that a "moral" person will be moral NO MATTER WHAT INSTRUCTION.

How could you not see the meaning? It's perfectly clear. Atheists believe that ethics are somehow "inborn" into people.

Inborn?!?

How anyone could be so historically ignorant I can't imagine.

Here's what atheists believe:

Morals and ethics are -

1. Inborn
2. Personal choice

Wrong. And wrong.

If you think a community exists where everyone does what they please, which by the way means everyone acting SELFISHLY to gain the most for themselves regardless of anything else, then you can go live in your "community".

The evidence is that, since geology does not provide for the value of human life, it does not assign any value to it, that geologists naturally commit atrocities.

Someone who's unfamiliar with global warming......

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by jay gw

I've already said that I think a moral person will be moral regardless of their religion or non-religion, and an immoral person will be immoral wether they believe in god or not...

This means exactly that. What it says, right there, is that a "moral" person will be moral NO MATTER WHAT INSTRUCTION.

Um, no, that's not what it says. It says their morals are not determined by their belief or lack thereof in a deity. It makes no mention whatever of instruction. You put that in there.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by jay gw
This means exactly that. What it says, right there, is that a "moral" person will be moral NO MATTER WHAT INSTRUCTION.

How could you not see the meaning? It's perfectly clear. Atheists believe that ethics are somehow "inborn" into people.

Inborn?!?

How anyone could be so historically ignorant I can't imagine.

Here's what atheists believe:

Morals and ethics are -

1. Inborn
2. Personal choice

Wrong. And wrong.

If you think a community exists where everyone does what they please, which by the way means everyone acting SELFISHLY to gain the most for themselves regardless of anything else, then you can go live in your "community".

Perhaps some atheists (and "atheism" is not a monolithic homogenous unity of thought) believe that ethics can be arrived at through rational thought. And that society is built on a compromise between personal freedoms and the good of the society as a whole. The curb on personal freedom to "do whatever you want" is the point where such activity hurts someone else.

[jay gw]

It says their morals are not determined by their belief or lack thereof in a deity. It makes no mention whatever of instruction. You put that in there.

I didn't say morals had anything to do with belief in gods. YOU said that.

Perhaps some atheists (and "atheism" is not a monolithic homogenous unity of thought) believe that ethics can be arrived at through rational thought.

PERHAPS some do, PERHAPS some don't. It sounds terribly convincing. Not.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Perhaps some atheists (and "atheism" is not a monolithic homogenous unity of thought) believe that ethics can be arrived at through rational thought.
No true atheist would believe that. :p

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by jay gw
I didn't say morals had anything to do with belief in gods. YOU said that.
Um, wrong again. The original poster of the sentence in question said it. And that's my point. It's there, in the post, and you keep reading it and pulling out 'no instruction.' You have worse reading comprehension skills than Patrick. I'm amazed.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by jay gw
I didn't say morals had anything to do with belief in gods. YOU said that.

Are you aware of any religions that do not involve a belief in God/s?


And in case you missed the question; Would you throw your children into a fire?

[jay gw]

But the problems with religion teaching morals have already been gone over. I've already said that I think a moral person will be moral regardless of their religion or non-religion, and an immoral person will be immoral wether they believe in god or not...

There are problems with religion teaching morals. Having "gone over" them already, there's no need to bring that up. Maybe the reason is that the problems are very few.

Throwing a child into a fire - lots of governments have.

[Michael Redman]

jay gw, please answer this. I'm asking nicely:

Is the only reason you care about other people because god commands it? Do you have no compassion for your fellow humans other than what you are obliged to by threat of damnation?

[Hardenbergh]

Delete (replied to the wrong message)

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by jay gw
Maybe the reason is that the problems are very few.

You have yet to convince me and the others.

[Hardenbergh]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Um, wrong again. The original poster of the sentence in question said it. And that's my point. It's there, in the post, and you keep reading it and pulling out 'no instruction.' You have worse reading comprehension skills than Patrick. I'm amazed.

Marquis de Carabas,

I just noticed that you changed your avatar. I kind of liked your old one. It had a masculine quality to it. The new one looks like it belongs in a china closet. No offense intended. You're still the same good ol' Marquis de Carabas. ;)

[Marquis de Carabas]

Oh, Smiley will be back, have no fear. Puss wanted some face time, that vain furrball.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by jay gw

Throwing a child into a fire - lots of governments have.

Why are you having a problem with this question?


Would YOU throw your children into a fire?

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by jay gw
You're assuming that the posters here are good parents, contributors to charity etc. But the question is: why would an atheist CARE?

Are you really this ignorant?

Atheists care because we're human beings. We're social animals who survived a harsh world only by cooperating with other human beings.

Generally speaking, the great majority of people want to own a home, get married, have a family, have some fun, and contribute something to this world before they die. This applies to people of all ethnic, religious, social and national backgrounds. This applies to atheists.

Even at the least, acting morally is in each person's self interest. Comitting crimes, hurting other people is risky. It could get you hurt, imprisoned, or even killed. Acting immorally puts all of the above goals at risk.

That's why people are moral. Religion is irrelevant.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by jay gw
But the question is: why would an atheist CARE?No reason, really. They just do!

Apperently God made people's sense of morality in such a way that it doesn't fail with every laps in faith or every little bit of doubt in the existence of God. Somehow it still manages to function, just like one of those special tyres for armoured cars that allow you to drive with even when it is punctured.

If that's not Intelligent Design, I don't know what is! :)

[Lord Emsworth]

Originlly posted by jay gw
Originlly posted by Lord Emsworth
To me it seems like we can only be thankful for the folks who persistently keep on misinterpreting their religions.


Enrollment in Catholic schools: over 7.5 million

Black Catholics in Africa: 100 million, Catholic schools are sometimes the only ones in Africa, due to lack of public education.

So instead you choose to focus on the Torquemada types of history.

What people who say, "Religion is evil because of X atrocity" are saying is that the colonization of America and other places is evil because of some witch burnings by the religious pioneers. The Puritans were the first ones to build big settlements in the United States. Just because they enforced the interpretation of the bible with harsh punishments a few times does not mean the society was valueless.


I don't have the slightest idea what that has got to do with my statement.

[RamblingOnwards]

Incidently, there are many cases in which the religion clearly didn't influence the morality of the populous - like the exposing of children (abandoning babies to die shortly after birth). The Christian faith forbids it, but it was still common practice until into the twelth century in some areas.

[jay gw]

Would YOU throw your children into a fire?

If the atheist communist government told me it was good for the collective, would I have a choice?

Generally speaking, the great majority of people want to own a home, get married, have a family, have some fun, and contribute something to this world before they die. This applies to people of all ethnic, religious, social and national backgrounds. This applies to atheists.

You're making assumptions about people that are not factually supported. There are MANY criminals in the world. I don't suppose you know that MOST governments in the world are corrupt?

Even at the least, acting morally is in each person's self interest.

TOTALLY FALSE. Good grief. I can't believe you think that.

Here

Picture a pasture open to all. Each herdsman will try to keep as many animals as possible on the commons. An individual herdsman adding one animal to his herd gets a positive benefit of having one more animal to sell. At the same time, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, and the negative effect of adding "just one more" animal on a single herdsman is minimal.

A rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course of action is to add another animal to his herd. And then another.... Since this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons, the pasture will become overgrazed and the animals will all die. Therein is the tragedy - freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.

Ah, the atheists dilemma. How, when everyone is supposedly "innately moral" and "concerned with society" and, when acting in their RATIONAL best interest, in fact HARMS EVERYTHING.

What to do, what to do....

Here's why "innate morality" and the rest of the atheist claptrap cannot work: Because INDIVIDUAL RATIONALITY AND SOCIAL RATIONALITY ARE TWO COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS.

Trying to build a society around individual rationality and morality, which may or may not exist in the first place, is EXTREMELY MISGUIDED.

The issue then turns to: how exactly do you get people to start acting in SOCIAL RATIONAL ways?

Atheist: um....individual morality will take care of it......um......

[Marquis de Carabas]

Your tragedy of the commons model is a bit too simplistic. All you need to do is assume that the farmers have some means of detecting cheating, and the outcome changes dramatically.

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by jay gw
A rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course of action is to add another animal to his herd. And then another.... Since this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons, the pasture will become overgrazed and the animals will all die.

Bob, the rational herdsman concludes that Joe or Pete adding another animal to their herds means less grass for his own animals. He wanders over to Joe and Pete.

"Look, if you keep adding more animals, eventually all our animals will starve. Please stop doing it."

Joe and Pete look at each other.

"You're right," says Joe, "but if we stop doing it, we want you to stop doing it too."

Bob thinks - which is worse for him? All his animals eventually starving, or having fewer animals?

"Okay," says Bob.

---

Enlightened self interest. Look it up.

(dratted tags)

[Anders]

Originally posted by jay gw
If the atheist communist government told me it was good for the collective, would I have a choice?

[snip]
Nope no choice, and if you tried to argue you would be thrown in jail and perhaps tortured and executed.

Which is what happen in most religious dictatorships, which would be all countries on the face of the world before late 19:th century. Remember the Inquisition?

[jay gw]

Your tragedy of the commons model is a bit too simplistic.

Then by all means share your wisdom with your more "sophisticated" model of how the world works.

All you need to do is assume that the farmers have some means of detecting cheating, and the outcome changes dramatically.

Kind of like I assume I'll never be the victim of a crime, because we can "detect" them before they happen? Uh, ok.

_______
"Look, if you keep adding more animals, eventually all our animals will starve. Please stop doing it."

Joe and Pete look at each other.

"You're right," says Joe, "but if we stop doing it, we want you to stop doing it too."

Bob thinks - which is worse for him? All his animals eventually starving, or having fewer animals?

"Okay," says Bob.
________

And then Joe, deciding that he'll benefit if Pete and Bob stop, goes along while secretly cheating. Kind of like how the real world works.

Atheism = blind faith in human reason and "innate morality".

Religion = blind faith in a "deity" which matters zero anyway, and recognition that human beings are fallible and the logical rational thing to do is cheat and exploit.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by jay gw
If the atheist communist government told me it was good for the collective, would I have a choice?


Next dodge.


Originally posted by jay gw
TOTALLY FALSE. Good grief. I can't believe you think that.

Here

Picture a pasture open to all. Each herdsman will try to keep as many animals as possible on the commons. An individual herdsman adding one animal to his herd gets a positive benefit of having one more animal to sell. At the same time, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, and the negative effect of adding "just one more" animal on a single herdsman is minimal.

A rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course of action is to add another animal to his herd. And then another.... Since this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons, the pasture will become overgrazed and the animals will all die. Therein is the tragedy - freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.

Ah, the atheists dilemma. How, when everyone is supposedly "innately moral" and "concerned with society" and, when acting in their RATIONAL best interest, in fact HARMS EVERYTHING.

What to do, what to do....


So it IS in everybody self-interest to act morally here?


Originally posted by jay gw
Here's why "innate morality" and the rest of the atheist claptrap cannot work: Because INDIVIDUAL RATIONALITY AND SOCIAL RATIONALITY ARE TWO COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS.

Trying to build a society around individual rationality and morality, which may or may not exist in the first place, is EXTREMELY MISGUIDED.

The issue then turns to: how exactly do you get people to start acting in SOCIAL RATIONAL ways?

Atheist: um....individual morality will take care of it......um......


So let's hear your un-atheistic solution.

[rastamonte]

Originally posted by jay gw

Atheism = blind faith in human reason and "innate morality".

Religion = blind faith in a "deity" which matters zero anyway, and recognition that human beings are fallible and the logical rational thing to do is cheat and exploit.

I thought your thesis was that religion is better. But here you state that religion and atheism are the same or similar. Which is it?

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by rastamonte
I thought your thesis was that religion is better. But here you state that religion and atheism are the same or similar. Which is it?


I suppose he himself doesn't know what he is arguing.

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by jay gw

Atheism = blind faith in human reason and "innate morality".


Dude, you're confusing atheism (no belief in a God) with anarchy (absence of authority).

Unless you do mean to say that a police force is purely decorative in a religious society?

[Paul]

jay,

Perhaps this might help your apparent difficulties with the English language, from The Concise Oxford English Dictionary -

atheism n.
disbelief in the existence of a god or gods.

morality n.
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
Please explain how these two are incompatible, without using; confirmation bias, false dichotomy, non sequitur, post hoc, ergo propter hoc, straw man, argument from omniscience, appeal to faith, argument from adverse consequences, argumentum ad ignorantiam or any other logical fallacies you may come up with.

[jay gw]

Please explain how these two are incompatible

Because atheism is more than a disbelief in gods. It is the DENIAL of everything religious and that religion is constructed of. There's much more to atheism, unless you're saying that there are atheists that will say, "Well, I think the belief in god is a load of crap, but I read the bible/koran anyway."

How many people do you know like that, in other words, how many "partial atheists" do you know? -.00001%?

Which leads to this: if atheists deny anything religion offers, then.....WHAT ARE THEY SUBSTITUTING?

Answer that ----->win a prize

without using; confirmation bias, false dichotomy, non sequitur, post hoc, ergo propter hoc, straw man, argument from omniscience, appeal to faith, argument from adverse consequences, argumentum ad ignorantiam or any other logical fallacies you may come up with.

I have to point out, that logical argument =/= truth. A logical argument just doesn't break any rules of logic. It doesn't mean it's true or not. I don't like breaking any of the rules, but may on occasion to be "dramatic".

[Cosmo]

Originally posted by jay gw
A logical argument just doesn't break any rules of logic. It doesn't mean it's true or not. I don't like breaking any of the rules, but may on occasion to be "dramatic".

Your drama is irrelevent; everyone here has and will continue to see through it (and call you on it). If you have something to say, support your statements with facts and logic and you might be taken seriously.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by jay gw
Because atheism is more than a disbelief in gods.


Thank you for so blatantly showing that you totally seem to miss the things posted thruoghout htis thread.

Have you actually read any of the responses?

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
By your little definition here, care to explain how Marxism is not a religion?

You may also like to note that atheism and religion are not strictly antonyms. See: Buddhism.


Quoted for jay

[jay gw]

If you have something to say, support your statements with facts and logic and you might be taken seriously.

This coming from someone ignoring requests to support his/her own arguments with evidence. Nice.

Have you actually read any of the responses?

What part of my responses saying I did read them don't you understand?

Quoted for jay

Yes, I know that religion and atheism may not be antonyms. Thank you.

You're continuing to miss the point: once again, nice that THREE PEOPLE dodged this:

If atheists deny anything religion has to offer, then WHAT ARE THEY SUBSTITUTING?

Either you're saying that religious ideas on ethics and morality have value, or you're presenting your substitute for them.

You have two options.

CHECK. MATE.

[Cosmo]

Originally posted by jay gw
This coming from someone ignoring requests to support his/her own arguments with evidence. Nice.

Utter foolishness. What can you possibly be talking about? I have only one other post in this thread, a post with the sole purpose of debunking your Nazis = Atheists claim.

You're being childish again - you were warned against that a few pages back. Try to be mature, will you?

[Paul]

Originally posted by jay gw
Because atheism is more than a disbelief in gods. It is the DENIAL of everything religious and that religion is constructed of. There's much more to atheism, unless you're saying that there are atheists that will say, "Well, I think the belief in god is a load of crap, but I read the bible/koran anyway."
I know you're not half as smart as you like to think you are, but did you happen to notice the definition of atheism at the top of the post?
Also, I think you'll find many atheists who have read, and indeed know a great deal about, religious texts.

Which leads to this: if atheists deny anything religion offers, then.....WHAT ARE THEY SUBSTITUTING?

Answer that ----->win a prize
It's not that we deny what religion offers, it's that we don't believe in god(s). We use our capacity for reason to define our own principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

I'll have a giant stuffed wombat please.
A logical argument just doesn't break any rules of logic. It doesn't mean it's true or not.
I'm not sure what you mean by this but it's irrelevant to my post, I asked you to try not using logical fallacies.

Now, as you have admitted, religious people can do immoral things. This would indicate that morality cannot be imposed upon these people, which would mean that morality is independent of religion.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by jay gw
What part of my responses saying I did read them don't you understand?


Your fallacies and Straw Men and your need to make use of them time and again.


Originally posted by jay gw
Yes, I know that religion and atheism may not be antonyms. Thank you.


Ah, all of a sudden you know that. You didn't know it however when you wrote this:Because atheism is more than a disbelief in gods. It is the DENIAL of everything religious and that religion is constructed of.


Originally posted by jay gw
You're continuing to miss the point: once again, nice that THREE PEOPLE dodged this:


http://lord_emsworth.spymac.net/smilies/iron-e.gif http://lord_emsworth.spymac.net/smilies/iron-e.gif http://lord_emsworth.spymac.net/smilies/iron-e.gif

Why should people answer your questions when you
• don't answer theirs
• keep on nilly willy defining and redefining terms just as it suits you?

ANSWER ME THAT! I bet you can't and won't.


Originally posted by jay gw
If atheists deny anything religion has to offer, then WHAT ARE THEY SUBSTITUTING?


Secular humanism seems good to me. Or is that a religion. Pretty tough to actually draw a line and identify where exactly a religion begins and where it ends and what exactly it incorporates and what not.

I think you would at first have to define "religion" then (should you decide to stick to that definition) you might find an answer somewhere.


Originally posted by jay gw
Either you're saying that religious ideas on ethics and morality have value, or you're presenting your substitute for them.


Sure they can have value. Why not? Anybody been saying different?


Originally posted by jay gw
CHECK. MATE. [/B]


Yes, indeed. Your position had been hopeles from the beginning.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by jay gw
If the atheist communist government told me it was good for the collective, would I have a choice?



I'm not talking about anyone else being involved ..

Would YOU choose to throw your children into a fire?

[jay gw]

We use our capacity for reason to define our own principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

This means:
1. You have faith that such a capacity exists.
2. You have faith that you have control of it and can exercise it properly.
3. You have faith there are no outside influences on it you're unaware of.
4. You have faith that it will, absolutely, determine the answer you're seeking.

Never mind the assumptions when you get to the societal level. Good god is right.

I'm not sure what you mean by this but it's irrelevant to my post

Wrong. It's the heart of your post. You just don't want to admit it.

Yes, indeed. Your position had been hopeles from the beginning.

Lord Emsworth: Your arguments are without support.
Jay GW: Oh, why?
Lord Emsworth: Because I say so.
Jay GW: Oh.....


Would YOU choose to throw your children into a fire?

If the alternative was certain death for my children, I'd probably take that chance and throw them in the fire.

[The Mighty Thor]

jay gw: Enrollment in Catholic schools: over 7.5 million

Black Catholics in Africa: 100 million, Catholic schools are sometimes the only ones in Africa, due to lack of public education.

So instead you choose to focus on the Torquemada types of history.

What people who say, "Religion is evil because of X atrocity" are saying is that the colonization of America and other places is evil because of some witch burnings by the religious pioneers. The Puritans were the first ones to build big settlements in the United States. Just because they enforced the interpretation of the bible with harsh punishments a few times does not mean the society was valueless.


Roman Catholic education in Africa has done what for the people, exactly?

Catholic teachings against artificial birth control and abortion are contary to your "commons" argument. The people are constantly afflicted by drought and famine. The Catholic Church tells them they must abstain from sex or be doomed to create ever more unsupportable numbers. So, AIDS further devestates the people. And what does the Roman Catholic Church advise the people NOT to do?

Religions all play the numbers game. Their major concern is to maximise adherents in order to increase revenue and attain power over the masses. The logical conclusion to belief in a god is a world theocracy based on dogma.

Christians believe they have a God-given duty to convert the world to Christianity. Muslims want to convert the world to Islam. Jews are "the chosen people", so they think their religion must be right. So, in an effort to impose their individual God-given worldviews and moral codes, they slaughter each other down to every schism that they can devise. That is not moral. That is madness.

Note how (let's call him GW for short) ;) minimises the suffering caused over the centuries directly due to religion. (My bold in his quote) The near or outright genocide of native peoples by religious conquests, the extermination of millions deemed heretical by one religion or schism or another, the impediments to science presented by fundamentalists -- these and other faults of religion are neatly boiled down to a few witch burnings here and there by his over-zealous compatriots, sorry about that, it was the too true Scotsman that dunnit, but when Jesus is universally recognised as Lord, we won't have to do that kind of nasty stuff anymore.

It is all about the numbers game, tribalism, and playing on the fears of the ignorant, as you can see here:

The leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland has urged his flock to have more children or face seeing immigrants "take over".

Cardinal Keith O'Brien said high birth rates among immigrant communities could see them eclipse populations of indigenous Christian Scots.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1155737,00.html

As for morals, obviously doing moral deeds (for religious or non-religious) reasons doesn't apply if one set of religious fanatics see you as "the other".

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1156099,00.html

A television channel has broadcast a video showing a senior worker with a British-based charity who was kidnapped in Iraq yesterday.

What are these mad zealots going to resort to next? The kidnapping and beheading of infidel children? What would your answer be to these barbaric acts, GW? What does your Christian moral compass point to?

[The Mighty Thor]

If the alternative was certain death for my children, I'd probably take that chance and throw them in the fire.

Last edited by jay gw on 10-20-2004 at 03:39 AM


That is not merely immoral, it is madness. If you have children seek help soon! Please!

[Paul]

Originally posted by jay gw
This means:
1. You have faith that such a capacity exists.
2. You have faith that you have control of it and can exercise it properly.
3. You have faith there are no outside influences on it you're unaware of.
4. You have faith that it will, ABSOLUTELY, determine the answer you're seeking.
faith n.
complete trust or confidence.

Yes, I have confidence in my capacity to reason and that I can think when I want to.
What do you mean by an outside influence over my ability to think for myself?
If I am going to define [my] own principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour then, obviously, my thought processes must determine the answer I am seeking
Never mind the assumptions when you get to the societal level. Good god is right.
?????
Wrong. It's the heart of your post. You just don't want to admit it.
The heart of my post was to give you definitions of atheism and morality because you seemed to be having trouble with their meanings. I incidentally asked you to try posting your position without the use of logical fallacies, something you should be prepared to do if you want to be taken seriously.

Ignoring the point about moral imposition are we?

[plindboe]

Prison inmate statistics:

The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious
affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of
inmates per religion category:

Response Number %
---------------------------- --------
Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%
Hindu 119 0.159%
Santeria 117 0.157%
Sikh 14 0.019%
Bahai 9 0.012%
Krishna 7 0.009%

Notice that atheists amount to a 0.21 percent on inmates, while their number in society is about 50 times higher than that. Of course you'll probably spin it in your mind somehow; that atheists have lied in the poll, or that they just don't get caught. :rolleyes:

*Edited to add* http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by jay gw
Atheism has no universally accepted way of assigning value to human life or to societies.
...

Atheism provides no justification for NOT exploiting others. In fact, the societies just mentioned who are atheistic have committed the worst human rights abuses of any societies in human history.

...

So, in its essence, here is what religion is: Religion is the method by which values are assigned to human and social traits and behaviors. There is no other method created to do this. The second thing religion is, is a regulator for human interaction.

Btw, you will not be able to refute this. Not to dissuade anyone, but just have to warn you.
I havent read the other posts in this thread, as I'm sure everyone else has already said what I will, but in kinder words:

You dont show that you've had the slightest interaction with atheists. And you dont seem to have even the most basic knowledge as to how human moral systems form in the first place (I recommend you start with Kohlberg or Piaget). Congrats, you've accomplished irritating the folks on this board.

Keep in mind, all atheism means is "doesnt believe in god(s)". It doesnt make any moral claims, or prescribe any way to live your life, or tell you about the mysteries of the great Peter Cottontale in the sky for a single reason: It describes a singular characteristic of a person's belief in gods and goddesses. This singular characteristic is accompanied by any number of moral characteristics.

The lack of affirming belief in gods and goddesses is fully compatible with many other systems of morality, the very existence of atheists who function perfectly well in society should tell you this. How is it that you've managed to miss the fact that atheists have the capacity to behave as morally as any theist?

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by jay gw
Lord Emsworth: Your arguments are without support.
Jay GW: Oh, why?
Lord Emsworth: Because I say so.
Jay GW: Oh.....


http://lord_emsworth.spymac.net/smilies/rub.gif


Can you show me where I have said that "[y]our arguments are without support?" What I have said - or something to the effect of it - is that your arguments are logically flawed. But you won't listen anyway.

And please and don't dodge again. Just show me, retract or stand as a liar.

[jay gw]

What do you mean by an outside influence over my ability to think for myself?

What could influence a person? Media? Family? Friends? I wonder.

I incidentally asked you to try posting your position without the use of logical fallacies, something you should be prepared to do if you want to be taken seriously.

That's what I've been doing. You just don't like what it reveals....

Notice that atheists amount to a 0.21 percent on inmates, while their number in society is about 50 times higher than that.

That's because the inmates don't identify themselves as "atheist" on the arrest record, because there's no majority atheist country. Unless...you include North Korea. But there, everybody's a prisoner.

Atheism: It describes a singular characteristic of a person's belief in gods and goddesses.

That's why atheists reject religion TOTALLY?

Btw

Either you're saying that religious ideas on ethics and morality have value, or you're presenting your substitute for them.

You have two options.

CHECK. MATE.

[Cosmo]

Originally posted by jay gw
That's because the inmates don't identify themselves as "atheist" on the arrest record, because there's no majority atheist country. Unless...you include North Korea. But there, everybody's a prisoner.

You are either grossly uninformed, vastly prejudiced, or both. Do you actually hold this view - every single man, woman, and child living in North Korea views themselves as a prisoner? Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

Do you consider North Korea to be an "atheist country"? Where do you get these ridiculous "facts" - or do you make them up to suit your argument? I'm betting on the latter.

Check your facts and leave your racism behind. It might help your argument.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by jay gw
That's why atheists reject religion TOTALLY?



Define religion, and we will see if Atheists reject it TOTALLY.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by jay gw

If the alternative was certain death for my children, I'd probably take that chance and throw them in the fire.

...

...

:jaw:

Would you throw them in if they didn't love you?

[Marquis de Carabas]

All right, since you are blind to your own fallacies, even when pointed out, incessantly, I'll lay it all out for you.

Morality, where it comes from, how it develops, and where to go for a good beer in southeast texas...

First we need a good idea of what morality is for, anyway. Without presuming any supernatural dictates of the rules, we're stuck with observing humanity. What do we do with morals? What do they help us to accomplish? The answer, I think, is obvious to everyone: morals help us function as rational self-interested agents in a society filled with other rational self-interested agents.

Now, good and evil are nebulous terms, at best, so I will throw them out from the beginning. The terms I propose the moral battleground should consist of are altruistic and selfish actions. Feel free to apply good and evil as you like to my terms if it's more comfortable.

No-one needs to be told which actions are selfish and which are altruistic. Sharing my cookie with you is altruistic, whether I deem it "good" or not.

The thing to note here is that there are people we are naturally inclined to be altruistic towards. These people are called family. Essentially, as we evolve, any gene that makes me more likely to behave altruistically towards a close family member will be a successful gene. Even if it causes me to sacrifice myself, there is a good chance my sacrifice allows other copies to survive. This is called kin selection, and is a tad more complicated than I have outlined. Please feel free to look it up, as I don't want to drag on all night (just most of it.)

So, there is your inborn morality. Love thy family as thyself. For much of our evolutionary history, anyone close was very likely family, so the rule was very nearly Jesus' good old "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

So, why do we need moral teachers, be they prophets or just parents, to guide us along? There are some principles that have been thought out rationally over the centuries that tell us how to apply our inborn rules. The rules are there, but who gets their benefit?

We are progressing, by small steps, to the idea that the 'neighbor' bit should include everyone. As we have come to recognise that Asians and Africans and Arkansans really are people, too, with families, and goals, and dreams, we come to include them under the protective moral umbrella already established in us by kin selection.

The inborn/learned dichotomy is too simple by far. We have inborn mechanisms for morality, sculpted by instruction that let us play nice.

Notice, we don't need no stinking gods for this.

Oh yeah, the beer thing. There is at least one bar in downtown Beaumont that sells Guinness, but beyond that, move on to Houston for your brew.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by jay gw
That's because the inmates don't identify themselves as "atheist" on the arrest record, because there's no majority atheist country. Unless...you include North Korea. But there, everybody's a prisoner. [/B]

As I thought. You are as delusional as can be. You are met by facts that directly contradict your warped view of reality, and your brain puts an absurd twist on it. You are no better than 1inchrist, the same kind of irrational fanatic.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by plindboe
As I thought. You are as delusional as can be. You are met by facts that directly contradict your warped view of reality, and your brain puts an absurd twist on it. You are no better than 1inchrist, the same kind of irrational fanatic.

The way he sees reality, it all boils down to who you believe. He came here not wanting to listen to us, and judging by his posts, I doubt he is going to start anytime soon. Therefore no matter what we say, no matter how reputable the source of our evidence, he will ignore it because we are the ones who show it. Never mind that some of us pay close attention to his posts, he's still going to find a way to quote it out of context and miss the point entirely, as if on purpose. It is the tyranny of belief, and an indicator of someone whose mind is closed. Whatever religious organization he belongs to (if any) has got him now, and there's nothing we can do. He has to free himself, and he is not even willing, let alone capable.

But who says we can't make fun of this guy while he tries to drag us down with him?

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by jay gw

What people who say, "Religion is evil because of X atrocity" are saying is that the colonization of America and other places is evil because of some witch burnings by the religious pioneers. The Puritans were the first ones to build big settlements in the United States. Just because they enforced the interpretation of the bible with harsh punishments a few times does not mean the society was valueless.



Oh my. Isn't that quite what you're claiming about atheism?


As for why an atheist would care, that's answered on a personal basis. My atheism is not my morality, because it does not address morality, only my stance on the question of wether there's a supreme being. I get my morality from my sense of compassion for others, which I suspect is a genetically inherited trait from our evolutionary ancestors.

[jay gw]

Without presuming any supernatural dictates of the rules, we're stuck with observing humanity.

And, what do you see, when observing humanity?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by jay gw
And, what do you see, when observing humanity?
Well, sometimes I observe someone who doesn't bother to read the sentence following the one he quotes, and then proceeds to ask a stupid question that would have been answered had he done so.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by jay gw

That's why atheists reject religion TOTALLY?

Btw

Either you're saying that religious ideas on ethics and morality have value, or you're presenting your substitute for them.

You have two options.

CHECK. MATE.

Some religious texts have good ideas on ethics and morality because they were written by human beings who had good ideas on the subject.

Too bad they were all wrong about the god part. ;)

[jay gw]

The answer, I think, is obvious to everyone: morals help us function as rational self-interested agents in a society filled with other rational self-interested agents.

What morals do atheists have? I've only asked this about 10 TIMES.

You are met by facts that directly contradict your warped view of reality, and your brain puts an absurd twist on it.

Because, as we all know, the facts point out that ATHEISTS ARE BETTER THAN ANYONE. That's why they don't go to jail!

Plindboe = a person completely ignorant of the fact that the United States is 90 PERCENT CATHOLIC/PROTESTANT.

I get my morality from my sense of compassion for others, which I suspect is a genetically inherited trait from our evolutionary ancestors.

Morality = genetically inherited trait. Very convincing.

Therefore no matter what we say, no matter how reputable the source of our evidence,

Either you're saying that religious ideas on ethics and morality have value, or you're presenting your substitute for them.

You have two options.

CHECK. MATE.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by jay gw
What morals do atheists have? I've only asked this about 10 TIMES.
All kinds of morals, because atheism does not describe, dictate, or disseminate a moral code. You might as well ask "What color underwear do atheists wear?"

[monkboon]

Originally posted by jay gw
Morality = genetically inherited trait. Riiiiight.

Well, let me see. Humans are a communal species. Communal species survive by mutual cooperation. It seems to me that ultimately, morality is a code for cooperation within the species, which reinforces itself by helping the species to survive. Come to TAM3 and you'll probably hear Shermer say pretty much the same thing, or read it in The Science of Good and Evil : Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805075208/qid=1098251861/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/104-4968743-9107919).


Either you're saying that religious ideas on ethics and morality have value, or you're presenting your substitute for them.

You have two options.


Why only two? Is your morality so black and white that these options are mutually exclusive? Pity, the human race aspires to better than that.

[monkboon]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
What color underwear do atheists wear?

Um, grey?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by monkboon
Um, grey?
Sorry, the correct answer was 'invisible pink.'

[monkboon]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Sorry, the correct answer was 'invisible pink.'

Damn! I always get that one wrong.

[jay gw]

A review of The Science of Good and Evil:

Shermer's provisional ethics might reflect the messy ways that human moral behavior developed, but his simplistic principles establish a utilitarian calculus that not everyone will find acceptable.

Yes, morality without religion is messy. I already knew that, thanks.

Why only two? Is your morality so black and white that these options are mutually exclusive?

Atheists want to reject religion of any kind, all of it, AND they want to live without a substitute ethics.

How convenient.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by jay gw
Yes, morality without religion is messy. I already knew that, thanks.
You might try reading the book for yourself, rather than basing an opinion on one review.

And would you care to provide evidence that morality with religion isn't messy?

Atheists want to reject religion of any kind, all of it, AND they want to live without a substitute ethics.

How convenient.
Strawman! Strawman! Dumb and deaf
In the fora of JREF
What insipid hand or eye
could frame thy silly sophistry?

with apologies to William Blake

[monkboon]

Originally posted by jay gw
Atheists want to reject religion of any kind, all of it, AND they want to live without a substitute ethics.

I'm sorry, but my own ethics prohibit me from making gross generalizations, unlike yours, apparently.

Atheism is not a rejection of religion, as you've been told a number of times already, I see. Atheism is a non-belief in gods. Period. Many religions include gods. Many do not. A large number of Buddhists would rightfully be considered atheists as well, but they are also religious.

As for substitute ethics, why do you continue to assume that my ethics, which obviously are different from yours, must therefore be non-existent?

[rastamonte]

Originally posted by monkboon
Damn! I always get that one wrong.

Welcome monkboon. You're signature made me laugh.:p

[monkboon]

Originally posted by rastamonte
Welcome monkboon. You're signature made me laugh.

Why, thank you on both counts :D

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by jay gw
What morals do atheists have? I've only asked this about 10 TIMES.

Atheists generally have about the same spread of morals as anyone else has.

Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong
(dictionary.com)

Morals tend to come from all over the show, both to religious and non religious. Why do you wear clothes in public? For most people, this is simply habit. Why don't you smoke in a non smokers house? Probably social pressure. Why don't you park in the disabled spot? Why don't you harrass homosexuals? Why don't you hit other people's children? I could list many, many morals that are common place and do not originate in any religion.

Ethics themselves - a set of principles of right conduct - can clearly be as easily or more easily be constructed from the principle of enlightened self interest as from a religious text.

Now, would you go against a moral if you were quite certain you could get away with it? This comes down to personal honour. Atheist, Catholic, Shintoist, whatever, life has shown us that most people are reseonably honourable, and some people appear incapable of it. I have never seen a proven link between religious beliefs and honour. [except perhaps, the prison stats which tend to indicate that a smaller percentage of atheists than are present in the general society go to jail]

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by RamblingOnwards
[except perhaps, the prison stats which tend to indicate that a smaller percentage of atheists than are present in the general society go to jail]

Actually it is the other way around. Some people seem to believe in redemption a bit too much.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by jay gw
Lord Emsworth: Your arguments are without support.
Jay GW: Oh, why?
Lord Emsworth: Because I say so.
Jay GW: Oh.....


http://lord_emsworth.spymac.net/smilies/rub.gif


Can you show me where I have said that "[y]our arguments are without support?" What I have said - or something to the effect of it - is that your arguments (if you can actually call it such) are logically flawed. But you won't listen anyway.

And please and don't dodge again. Just show me, retract or stand as a liar.


Waiting ...

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by jay gw


If the alternative was certain death for my children, I'd probably take that chance and throw them in the fire.
And you are questioning the morals of atheists?:rolleyes:

[RamblingOnwards]

except perhaps, the prison stats which tend to indicate that a smaller percentage of atheists than are present in the general society go to jail

Originally posted by AWPrime
Actually it is the other way around. Some people seem to believe in redemption a bit too much.

I was trying to say that the percentage of atheists in jails is lower than the percentage of atheists in the general population, which I think is the same thing you are saying here.

My English got a little tortured along the way!

[AWPrime]

Oops I did.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by jay gw
What morals do atheists have? I've only asked this about 10 TIMES.

[/B]

And they've only answered your question about 20 times. Stop ignoring everything and quoting out of context.

[jay gw]

Morals tend to come from all over the show, both to religious and non religious.

All over the show? Are you stating that every person has morals?

And would you care to provide evidence that morality with religion isn't messy?

Would you care to provide evidence that using your own "logic" is easier than being assisted by thousands of years of experience? Using both is one thing, rejecting the experiences and teachings from EVERY religion is quite another. Or don't you think so?

As for substitute ethics, why do you continue to assume that my ethics, which obviously are different from yours, must therefore be non-existent?

Maybe it's because after about 15 TIMES I've asked, not you or anyone can show what those are.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by jay gw


Maybe it's because after about 15 TIMES I've asked, not you or anyone can show what those are.

Or maybe it's because you've got everybody in this thread on your ignore list or something.

How did you add five more questions in one additional post, anyway?

[Lord Emsworth]

Hey jay will I get an answer?

[c4ts]

Why did you scare him off like that? I was just starting to have fun.

[Lord Emsworth]

Maybe he is just searching the thread ...

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by jay gw
Would you care to provide evidence that using your own "logic" is easier than being assisted by thousands of years of experience? Using both is one thing, rejecting the experiences and teachings from EVERY religion is quite another. Or don't you think so?

Oh, I agree that not thinking is easier than deriving ethical principles from rational thought. Therefore, I agree with you: religion is necessary. Because most people are stupid brutes, and only by discouraging independent thought and threatening them with divine hellfire can the masses be controlled and forced into order.

Which makes religion more practical than atheism in keeping social order, but it doesn't make it better. Look at some of the social orders propped up by religion.

I think the best mixture would be a mostly religious populace, with some degree of religious diversity to prevent a monopoly, under a secular rule that encourages religion but doesn't let it dictate policy in every area. The personal religious principles of the masses would keep them in some degree of order, but the secularism of the government would wash the federal hands of the responsibility of being religious itself and leave it free reign to do as it pleases, to the extent that the populace wouldn't balk.

Hmm. Sounds familiar. Now what country could I be thinking of?

(I could add that it would be the most fun to be an atheist in such a society, because you'd then enjoy the maximum range of behavior permitted by secular law, without the constraints of obeying religious dictates.)

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
Maybe he is just searching the thread ...



...for more out of context quotes he can assemble a strawman argument from.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by jay gw
Would you care to provide evidence that using your own "logic" is easier than being assisted by thousands of years of experience? Using both is one thing, rejecting the experiences and teachings from EVERY religion is quite another. Or don't you think so?
Dodge by strawman. You've almost got that one perfected.

Why should I present evidence for a claim i've neither made nor implied?* If you bothered to even read what I posted last night, you'd see that I acknowledge the value of cumulative experience.

One more time: atheism and religion are not direct opposites. Let me know when you get this.

Religious atheists--many Buddhists
Non-religious theists--Deists

Just for example, you know.

edited to add the footnote I almost forgot. *I said almost this exact thing to Franko once. Ah, memories.

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by jay gw
All over the show? Are you stating that every person has morals?

While my point actually was that morals even for a religious person do not solely arise out of their religion, this is true too(barring a substantial defect such as brain damage or other circumstances which impede socialisation, education, and so on)

Everyone has an idea of what constitutes correct behaviour and what doesn't. They may not always abide by those morals, and those morals may not agree with your morals, but they have them. A hit man will not tend to masturbate in public, while a exhibitionist will not tend to kill people.

[Anathema]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I think the best mixture would be a mostly religious populace, with some degree of religious diversity to prevent a monopoly, under a secular rule that encourages religion but doesn't let it dictate policy in every area. The personal religious principles of the masses would keep them in some degree of order, but the secularism of the government would wash the federal hands of the responsibility of being religious itself and leave it free reign to do as it pleases, to the extent that the populace wouldn't balk. Oh, but you miss the most important component in the success of the USA --- blessings. Your suggestion would only work if success were a product of rational thought and sound practices --- what rubbish. Everyone knows the only reason we were able to rise above the slime and beat back the scourge of commie world domination is that we put "under God" back in our pledge, and "in God we trust" on our money.

If you want to do something truly productive for this great nation, run out and plaster your tailgate with "God Bless America" stickers --- we get extra points for those.

/sarcasm

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Anathema
If you want to do something truly productive for this great nation, run out and plaster your tailgate with "God Bless America" stickers --- we get extra points for those.


I always wonder at those, when I'm stopped behind one. What does it really mean, "God Bless America"? Is it a statement that God has already blessed America? Or is it an order: "God, you bless America NOW!"? Or a wish, that God would bless America? Or a sort of despairing sigh "God, please bless America. We need it."?

[c4ts]

God bless America...

because nobody else will!

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I always wonder at those, when I'm stopped behind one. What does it really mean, "God Bless America"? Is it a statement that God has already blessed America? Or is it an order: "God, you bless America NOW!"? Or a wish, that God would bless America? Or a sort of despairing sigh "God, please bless America. We need it."?
It's just manners. With so many people living here, the chances are good at any given instant some American has just sneezed, probably several of them. The bumper sticker allows you to be polite to all of them, anywhere, all the time.

[Anathema]

I did see another variation on the theme recently, on the back of Subaru, with a "Visualize World Peace" sticker next to it. It said:

"God Bless the World, No Exceptions"

At least some people are willing to share the blessings, not just use them one-up the unwashed masses.

[jay gw]

Can you show me where I have said that "[y]our arguments are without support?"

I can show where you said my "position was hopeless from the start". And you call ME close minded.

Oh, I agree that not thinking is easier than deriving ethical principles from rational thought.

You're using a strawman here.

Because most people are stupid brutes, and only by discouraging independent thought and threatening them with divine hellfire can the masses be controlled and forced into order.

And here.

One more time: atheism and religion are not direct opposites. Let me know when you get this.

Who said they were? I said SOME atheists reject ANYTHING religion has to offer. So you're denying that??

[AWPrime]

Jay, why do you think that someone can't gain morals with rational thought without religion being used?

[jay gw]

Jay, why do you think that someone can't gain morals with rational thought without religion being used?

Two reasons:
1. There's no evidence for it.
2. There's evidence against it.

You'd have to SHOW, not say, that people have the capacity for rational thought, logic etc. All people do?

This would be done by showing that, in GENERAL, humanity operates in a logical way. To show that an INNATE capacity exists, show its OPERATION in the real world. Stating something exists doesn't mean it does. It means you THINK it does.

So, is human behavior generally logical and rational? This is where I don't agree with you. If you say yes in general it is, then you would be wrong.

WAR
CRIME
ABUSE
EXPLOITATION

are FACTS, and they indicate that human behavior is NOT generally logical.

Unless by "logic" you mean INHUMANITY. In case, you would be correct in saying it is.

Millions of Germans thought Hitler was perfectly rational when suggesting everyone they didn't like should be killed.

Do you know what the greatest evil is? Religious delusion? NO. The greatest evil is people believing they're logical and rational WHEN THEY AREN'T.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by jay gw
You're using a strawman here.

I was responding to your statement:

Originally posted by jay gw
Would you care to provide evidence that using your own "logic" is easier than being assisted by thousands of years of experience?


Which means at the very least that you hold that logic is "not easier" than religion. Did you mean to say they are equally easy?

As for the opinion of humanity, it's my own opinion of humanity. It's hardly a strawman. I thought the point of this thread was to argue the role of religion on society. Surely opinions on the nature of society aren't off-topic.

And you do realize that you were quoting different people in that post? You're not going to get a coherent debate if you lose track of who says what.

[TragicMonkey]

Jay, why do you think that someone can't gain morals with rational thought without religion being used?


Originally posted by jay gw
Two reasons:
1. There's no evidence for it.
2. There's evidence against it.

You'd have to SHOW, not say, that people have the capacity for rational thought, logic etc. All people do?


"Some" is not the same as "all". The first statement is asking if you think that anyONE can't gain morals without religion. You're moving goalposts when you assert that the entire human race cannot.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by jay gw
Who said they were? I said SOME atheists reject ANYTHING religion has to offer. So you're denying that??
The implication I got from reading your posts was that all atheists reject it. Thanks for clearing that up.

As for denying it, I don't really have any hard evidence against it, but I will say that describes no atheist I've ever met. All the ones I know see and acknowledge the good bits of religions. I know of no atheist who says, "Well, Jesus said love thy neighbor, but Jesus was a wank so I'm going to kick my neighbor in the shins." That religion can teach morality does not mean that religion is necessary for the teaching of morality.

[monkboon]

Originally posted by jay gw
Atheists want to reject religion of any kind, all of it

Originally posted by jay gw
I said SOME atheists reject ANYTHING religion has to offer

Do you not see the contradiction in these two statements?

Do your morals not tell you that it's wrong to assume that you know what anyone else believes? You call me immoral, unethical, because I'm an atheist. I claim my morality and ethics are superior, for me, to anything anyone's religion can prescribe for me. There are thousands of religions. One could argue that no two people share the same religion even, putting the total in the billions, but we'll leave that one for later. Are you so certain that the morality espoused by your religion is the only correct one possible? Do you not see how this attitude could be considered narrow-minded?

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by jay gw
I can show where you said my "position was hopeless from the start".


Yes, indeed I said that. I still stand by it.

It is however a far cry from saying that "[y]our arguments are without support."


Originally posted by jay gw
And you call ME close minded.


I did not call you "close minded." But I will now call you an idiot AND a liar.

[jay gw]

Which means at the very least that you hold that logic is "not easier" than religion. Did you mean to say they are equally easy?

Both logical thinking and application of religious ideas, understanding them, are difficult. Whether one is more difficult I can't say.

The first statement is asking if you think that anyONE can't gain morals without religion. You're moving goalposts when you assert that the entire human race cannot.

Is there any hypothetical person in the world that can gain morals without religion? I don't know. Based on what I've asked REPEATEDLY from the atheists about their morals, I would say the answer is a DEFINITIVE NO.

I know of no atheist who says, "Well, Jesus said love thy neighbor, but Jesus was a wank so I'm going to kick my neighbor in the shins."

Josef Stalin was a seminary student. Josef Stalin renounced religion and became a communist. Josef Stalin killed 40 million people.

Are you so certain that the morality espoused by your religion is the only correct one possible?

I've said REPEATEDLY that there's no "true" religion, but having almost any one, is better than none at all. Not all of it, but some of it. Not following it slavishly, but using good judgment.

[RamblingOnwards]

Is there any hypothetical person in the world that can gain morals without religion? I don't know. Based on what I've asked REPEATEDLY from the atheists about their morals, I would say the answer is a DEFINITIVE NO.

I gained morals without a religion.

So are you claiming:
- I am immoral
or
- I gained morals from religion but am denying the fact?

I'd like to know before I respond.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by jay gw
Josef Stalin was a seminary student. Josef Stalin renounced religion and became a communist. Josef Stalin killed 40 million people.

See, there's no causal link here, and that's what you always leave out.

Josef Stalin was a seminary student. Josef Stalin had a mustache and became a communist. Josef Stalin killed 40 million people.

I assume you don't think the above shows a causal link to mustaches and killing millions. So how does the same structure convey that link with atheism?

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by jay gw
Is there any hypothetical person in the world that can gain morals without religion? I don't know. Based on what I've asked REPEATEDLY from the atheists about their morals, I would say the answer is a DEFINITIVE NO.


Then tell us what your definition of religion is.

[jay gw]

I gained morals without a religion.

I'm sure you think you did. I'm sure you've never committed any crimes, always been polite etc. minded your manners.

BUT, are YOU suggesting that it works on a SOCIETAL level?

assume you don't think the above shows a causal link to mustaches and killing millions. So how does the same structure convey that link with atheism?

Yes, mustaches are the same thing as a person's ethical and moral philosophy. Whatever you say.

Then tell us what your definition of religion is.

My definition of religion is close to

An institutionalized social system of belief/ideas revolving around moral and ethical philosophy and instruction.

I think you should see why it's a little difficult to believe that someone can gain morals on their own outside of society, with nothing more than their "logic" to guide them.

I would also ask you this: How do you know without independent confirmation, that your logic is sound?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by jay gw

An institutionalized social system of belief/ideas revolving around moral and ethical philosophy and instruction.

By your definition of religion and use of the word "atheism," atheism is a religion. Therefore shut up.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by jay gw
Yes, mustaches are the same thing as a person's ethical and moral philosophy. Whatever you say.
The point, which you continue to miss, is that atheism is not a person's ethical and moral philosophy. It is a position on the answer to one question: do you believe in a god or gods?

[Stitch]

From Dictionary.com

mor·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (môrl, mr-)
adj.
Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.


I see no need for a god or religion in any of those definitions. Likewise the definitions of evil:
From Dictionary.com

e·vil ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vl)
adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est
Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

Does not refer to religion, god or a lack of. It is perfectly possible for an atheist to act in a moral non-evil manner and yet for a religious person to do quite the opposite, and indeed some of the more fundemental religious groups seem to have turned being evil and imorral in to an art form and yet still claim that they are doing the bidding of their god(s).

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by jay gw
BUT, are YOU suggesting that it works on a SOCIETAL level?

I have repeatedly pointed out that societies already have 'standard' morals that are not based in religion. In fact, societies even have 'standard' morals that are in direct contradiction to the dominant religion. Do wish to go back and address those points before continuing with this line?

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by jay gw
My definition of religion is close to

An institutionalized social system of belief/ideas revolving around moral and ethical philosophy and instruction.


And we don't need no stinkin' God for that.

Case closed.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Notice, we don't need no stinking gods for this.

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
And we don't need no stinkin' God for that.


Grrrrr. Argh. :p

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Notice, we don't need no stinking gods for this.

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
And we don't need no stinkin' God for that.

What have you two got against Kamapua'a, the Hawaiian Pig God? Sure, he smells a bit, but he can't help it. He's a pig!

[jay gw]

The point, which you continue to miss, is that atheism is not a person's ethical and moral philosophy. It is a position on the answer to one question: do you believe in a god or gods?

That's what atheism is to YOU. To others is an excuse to have NO PHILOSOPHY AT ALL.

It is perfectly possible for an atheist to act in a moral non-evil manner and yet for a religious person to do quite the opposite,

Correct. Except that one group WANTS to act morally, and the other DOESN'T CARE.

I have repeatedly pointed out that societies already have 'standard' morals that are not based in religion.

And you have repeatedly been wrong. There's no such thing as "standard morals". If there are, why is there crime and war? Isn't that a little problem for the "standard morals" argument? It's a BIG PROBLEM.

[AWPrime]

Then why are crimes also preformed by religious people, Jay?

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by jay gw
That's what atheism is to YOU. To others is an excuse to have NO PHILOSOPHY AT ALL.

Correct. Except that one group WANTS to act morally, and the other DOESN'T CARE.

And you have repeatedly been wrong. There's no such thing as "standard morals". If there are, why is there crime and war? Isn't that a little problem for the "standard morals" argument? It's a BIG PROBLEM.

Do you have evidence for points 1 and 2? Please provide it.

As far as the last paragraph, people are basically good. Yes, there are wars. They are not caused by general "evil" in people. They are often caused by complex socio-economic-political reasons. They are not caused by symptomatic evil.

See, here's the difference between us. You, a Christian, think people are intrinsically immoral. Me, the atheist can see that the VAST MAJORITY of people are intrinsically moral. Most people do not hurt others. They don't commit crimes. They contribute to society.

So, I think people are basically good, while you believe they are basically evil. Who's philosophy is more positive?

[Anders]

Originally posted by jay gw
That's what atheism is to YOU. To others is an excuse to have NO PHILOSOPHY AT ALL.



Correct. Except that one group WANTS to act morally, and the other DOESN'T CARE.
[snip]

You can't HAVE a philosophy, most people in the world do fine without knowing anything about any philosophy, me beeing one of them. I don't really care about the philosophy of skeptisism, I just find it the most logical way of thinking.

I, and almost all other people, act very morally. We seldom do any crime, we don't sleep with our friends spouses, we don't steal. And that goes for almost all people world wide. And we really don't care.

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by jay gw
And you have repeatedly been wrong. There's no such thing as "standard morals".

Oh, for crying in a bucket....

Firstly, I put it in single quotes (these things ' ' ) to indicate that I was using the term standard loosely.

Secondly, in context it is clear that I did not mean it was a moral regarding the use of pennants, a moral about what currencies were based on, a moral about requirements for moral conduct, a moral about pedestals, a moral about certain types of petals, a moral that can be regarded as a model for excellence, or a moral that is univeraly true .

I meant a moral that was common to the members of that society.

Please address the actual points I made, thank you.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by jay gw
That's what atheism is to YOU. To others is an excuse to have NO PHILOSOPHY AT ALL.
Which others, exactly?

Not that it matters now. You've conceded the point. If atheism is used by some as an excuse, then it is not atheism that is at fault. It's people who are at fault. And they'll use any excuse they can get their hands on, including atheism, including religion.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Grrrrr. Argh. :p What are you complaining about, Mr. Let-Me-Parody-Blake-Too? (see first page)

[Marquis de Carabas]

*ahem* You see, we're really both just manifestations of God, since God is all that exists, and we are all just kind of perceiving this big illusion...

erm, that is to say, sorry about that.

[jay gw]

most people in the world do fine without knowing anything about any philosophy, me beeing one of them.

That's where you're wrong. Most people in the world do NOT do fine. Crime, abuse, exploitation. Do you know how many wars go on in the world, right now?

I meant a moral that was common to the members of that society.

But I thought atheists say to MAKE YOUR OWN MORALS.

But then you say society has COMMON MORALS.

:confused:

You've conceded the point. If atheism is used by some as an excuse, then it is not atheism that is at fault.

It's not used as an excuse. IT IS THE EXCUSE.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by jay gw


Correct. Except that one group WANTS to act morally, and the other DOESN'T CARE.



Do you have any ideas that aren't idiotic?


I can WANT a bycycle and not have one, but I cannot WANT to behave moraly and not do so..

( P.S. " The Devil made me do it . " Doesn't float around here.. )

[Zombified]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
erm, that is to say, sorry about that. It's all just good clean fun... :)

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by jay gw

It's not used as an excuse. IT IS THE EXCUSE.
Care to explain the sense this distinction even makes?

Also, which atheists see it as the excuse? Where are they? Still getting stuffed with straw?

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by jay gw
But I thought atheists say to MAKE YOUR OWN MORALS.

But then you say society has COMMON MORALS.

:confused:

Two things. Firstly, of course it does. Everyone chooses their own children's names, too, but society has common names.

Secondly I ALREADY SAID I WAS TALKING ABOUT RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES!

Never mind 1inChrist, I think jay gw is automated. The last few replies do not seem to realise any connection between the most recent response and the overall arguments made in this thread.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by RamblingOnwards

Never mind 1inChrist, I think jay gw is automated. The last few replies do not seem to realise any connection between the most recent response and the overall arguments made in this thread.
I've noticed that many of his responses don't even recognise a connection between two sentences he's quoted.

[monkboon]

Originally posted by jay gw
That's where you're wrong. Most people in the world do NOT do fine. Crime, abuse, exploitation. Do you know how many wars go on in the world, right now?

Oooh, let me guess. You don't mean the one in Iraq, right? The one started by our beloved, evangelical, morally superior president, si?

edited for grammar

[c4ts]

The Church hasn't programmed him with the correct set of responses yet.

[Marquis de Carabas]

That's not a war. It's a liberation. :rolleyes:

[Ipecac]

Neither does he address many of the points made. He ignores whole posts that are inconvenient for him.

[c4ts]

Like I said, he needs an upgrade. He's constantly failing the Turing test.

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Neither does he address many of the points made. He ignores whole posts that are inconvenient for him.

That's pretty much a given in these arguments, I think. If you can't win, ignore. Conceding is for losers.

Originally posted by c4ts
Like I said, he needs an upgrade. He's constantly failing the Turing test.

The first time, I thought that was a witty insult - I had to get involved to realise it was the literal truth.

[jay gw]

The last few replies do not seem to realise any connection between the most recent response and the overall arguments made in this thread.

What ARE my arguments? I'll bet you don't even remember!!

You're aware that arguments evolve, right? Or is yours programmed?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by jay gw
What ARE my arguments? I'll bet you don't even remember!!
As I recall your main argument has been that you can ignore any obvious truth by throwing enough logical fallacies at it. I think you've pretty well proven it. Congratulations.

[daenku32]

I'm an Atheist but yet a Good person..

Therefore, jay gw's argument is refuted.

[jay gw]

As I recall your main argument has been that you can ignore any obvious truth by throwing enough logical fallacies at it. I think you've pretty well proven it. Congratulations.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the prosecution rests.....

See, YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW MY ARGUMENTS.

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by jay gw
What ARE my arguments? I'll bet you don't even remember!!

Since going back and rereading would be cheating, it'll be a bit rough. First though, may I point out you have been ignoring all my previous attempts to get you to clarify.

Your argument boils down to:

Religion (any religion) provides a framework by which moral behaviour can be decided. Atheism lacks this framework. Because people do act immorally, it is silly to expect an atheist's rational set of guidelines to be for the good of all. Religions at least make an attempt to do so, and then guilt trip their followers into adopting those guidelines.

You have provided as evidence and then retracted the fact that you have never met a moral atheist (variant: all atheists commit crimes, variant: many famous atheists were immoral).

You maintain that all atheist societies are immoral, ignoring the points that:

a) that's pretty much true of all societies, full stop.
b) the atheist societies in question have also been communist dictatorships, so there is insufficient evidence to whether the immorality is caused by atheism, communism, or dicatorship.
c) Many societies with a high percentage of atheists do not behave particularly immorally.

Your conclusion is that society needs religion to function as a society, and it is unimportant as to whether any religion is true.

Anything I missed?

Now, please, return the favour and summarise mine.

(edited for truly egregious spelling)

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by jay gw
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the prosecution rests.....

See, YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW MY ARGUMENTS.
Your arguments? Atheism doesn't provide a moral framework, we need a moral framework, which religion can provide. Religion is therefore needed, and superior to atheism.

In other words, crap.

[jay gw]

Religion (any religion) provides a framework by which moral behaviour can be decided. Atheism lacks this framework.

Yes. And you disagree and say atheism does provide a framework. Not it itself, but people are "free" to use their own.

Because people do act immorally, it is silly to expect atheist's rational set of guidelines to be for the good of all.

Yes.

Religions at least make an attempt to do so, and then guilt trip their followers into adopting those guidelines.

Yes, and not through guilt trips. Through reason and logic, and THOUSANDS of years of accumulated wisdom.

You maintain that all atheist societies are immoral

Yes. And you have brought up Scandinavian societies, which, by the way, have made prostitution and euthanasia legal.

b) the atheist societies in question have also been communist dictatorships, so there is insufficient evidence to whether the immorality is caused by atheism, communism, or dicatorship.

Completely false. Here's where your blindness REALLY starts kicking in.

Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto Chapter 4: Genocide and Committing Human Rights Abuses Creatively. NOT THE REASON.
Dictatorships: all over the world, of all types. NOT THE REASON.
ATHEISM: EVERY COUNTRY USING IT AS OFFICIAL POLICY HAS CRASHED AND BURNED. YES AND STATISTICALLY PROVABLE.

Many societies with a high percentage of atheists do not behave particularly immorally.

Unless of course you consider narcotic sales, prostitution and euthanasia to be moral. Not to mention pornography.

Your conclusion is that society needs religion to function as a society, and it is unimportant as to whether than religion is true.

Most religions are true. That's because they are the accumulated wisdom of hundreds of people over very long periods, and discuss TIMELESS qualities of humanity and life in general. Whether you believe in the supernatural is not particularly important.

[Cosmo]

Originally posted by jay gw
Unless of course you consider narcotic sales, prostitution and euthanasia to be moral. Not to mention pornography.

Nonsense. You're nitpicking. Morals are, for the most part, relative. For example...

Is murder immoral? I think so.
Is abortion immoral? I don't think so.

Is euthanasia immoral? YOU think so.
Is euthanasia immoral? I don't think so.

The same goes for a number of other acts you may consider immoral. The simple fact is that some morals - the morals that count the most, like life, respect, and so forth - are completely independent of religion. They can be derived and arrived at without any Sky Daddy.

Originally posted by jay gw
Most religions are true. That's because they are the accumulated wisdom of hundreds of people, and discuss TIMELESS qualities of humanity and life in general.

Right - we all know that if lots of people believe something, it must be true! :rolleyes:

500 years ago, how many people believed the world was flat? Just about everyone.
500 years ago, how many people believed slavery was moral? Just about everyone.

Most religions are far from "true". In fact, your average atheist will gladly argue they're all just as false as the next one.

Sorry jay, you'll have to do better than that.

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by jay gw
Unless of course you consider narcotic sales, prostitution and euthanasia to be moral. Not to mention pornography.

You don't? Why on earth not? Stoning someone to death is okay, but heaven forbid they should look at a nekkid lady?

And I find your conduct in
- not replying to other people's points
- deliberately misinterpreting points and creating strawmen
- and now ignoring my request that you do unto me as you wished me to do unto
dishonourable.

I will no longer debate morality with someone who isn't prepared to show any.

[monkboon]

Originally posted by jay gw
ATHEISM: EVERY COUNTRY USING IT AS OFFICIAL POLICY HAS CRASHED AND BURNED. YES AND STATISTICALLY PROVABLE.

OK, who can name a country that uses atheism as "official policy" that did not come by that policy as a result of a Communist Manifesto, or dictatorship. No fair peeking at the First Amendment establishment clause before formulating a reasoned answer.

I'm just stirring the sh*t here. I know that the USA was founded on Xian principals, and the first amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the government not being permitted to sponsor religion.
(in his best imitation of Foghorn Leghorn: "That's sarcasm, son! It's not meant to be taken literally.")

[c4ts]

Religion according to Jay gw (a.k.a. jgw.exe):
Religion is the method by which values are assigned to human and social traits and behaviors.
(from p.1 in the thread)


An institutionalized social system of belief/ideas revolving around moral and ethical philosophy and instruction.
(from p.6 of this thread)

"Atheism," or more accurately stated, Jay gw's opinion of athiesm, fits all the criteria for his definition of religion.

That atheism is an institutionalized social system:
- Other than the fact it's been tried several times, and failed each time. The Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea are all atheist states. Each is failing or has failed totally. So did Nazism, also atheistic.
p.1

Atheism has a system of ideas:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atheism is not an ideology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then why did the Soviet Union ban religion? Why does China? Why does Cuba? Why does North Korea? Why does the United States separate government from religion?
p.1

You have so totally screwed your own argument here, I will have to point it out. In the ATHEISTIC government of the United States, slave owners managed to perpetuate the institution of slavery FOR 100 PERCENT ECONOMIC REASONS.\.
p2

Here's why "innate morality" and the rest of the atheist claptrap cannot work:
p3

Atheism is a belief system:
The Atheist Bible. Whatever.
p.1

It does if it's the only belief system allowed and the governments then commit genocide.
p.2

Here's what atheists believe:

Morals and ethics are -

1. Inborn
2. Personal choice
p.3


Atheism has an ethical philosophy:

How could you not see the meaning? It's perfectly clear. Atheists believe that ethics are somehow "inborn" into people.
p3

Here's what atheists believe:

Morals and ethics are -

1. Inborn
2. Personal choice
p.3

If you think a community exists where everyone does what they please, which by the way means everyone acting SELFISHLY to gain the most for themselves regardless of anything else, then you can go live in your "community".
p.3

According to Jay gw, athiesm is a religion.

According to Jay gw, atheism is evil because it is not a religion.

Now watch this.

Jaw gw says freedom is slavery:
Therein is the tragedy - freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.

Ignorance is strength:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The last few replies do not seem to realise any connection between the most recent response and the overall arguments made in this thread.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What ARE my arguments? I'll bet you don't even remember!!


He is a classic example of what George Orwell described as "Doublethink."

[jay gw]

500 years ago, how many people believed slavery was moral? Just about everyone.

COMPLETELY FALSE.

AN ACCOUNT OF WILLIAM WILBURFORCE:

In fact, the very first law ever passed to outlaw slavery was the result of decades of tireless effort by William Wilburforce. This devout Christian dedicated his life to outlawing this evil and labored in the British parliament for decades to see it abolished. Wilburforce’s zeal spread to America where the abolition movement was dominated by pastors. Yes, there were Christians who defended slavery, but there were also a great many more who fought against it and it is probable that, were it not for their efforts, slavery would still be practiced today.

http://www.britannia.com/bios/wilberforce.html
http://www.shortreport.com/wolves_sheeps_clothing.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/REwilberforce.htm

I intend to respond to everything, just as I have been doing.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by jay gw
I intend to respond to everything, just as I have been doing.
:dl:

I'm afraid I've gotta bow out of this one. It's gotten too silly, even by my standards.

GW, you're beautiful, ain't it time we said good-bye?