|
|
Post by resurrectedwarrior on Jun 20, 2004 16:56:31 GMT -5
Uh oh. *scuffs foot on ground* Well, I'm not going to try to argue this, but I think what RW meant was NOT the real clear-cut stuff like "thou shalt not kill" or stuff like that. I mean, I'm quite sure that anyone here would know not to and it'd be terribly insulting to imply that you wouldn't. She was probably referring to abortion, perhaps, umm, maybe homosexuality, premarital sex... the kind of stuff that is fuzzy-like or in the grey, if you get my meaning. Still, I'm sorry, RW, but that was rather badly put, because everyone does have a conscience. I do agree with most of your other points though, although most of this is generally Greek to me. Yep, I probably should’ve explained those two sentences in my post a bit better. Will do – and will probably get verbally thrashed. Again. This comment really upset me. Are you implying that aetheists, by nature, are immoral? Are you saying that all concepts of good and bad are learned from religion? I think it's very wrong of you to say that. I am an aetheist, and I have a strong sense of right and wrong. Not because some deity tells me to be good, but because doing good brings me happiness. As you will see, I’m saying that atheists, by nature (the nature put into them by Yahweh) are moral, but atheists, going strictly by their philosophy’s implications, have no basis for morals. Honestly, I thought I’d get bashed more for saying I’m related to George Washington than this! I had two sentences that said something negative about atheism and then people blast the entire board with paragraph upon paragraph of negative Christian sentiment. However, I also run across the other types. The guy who told me god would kill me, because I politely refused to go to the church at that exact moment in time. The woman who held a bible and told us not to touch each other because Jesus healed a leper once by touching him (or something nonsensical like that.) The ones who think I can't have morals or hold opinions, because I don't share theirs. Many Christians do good things for the community because of their beliefs. And many other people do good things too, because of their own beliefs. I will respect anyone who holds virtues I consider good, regardless of their beliefs. And I will not respect anyone with intolerance. So, am I ‘the other type’ now? Because of two sentences? Okay – so, now, what of earth did I mean by this? Lemme split it into parts so #1 my explanation will be easier to understand and #2 so I don’t confuse myself.  ) Biblically speaking, everyone has ‘right and wrong’ imprinted upon their hearts from birth. Biblically speaking, people will follow ‘right and wrong’ – morals, if you will – for the most part no matter what they believe. This is why, according to my Bible, I can believe atheists can have good morals and promote such. There is also example after example in the world of good morals being promoted by atheists. One example right here on this forum would be Buddy (sorry for singling you out like this). He’s got a good noggin screwed on his shoulders and knows how to treat others fairly, as can be seen in his last post. Was I saying ‘all atheists are evil, slimy mutants of human nature who don’t deserve to live’? Was I saying ‘atheists are the cause of all the suffering and immorality in this world’? Let’s check the quote again: Hmmmm . . . very interesting. Could it be possible that some people blew their tops without stopping and thinking about what I was trying to say? Could it maybe, just possibly be that perhaps before freaking out about something, you should take a moment to write a PM to me asking me to post a more in-depth explanation (or, even write a post asking for one)? Let’s move on, shall we? Now, this is the part that will probably offend people. But, for a moment, please put aside your own preconceived ideas about me (that I’m a stupid, ignorant, intolerant ogre, as some of you have implied) and just for a moment think about the implications of atheism. Not what you actually believe yourself, but what those believes, when stripped down to their bare minimum and brought to their logical extremes, implicate (not what they may or may not be). If you can’t do that, then don’t[/u][/i] read the following section. All belief systems are made up of presuppositions - whether they be ‘Christian’, Atheist, Agnostic, whatever. These presuppositions usually begin with the question, “Is there a God?” The atheist’s answer to this is, “No.” Next question: “How did we (meaning humans, the universe, etc.) get here?” Typically, for an atheist, the answer is “Evolution”. Other times it is simply “I don’t know”. Or, of course, there’s always aliens (I doubt anyone here honestly believes that, but I thought I should include that for some reason). For what I’m trying to say, let’s go with the ‘Evolution’ answer. ‘kay? What does an evolution-based philosophy teach? #1. We’re all just animals. #2. Everything is relative; there are no absolutes. There are other things, but that’s what I want to write about right now. Just by looking at those things, you should be able to know where I’m going with this. If we’re all just animals, if everything is relative depending on the situation, then what on earth is your basis for right and wrong? Murder can be chalked up to animal instinct and ‘survival of the fittest’. Rape can be blamed on a male’s aggressive tendencies and ‘need’ to ‘spread his seed’ (in fact, there was a book on this that stirred up quite a bit of controversy in the past couple of years). What basis, other than what is written on your hearts, tells you what to do and not to do? If everything is relative, then who’s to say stealing isn’t wrong? If a person needs something and they don’t have enough money for it, what’s wrong with them simply taking it? If you take away you own feelings and opinions about this, there is nothing wrong with it. It won’t hurt the store – they’ll recover from the losses eventually. And, besides, it’s survival of the fittest. If there are no absolutes, then none of you have any basis (other than what is written on your hearts and what you’ve learned from sources other than your belief system) for saying I was ‘wrong’ with what I said. Because if there are no absolutes, then there is no ‘wrong’ and there is no ‘right’. If there are no absolutes, then you have no basis for saying “that’s good” or “that’s bad”. Logically, you can’t anyway. You may be able to find some strange way of inserting ‘good/right’ and ‘wrong/bad’ into your belief system, but if you go strictly by what the worldview of atheism implies and insert no other source, you can’t. It just doesn’t make logical sense. One way you may be able to have ‘morals’ is by going by what the culture you live in says. The problem I see with this is simply the fact that cultures change. Would you believe the culture of the Nazis was right if you lived in Germany in the 1940’s? (an imperfect example, but please bear with me and don’t nit-pick) Would you believe adulterers should be put to death if you moved to Afghanistan? Would you support the infanticide practiced by tribes in the Amazon jungle? From my viewpoint, entire cultures could be wrong. But from an atheists . . . can anything be wrong? Another way morals can be put into an atheist’s belief system is simply going by what ‘feels’ to be right. Well, to the Columbine Shooters, I’m sure killing their schoolmates sure felt ‘right’. Were they wrong to do this, even though it was right in their own eyes? I know that’s an extreme example, but I hope you understand my point. Now, look. I know those of you on this forum do have a sense of right and wrong. But where does that sense come from and, more importantly, does it logically flow with the rest of your beliefs? Now, looking back at what I just said, does this make sense to you? And now to the next part: This is the only part of those two sentences I would have considered revising. This is what I would have revised it to: Other than this, I agree with my post as it was written. I hope you understand now that what I was saying was not that atheists do not have morals, but that they have no real, logical, solid basis for them. |
|
|
|
Post by resurrectedwarrior on Jun 20, 2004 16:57:19 GMT -5
((continuing from my last post because it was over 10,000 characters))
If you knew me in person, you would know I’m not an intolerant person. I come off harsh in debates (both online and in RL) because I’m very blunt with my words in these situations. In other cases, I’m very diplomatic (according to my old Girl Scout leader, at least). I’m very opinionated, but not close-minded. Close-mindedness is not knowing where the other group is coming from with their beliefs, and not caring to find out.
If you feel like posting to disagree with this, fine. Go ahead. But please do it by tomorrow because I’m moving the day after. I hope I’ll be able to get online tomorrow evening to answer any questions or reasonable but polite disagreements you may have. But if you feel like flaming me and talking about how evil I am, or if you feel like launching any personal attacks on me, then please wait til the 22nd after 2 o’clock EST. I’ll be on the road by then and I’m sure you’ll be pleased to know you won’t have to deal with me or my ogre-ness/intolerance/’big fat mouth’ for anywhere from a couple weeks to more than a month.
|
|
|
|
Post by KittyKadaveral on Jun 20, 2004 17:39:21 GMT -5
Ok, let's take a small break from all this joy shall we and have a bit of a laugh at a CUTE joke a friend sent me.
A man is stumbling through the woods
totally drunk when he comes upon a preacher
baptizing people in the river.
He proceeds to walk into the water
and subsequently bumps into the preacher.
The preacher turns around
and is almost overcome
by the smell of alcohol,
whereupon he asks the drunk,
"Are you ready to find Jesus?"
The drunk answers,
"Yes, I am."
So the preacher grabs him
and dunks him in the water.
He pulls him up and asks the drunk,
"Brother, have you found Jesus?"
The drunk replies
"No, I haven't found Jesus."
The preacher-shocked at the answer,
dunks him into the water again
for a little longer this time.
He again pulls him out of the water
and asks once more,
"Have you found Jesus, my brother?"
The drunk again answers,
"No, I haven't found Jesus."
By this time the preacher is at his wits end
and dunks the drunk in the water again,
but this time holds him down for about 30 seconds
and when he begins kicking
his arms and legs he pulls him up.
The preacher again asks the drunk,
"For the love of God, have you found Jesus?"
The drunk wipes his eyes
and catches his breath
and says to the preacher,
"Are you sure this is where he fell in?
|
|
|
|
Post by Buddy on Jun 20, 2004 18:53:20 GMT -5
Since it's too large and there's too much to quote, I'll just go here.
Now, what Warrior says does have merrit - especially the bit about different cultures having different opinons on right and wrong. I've actually thought about this myself. So really, she's right, what's "right" and "wrong" can depend on the culture.
But then, can't the same be said about the Christian culture? I mean, if any culture can hold "right" and "wrong" as an independent variable, how is Christianity immune?
I believe, Warrior, that that's why everyone, myself included, was a bit perturbed by the comment. Now, you can try and explain it and talk it away, but the comment still speaks for itself.
As for "having a basis", well, it still goes on to imply that Atheists somehow can't tell what good or bad is, or that they somehow have no way to base this.
My point is this: you say that Atheists have no basis for their beliefs of right or wrong. This is just simply not true. People don't nessecarily need a religon, a bible, a church, or anything else, to know what "right" or "wrong" is. They don't need a "basis", or anything else silly like that. If someone is good, they know what right and wrong is. It they're not, they don't.
I believe this has very little, if anything, to do with religon, and everything to do with upbringing.
Oh, and thank you very much for the compliment! I'm flattered! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Princess Ember Mononoke on Jun 20, 2004 19:02:01 GMT -5
Since it's too large and there's too much to quote, I'll just go here. Now, what Warrior says does have merrit - especially the bit about different cultures having different opinons on right and wrong. I've actually thought about this myself. So really, she's right, what's "right" and "wrong" can depend on the culture. But then, can't the same be said about the Christian culture? I mean, if any culture can hold "right" and "wrong" as an independent variable, how is Christianity immune? I believe, Warrior, that that's why everyone, myself included, was a bit perturbed by the comment. Now, you can try and explain it and talk it away, but the comment still speaks for itself. As for "having a basis", well, it still goes on to imply that Atheists somehow can't tell what good or bad is, or that they somehow have no way to base this. My point is this: you say that Atheists have no basis for their beliefs of right or wrong. This is just simply not true. People don't nessecarily need a religon, a bible, a church, or anything else, to know what "right" or "wrong" is. They don't need a "basis", or anything else silly like that. If someone is good, they know what right and wrong is. It they're not, they don't. I believe this has very little, if anything, to do with religon, and everything to do with upbringing. Oh, and thank you very much for the compliment! I'm flattered! ;D I think what she meant more than anything is that if there is no Greater Force, then really NOTHING is right OR wrong. And since Aetheists don't believe in a greater force, they don't really have any reason to believe in morality. This is actually an annoyingly good point theoreticly, but since regaurdless of whether or not they know the reason many Aetheists DO have morals, it doesn't really MEAN anything. Now I'm confusing myself. If you didn't understand what she was saying, as comprehensive as it was, you certainly won't get this. *shrugs* Personally, I think she's also right about God etching morals onto the hearts of humans. But really, that's EXACTLY why I'm NOT religious - I don't need some book or minister telling me about God, when all I ever need to know I can discover from following my own heart. |
|
|
|
Post by mushroom on Jun 20, 2004 20:02:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Jun 21, 2004 8:05:41 GMT -5
Which I find rather odd. Perhaps it's not known because it doesn't take place in America, but it's not uncommon for Christians to be killed or imprisoned in Islam countries. Officials usually just look the other way... You just touched on something that really bothers me Oily. I wish other religions got as much scrutiny as Christianity because maybe then Voice of the Martyrs could be disbanded. The only times I have ever heard of Christians being imprisoned here is when they're Malays and converted to Christianity. I think that if you marry a Muslim and later divorce, you can convert back though. I take it you don't really approve of the Voice of the Martyrs, Kiddo? *is curious and relatively neutral* Personally, about converting others, I just let it be generally known that I'm Christian. I tell people about my religion when they ask or when I see a place to slip my own opinions in. Badgering never did work on anyone I saw. Other than that I just try to behave well and give others a good opinion of it, although there are times when I haven't and still don't want to talk about. |
|
|
|
Post by Kiddo on Jun 21, 2004 9:54:12 GMT -5
I take it you don't really approve of the Voice of the Martyrs, Kiddo? *is curious and relatively neutral* I DO approve of them. I approve very much so of them. I just wish their organization didn't have to exist, that we didn't need a group to do what they do. It would be wonderful if there was no persecution, no governments to lobby, no medical bills to pay, no more deaths. But somehow I think the only way VOM will no longer be needed will be post-rapture. *sigh* |
|
|
|
Post by Buddy on Jun 21, 2004 10:30:48 GMT -5
Errr... what exactly is the Voice of Martyrs? I've never heard of them before.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Jun 21, 2004 10:37:49 GMT -5
Errr... what exactly is the Voice of Martyrs? I've never heard of them before. That's it. It's actually a pretty good site. I don't know much about them beyond that. I DO approve of them. I approve very much so of them. I just wish their organization didn't have to exist, that we didn't need a group to do what they do. It would be wonderful if there was no persecution, no governments to lobby, no medical bills to pay, no more deaths. But somehow I think the only way VOM will no longer be needed will be post-rapture. *sigh* Oh, I see. From your tone I somehow got the idea that you didn't like them. I think you're right, though. But I don't know about the post rapture thing. Once that happens, it's probably going to start getting worse. |
|
|
|
Post by ghostision on Jun 21, 2004 19:02:11 GMT -5
*Takes a breath* Now I'm really going to offend people. And I apologize in advance. But before I start, I want to throw out another question. Do you think abortion should take precedence over alll other church agendas? That's what a bishop on 60 minutes says. He said that ignoring a politician's view on abortion in favor of other things is akin to the German people ignoring the fact that Hitler was slaughtering the Jewish people in favor of the fact that his methods put food on their tables. What do you think? As to what RW said, consider this from a purely Aetheist point of view. If we really did evolve from animals, then the bible is untrue. Then, whoever wrote it, would have no more basis for what he put in, than we do. Though he may have set the standard for what's right and wrong today, it's been ingrained SOCIALLY, so we know what's right and wrong. (I know you talked about this already, I'm just starting off.) Now, how is the bible ever so much more SOLID than your mother telling you what's wrong from the time you're a baby? And face it, some of the people in religion who seem to have good morals are just doing it out of fear of going to hell. And a lot of people don't do bad things out of fear of going to jail. But the end result is the same, isn't it? I know I'm still going over the same thing, but the point I'm trying to make is, we, or at least I, since I wouldn't presume to speak for all atheists, believe in social standards and morals. It's been around for ages, so few people question it, just like the bible. None of my religious friends question the bible, I don't question what's right socially. And it's just as solid as the bible, in my opinion, since a lot of people question whether God exists, but in civilized countries, no one questions the existence of law books. You can use arguments like these to justify anything. Let me remind you again, that people used the bible to justify slavery, the crusades, the Salem Witch trials, inferiority of women, persecution of jews, and doubtlessly tons of other things. The Muslim religion is supposed to teach peace and tolerance, yet terrorists use it to justify murder, torture, and kidnapping. September 11th was done under the name of Allah. Murder isn't murder if it's one of an infidel. Certainly the people who do that have a solid moral basis. Certainly I could say that I can kill people because we're all just animals. Certainly all of you can say slavery is justified. But we don't. Religious people have just as many arguments and justifications as we do for wrongdoing. And the few who do, give those religions a bad name. But that doesn't change the fact that they justify it with semi-legitimate arguments from their religious writings. And in theory, it's just as legitimate as me going on a murderous rampage in the name of survival of the fittest. Atheism doesn't teach lack of morals any more than Islam teaches the killing of Americans, or Christianity, telling people they're going to go to hell because they're not of the same religion. But there are always those who take it as overt permission. And I'd like to apologize again for all those I've doubtlessly offended. EDIT: Kitty, you're insane.  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by KittyKadaveral on Jun 22, 2004 7:04:09 GMT -5
I couldn't find the post within all the stuff here to quote it, but I had questioned before what religion was Hitler to which I got a good answer of "He had no religion." I was right in my assumptions, I studied enough strange topics to know better then him not having anything. What was that implying? He was an athiest because of his behaviour? My such stereotypes there but yet I do it? ::smirks:: Here's what I found to justify my question about him and of course it's what I expected. I cut and pasted, these aren't my words... History is being distorted by many preachers and politicians. They are heard on the airwaves condemning atheists and routinely claim Adolph Hitler was one. What a crock! Hitler was a Roman Catholic, baptized into that religio-political institution as an infant in Austria. He became a communicant and an altar boy in his youth, and was confirmed as a "soldier of Christ" in that church. Here's the webpage if you wish to enlighten yourself further www.infidels.org/library/modern/john_murphy/religionofhitler.html |
|
|
|
Post by Buddy on Jun 22, 2004 9:03:02 GMT -5
Kittie, I can assure you - Hitler was an atheist. Perhaps later today I'll go and get some information somewhere to prove it, but trust me - he was.
Hitler hated all religons - not just the Jews. He probably hated the Jews more than any of them, but he talked about them most, as they were the easiest religon to seel as to why to hate them. But he hated others too. He believed he was god, and so hated any religon which didn't acknowledge that - that being all other religons.
Trust me, I've done plenty of research on WW2, so I know. It's the one war that actually interests me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Jun 22, 2004 10:01:48 GMT -5
I couldn't find the post within all the stuff here to quote it, but I had questioned before what religion was Hitler to which I got a good answer of "He had no religion." I was right in my assumptions, I studied enough strange topics to know better then him not having anything. What was that implying? He was an athiest because of his behaviour? My such stereotypes there but yet I do it? ::smirks:: Here's what I found to justify my question about him and of course it's what I expected. I cut and pasted, these aren't my words... History is being distorted by many preachers and politicians. They are heard on the airwaves condemning atheists and routinely claim Adolph Hitler was one. What a crock! Hitler was a Roman Catholic, baptized into that religio-political institution as an infant in Austria. He became a communicant and an altar boy in his youth, and was confirmed as a "soldier of Christ" in that church. Here's the webpage if you wish to enlighten yourself further www.infidels.org/library/modern/john_murphy/religionofhitler.htmlWell, actually I didn't really understand what you were saying, especially in the second paragraph, but I'll say this: You know, for Hitler to be a Christian, he must have had one warped view of it. Christianity is based on the belief that Jesus has paid for your sins out of love. Jesus was a Jew. Catholics revere Mary, and she was a Jew too. How could he have taken as Savior a person of the very race he hated? I don't know much about infidels.org, but I took a look and I see that it's really very much against all religion. I just wish there was a totally neutral place somewhere, but that would probably be too much to hope for. EDIT: Thanks for clarifying things, Buddy. |
|
|
|
Post by resurrectedwarrior on Jun 22, 2004 12:37:25 GMT -5
*stares* Amazing. People are actually being GASP . . . reasonable?! Wow - isn't it a wonderful thought that perhaps things can be discussed without name-calling? I dunno . . . I think I might faint from shock!
OK - I'm gonna have to make this as brief as possible, since we've gotta be out of the house in about an hour and my family needs me to help with loading and stuff.
In one sense, yes, Christian culture does change. Certain doctrines in the Bible become popular at different times in History, and this effects the Christian Culture.
In another way, there are some 'cultural' things that are changed in the early stages of world history (from my perspective, btw, the earth is only about 6,000 years old). For example: After Noah's flood mankind is given permission to eat meat. Before that, everyone was supposed to be vegitarians. Also, in the time of Moses, Yahweh made a law against marrying close relatives. Before this time, it was okay (and there are other genetic reasons why, from a Biblical perspective, this would be okay before Moses' time, but I simply don't have time to write it out.)
From an atheistic point of view, your point it right-on. This is why the question, "Is the Bible real?" so vitally important.
Gosh - I wish I had more time! I would SO love to develop this more!
Actually, no, you can't. Though the Bible does speak of laws for slavery, they weren't anything as bad as what was done to africans in early American History. What's more, the Levitical laws (found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy) weren't even part of the argument used to justify slavery. It was 'The Curse of Ham'.
Which brings me to another point. Where is the curse of Ham in the Bible? Chapter and verse, please!
As for the crusades? Chapter and verse, please!
Persecution of the Jews? Chapter and verse, please!
Inferiority of women? Chapter and verse, please!! (When studying this, be sure to pay attention to the historical backdrop to the Epistles.)
Ok - I don't have any more time to write. We've gotta get the rest of our stuff on the truck and high-tail it for our new charge.
Oh - and Crystal - thank you for trying to take my side and bring level-headedness back to this thread when everyone was acting . . . well . . . I'll leave that to your imagination.
|
|
)
;D