Atheism : Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[redhawk23]

Thanks for schooling me and doing so in a respectful fashion.
I did know about Mendel and him messing around with snap peas or whatever it was.

I'm thankful for the resurgence and preservation of science, just a shame some seem to be taking steps backward on the subject because all a sudden it has gotten threatening.

Its not a recent occurrence. I mean before evolution there was the whole debate of whether or not the earth orbited the sun or if the earth was the center of universe, which I never understood, as the bible says nothing of one circling the other, regardless of which you believe existed first.

Certain things, threatening as they are, do take time to gain acceptance, but that is just as true among the so called "scientfic establishment" as much as it is among religious institution.
You could argue however that the terms and basis of their skeptecisms are different.
On another note, I think most people don't relize that the theory of evolution does not seek to explain where life came from or where the universe came from, only how differences between species develop. Thats why Darwin's book was called the "Origin of Species" not "The Origin of Life" or " Life the Universe and Everything."

Theries about where life came from to begin with are classified as theories of "abiogenesis."

 

[Manic]

She! Well I'm sure some would object to that.

I'm picking and choosing how I interpret the Bible.

 

[Dr.]

Anyways, back on topic, I'll make a concerted effort to not thrown a blanket over all religions. Is Buddhism even a religion or just a way of thinking, I've leafed through a few of these mini pamphlets with the words of wisdom, love them, can really set your mind straight at times.

Buddhism isn’t homogenous. Some branches are into reincarnation and spirits and could reasonably be called religions. Others are much more like philosophy – with rituals and mediation used as aids to contemplation.

Demographically, though, Buddhism is almost always classified as a “religion” and Buddhists are assumed to be “believers” in “god” (as if that term had a universal definition).

 

[SuperSoldier985]

I guess I'm agnostic?

I believe in a higher power, but I don't believe in religion.

 

[JAK®]

I guess I'm agnostic?

I believe in a higher power, but I don't believe in religion.

That makes you a Deist.

 

[Nevincer]

I used to be agnostic, but then I realized I was just being agnostic because it was really easy to sit on the fence and pretend that you're doing it because you're open minded. After a while it just started to feel like as much of a logical fallacy as being specifically religious. I think if you don't see any proof or evidence of religion being correct, then the only intelligent and logical choice to make at that point is to be an athiest.

I don't buy all the "athiesm is a religion itself!" crap either. It's the default option. If you don't willfully choose to believe in something supernatural like a god, then your default setting is being an athiest. It's being logically sound, Occam's Razor and all that, it's not a belief system in the way that religion is.

I don't have a problem with people being religious, and I think for the right people, it can just so happen to be a positive influence (though for many it can be an influence that causes them to do bad things as they use it for justification of immorality and malice, and for many it's an influence that causes them to be annoying as hell in their fervor), but even if you see it as a completely positive thing, you have to admit that it's basically illogical, and irrational, based on the evidence you as a human being are privy to (which is none, at least physicially, scientifically, or even historically in any verifiable way).

I know this was posted all the way at the beginning of the thread but this fully reflects my views on the whole debacle. Great post!

 

[El Payaso]

Atheist. I wouldn't believe in God even if he existed.

 

[Bubonic]

That wouldn't even make sense!

 

[Nevincer]

Atheist. I wouldn't believe in God even if he existed.

You mean you wouldn't worship God even if he existed, right? Or are you just purposely making that paradox?

 

[Bubonic]

Is that really a paradox?
Just because God would suddenly exist wouldn't mean you'd have to worship him, well, up to the point he got Old Testament on our asses and brought down the fire and brimstone, at which point I'd point out his level of maturity.

 

[Manic]

If there is a divine power out there, I hope the polytheists are right. I like a little variety in my choice of god.

 

[8wid]

Christianity is the sequel to Judaism so there was bound to be some continuity problems.

Then Islam must be a reboot.

 

[Bubonic]

The third instalment always gets a bit messy...

 

[JStorm]

Growing up Irish, it's only fair that one of us became/found atheism. Seeing as my kid brother finds this appropriate, and the fact that I find it a bit funny - considering I'm Methodist - he prays to Odin, whenever Ma gives him the chance.

Not to ruffle family affairs, I end the prayer in "Odin's beard. . let's eat!" Happily, my mother loves us and let's the feast move on.

On a serious note, I can not say much, as my kid brother is atheist and I Methodist. We have our own battles. . . but blood is thicker than theory.

 

[Bubonic]

George Carlin wouldn't know what to make of you.

 

[JStorm]

George Carlin wouldn't know what to make of you.

All jokes aside, I did study theology in college, my first two years, and my brother found atheism within the same time frame.

We both have vast knowledge and can argue both sides. Honestly, it seems I've made him better as has he me.

For example, I know how to spot a fake Christian within a mile. This doesn't mean I poke fun or make claim - I just can.

As he has found he can tolerate and listen to logical Christian, as I have given him insight on real debate and sound scripture.

Will some one say I "ride the fence," for sure. But I've made my peace with God, telling Him I'll ride through the gates of Hell with my brother.

Th^t story is for time and scotch. I have neither, save for the scotch.

 

[Bruce Banner]

My father grew up Catholic while my mothers side of the family was protestant. I grew up not going to church, my parents ending up letting me come to my own conclusions on the matter. I felt like something was wrong when I saw my relatives on both sides bash other religions and cultures and telling me that they were all BS. (I know not everyone is like that)

I feel that I am just not "programmed" to have any faith or blindly serve something.

I have never really gotten along with them, but this is the one time I feel glad that my parents didn't make me grow up thinking that everything else was not worthy of respect. I enjoy reading/learning about religions and cultures, always hoping to have some sort of better understanding and to be more well rounded.

However if their is a higher power of any kind, like with most authority figures, I will be skeptical of them.

 

[Saint]

As I'm sure some will remember from the epic battles in the old religion thread, I am a secular humanist and a "default position" atheist; which is to say, in the absence of all evidence the default position is not to believe.

Regarding religion, I believe it's irresponsible to make moral decisions that affect other people based on faith (though if the decision only affects yourself, go nuts), the same way I believe it would be irresponsible to sacrifice three elephants if a Witchdoctor came to my door and claimed it needed to be done before the next full moon to save the harvest.

More importantly, I believe it is reprehensible for any person to claim to speak on God's behalf, especially regarding what God does or does not want, and what is right or wrong.

Finally, I believe that we must rely on reason, on what we can observe, and what we can reasonably determine to be true, not divinity, for seeking truth--moral and otherwise.

 

[WeasleyIsRKing]

Saint...very interesting post.

On your first point, that is why it is so important that politics and religion be separate.

On the second point, people use God to justify their own morality or views all the time. They say they look to God for their views...but really they tend to believe what they want...using their faith as justification of their pre-existing perspectives.

Reason and observable data...totally agree that is what should be used to determine truth. However, many humans are ruled by their emotions...wherein most people's faith is greatly affected by their emotional state. Religion and reason are seemingly at odds, maybe not all the time, but at least some of the time.

 

[Ash J. Williams]

Actually, according to Leviticus 18:18, you should not take another wife who is related to a wife you have. The entire section is covering incestuous relationship dynamics. It doesn't prohibit polygamy amongst unrelated women at all. Perhaps you took the verse out of context?

I'll grant you that, but the verse still deals polygamy because it suggests against having more than one wife. The reason I brought up that verse was because Paul Copan did: http://www.stimple.net/2011/05/is-god-a-moral-monster-section-11.html

How people have sex and the reasoning for it is up to them. I don't give a crap if someone wants to have sex for "fun" or for "money". If all parties are consenting, then there is nothing wrong with it.

Lots of acts demean lots of people, but if the woman -CHOOSES- to perform such an act, how exactly is she being demeaned? It was -HER- choice. And in response to demeaning of women, stripping for money is still allowed. Nearly every big city has some sort of strip club. That is just as "demeaning", yet that is legal.

And all that crap about gay divorce, gay adoption, etc... nope. None of that bothers me. I know gay couples who make better parents to their children than straight couples. Straight couples aren't inherently better parents. Sure, perhaps there's something to be said for a mother / father dynamic that can't be had with gay parents, but how many single parents are out there that can't provide their children the mother / father dynamic? Countless people in this world are being raised by a single parent without a mother, or without a father. Many of those children turn out bad, many of them turn out good, just the same way that many children of 2 parent households turn out bad, and many turn out good. It's not a matter of situation, but rather the people involved. Good parents are good parents whether gay, straight, married or single.

And the gay divorce may be one of the worst arguments I've heard. We shouldn't allow it because not all gay marriages are happy marriages?

Um, then I guess we shouldn't allow any marriage, ever. Because, what exactly is the divorce rate in America? You have enough articles to try to make gay marriage look bad, I'm sure you can find an article with statistics on heterosexual marriage too...

I think the point I was trying at was trying was whether or not gay divorce affects the economy, which in turn would probably affect you and me. I'd have to look into how divorce affects the economy, though.

And sometimes Christians don't even know what their own holy book says, or will likewise take verses out of context themselves to suit their own agenda. It's true that that verse is mentioned in an area concerned with buying/selling slaves, but it is not addressed to slaves. I will quote it here, in context, so that you can see this: "He" in this instance is obviously referring to the slave master. In case there is any further confusion on this matter or I am further accused of still taking this out of context somehow, here is the entirety of Exodus 21. As for Leviticus 18:18, which you incorrectly state is against polygamy, Bill already covered that... but in case you'd like proof of what he's saying, here's the actual verse: It doesn't say that you can't marry another woman, which would be a foolish thing for it to say after giving permission to do so in Exodus. As for that guy's website, I'm not going to take the time to address that whole thing, but I will address this snippet: 1) Genesis NEVER says that the situation with Adam and Eve is "God's ideal." This is an assumption that isn't supported by anything in the text. 2) Regarding Deuteronomy, the author is once again reading into it what he WANTS to read into it, even going so far as to assume that "many" and "multiple" are interchangeable. A man can have two wives and he will have multiple wives, but he will not have many wives. That verse is only specifically condemning "many" wives, and even that is iffy because it doesn't define the amount that constitutes as "many."

I don't think there's anything wrong with a Christian being against polygamy despite the fact that the Bible condones it. In fact, I think that's a good thing. After all, it also speaks in support of slavery and treating women like property. The culture has moved on from those days. It's just a pity that so many Christians can view that culture as being wrong about these issues, but won't even consider that this same culture could also have been wrong about homosexuality, especially considering all the scientific evidence (not to mention the testimony of gay people themselves) that says that sexual orientation isn't a choice, along with the existence of homosexuality and bisexuality in the animal kingdom, etc.

That fellow was definitely right about one thing, though: just because it's in the Bible doesn't mean it's good.

1) Although it doesn't say that in the text, what he meant by "God's ideal" was marriage between one man and one woman.

2)How do you know he wasn't using "multiple" as a synonym for "many?" I figure it's possible because I looked up "multiple" on theasaurus.com and "many" was listed in two instances.

Slavery -- or should I say servanthood -- was used to pay off debts in biblical times, so it's not like it didn't have a purpose. And if science says being gay isn't a choice, doesn't that just blow free will out of the water? If sceince determines one's sexual orientation, it might as well determine whether or not I should enjoy life. I tend to look at things from a more philosophical perspective, which was why I brought up free will. Now, whether or not God's all-knowing nature negates our free will would be a discussion for another time. And what about those who stop being gay, as a result of coming to Christ or whatever? Can science explain that? I just feel that if science determines one's sexual orientation is like saying he or she is stuck with it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but what if a straight person is curious about homosexuality or vice versa? Does that create a problem for science? I know being curious about homosexuality doesn't mean one will become gay as a result, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.


And I just thought I'd share Copan's thoughts with you in regards to that passage in Exodus.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Ash, you may want to look at this article regarding free will:

http://www.cracked.com/article_19020_7-life-altering-decisions-made-you-before-your-birth.html

A lot of things that decide who you are now, were made before you were born.

 

[Saint]

Slavery -- or should I say servanthood -- was used to pay off debts in biblical times, so it's not like it didn't have a purpose.

Excuse me for jumping into the middle of a conversation, and let me know if I'm misunderstanding you here, but please tell me you're not trying to excuse slavery as condoned in the Bible--because there is no excuse.

And if science says being gay isn't a choice, doesn't that just blow free will out of the water?

That's like saying your genetic imperative to reproduce "blows free will out of the water." Whether your biological programming says you're attracted to men or attracted to women, you still decide how you act. There's nothing stopping gay men from having sex with women, and vice versa.

When people say being gay isn't a choice, they don't mean that homosexual men can't stop themselves from fornicating with other men. It means that they are naturally attracted to men sexually, the same way a straight man is naturally attracted to women. Or, more simply: at no point in your life did you decide what sexually arouses you. Same goes for gay people.

If sceince determines one's sexual orientation, it might as well determine whether or not I should enjoy life.

This statement doesn't make any sense.

but what if a straight person is curious about homosexuality or vice versa? Does that create a problem for science?

Sexuality isn't black or white; there are gradations. Google the Kinsey scale. A person may not be entirely gay or entirely straight; there are grey areas that account for "curiosity."

 

[Bill]

I'll grant you that, but the verse still deals polygamy because it suggests against having more than one wife. The reason I brought up that verse was because Paul Copan did: http://www.stimple.net/2011/05/is-god-a-moral-monster-section-11.html

It very clearly suggests that various incestuous relationships are wrong when taken in context with the rest of the chapter and not "cookie cutting" it with the added burden of an agenda.

If the Bible is so clearly written, then why is it that none of you can just point to a verse that says, " the taking of many wives is forbidden" and be done with it?

 

[hopefuldreamer]

As I'm sure some will remember from the epic battles in the old religion thread, I am a secular humanist and a "default position" atheist; which is to say, in the absence of all evidence the default position is not to believe.
.

I like this statement. It supports something I've been thinking myself.

I don't think atheism is a choice. I honestly don't think you can choose to believe in God or choose not too.

It's what makes me laugh when people say 'if you've chosen too turn your back on God that's fine, but don't try and make me'.

I haven't chosen to see reality clearly. I just do. I see that there is no God, not because I want to, but because it is obvious to me.

There was no period of spiritual confusion. It's not like this big struggle to choose which side I was going to land on.

Atheism just happened to me when I grew up.

 

[redhawk23]

Reason and observable data...totally agree that is what should be used to determine truth. However, many humans are ruled by their emotions...wherein most people's faith is greatly affected by their emotional state. Religion and reason are seemingly at odds, maybe not all the time, but at least some of the time.

We as people, have emotions. This is not a bad thing. We are not robots. We are not purely rational and we place value on things in emotional ways. A devotion to reason isn't necessarily about the absense of emotion, simply to seek a balance. We can have emotions, feelings but choose to react to them in reasonable ways.

Taking an entirely rational machine-like views leads to things like Doctor Manhattan in Watchmen saying things like, "A dead body and a living one have the same number of molecules."

Our emotional capacities allow us to understand eachother, and place value on things such as life itself.

Emotions are a way to a certain type of understanding, but it is a subjective truth.

The problems arise when people start stating their personal subjective truths as absolute, infallible objective Truth.