Atheism : Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[JAK®]

Haha, touche, jak. But my point is that regardless of what your claim is, one must have reason to hold that claim. Saying "I don't believe in God" is just as much of a claim/assertion as saying "I do believe in God". And therefore, regardless of where you stand, you better be willing to back up your claim. Pointing to the other side and screaming "NO! I don't have to prove anything!" is not an argument in the slightest. The burden of proof, falls on whomever is making a claim, which in this case, is both parties, since both are making a claim about the existence of a supernatural being.

But Atheism was born because Religion made the claims first. Religion says "There is/are god(s)" and atheists say "I don't believe that". Religion is the only one making the outlandish claim. The burden of proof is heavily shifted to the side of religion.

Maybe there are some atheists that don't believe for no other reason than not to believe, which would be blind faith. And I'm certain that if proof of a god is ever found then there will still be atheists who refuse to believe it. But it is not one of the core aspects of Atheism to state something and expect it to be believed. It is simply a lack of belief. There is no burden but to explain their own reasons for doing so.

 

[Manic]

As an adult who still believes in Santa Claus, I find that offensive.

 

[Bubonic]

Even though the burden of proof is on the shoulders of the religious it seems to me that the scientific community has been working a hell of a lot harder at making sense of the world than the religious community has in the last couple hundred of years.

Here, let me refer you to this picture you've might of seen. t:

 

[Spider-Who?]

The point of science and mainstream religion are entirely different. Its like comparing a tooth brush to a hammer. Both are tools used by humans, but their purposes are completely different. Your point is baseless and asinine. Especially considering how many scientists who are responsible for the vast majority of scientific advancement - that you claim as a triumph over the religious - had strong religious beliefs and many were clergy members and even Popes. The fact of the matter is, if it weren't for the funding, schooling, etc that religious institutions offered, our ancestors' ability to even comprehend the slightest level of higher thought and contemplation would possibly never have occurred. But those facts would invalidate your position, so of course you brush them under the rug. Good job, there

 

[Manic]

That image ignores people who treat parts of their religious texts as metaphors in the face of scientific evidence, not to mention religions with ill-defined teachings that allow leeway for scientific discovery.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I'm not saying homosexuals can't be in relationships nor am I saying that I'm OK with their behavior. I remember that when I took an oral communications class, someone presented an argument regarding homosexuality in response to those who say, "It doesn't affect me." Even though I voted against it, whether or not it affected me had nothing to do with it.

Anyway, what about the fact that prostitution tries to make sex for fun and for money be more acceptable? And that by doing that, don't you think it makes it less a meaningful thing if nobody has to build relationships first? Another thing to take into consideration would be the demeaning of women, which I don't see how you could be OK with.

As for homosexuality and it's impact on you -- or rather on society as a whole -- what about being taxed for alternative methods of birth? Like if a gay couple has a chile via a sperm donor? Oh, and in case you bring up adoption: http://family.findlaw.com/adoption/same-sex-adoption/same-sex-parent-rights.html and http://family.findlaw.com/adoption/same-sex-adoption/same-sex-post-adoption.html

And if gay marriage was allowed in all 50 states, don't you think it would get to the point where gays would want gay divorce as well, since it's about "equal rights?" There have been cases of gays divorcing, but I'm not sure if it's ruling. Just because some states allow gay marriage doesn't mean those who have decided to take advantage of it are living happy lives.

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...

 

[Bubonic]

The point of science and mainstream religion are entirely different. Its like comparing a tooth brush to a hammer. Both are tools used by humans, but their purposes are completely different. Your point is baseless and asinine. Especially considering how many scientists who are responsible for the vast majority of scientific advancement - that you claim as a triumph over the religious - had strong religious beliefs and many were clergy members and even Popes. The fact of the matter is, if it weren't for the funding, schooling, etc that religious institutions offered, our ancestors' ability to even comprehend the slightest level of higher thought and contemplation would possibly never have occurred. But those facts would invalidate your position, so of course you brush them under the rug. Good job, there

And what has religion done for the advancement of anything else but itself for the longest while?

Science and religion are completely different and unrelated, it's too bad some nitwits in your country haven't made the realization that you have. When discussing atheism it does seem to come down to a question of religious dogma versus scientific reason.

As for all these scientist who were deeply religious, sure, it's happened, might be that a lot of them held to their careers and wouldn't of wanted to be ostracized for their unpopular viewpoints.

What legs do the religious have to stand on really, you're good at being condescending without having much to back your claim of God as you know it, you're just able to point out what others are doing wrong according to you.

That image ignores people who treat parts of their religious texts as metaphors in the face of scientific evidence, not to mention religions with ill-defined teachings that allow leeway for scientific discovery.

Sure, tonnes of people have a very casual approach to how they interpret their religion, and I like them since they usually aren't the ones causing problems.

If you can look at the bible and ignore all of the outdated things in it and just stick to things you like and seem beneficial to mankind then fine. But picking and choosing kind of discredits the text as a whole doesn't it?

Plus people will say that things like the earth was created in 7 days is a metaphor for the actual billions of years it took our world and life on it to take shape, that is awfully convenient, seems like the religious community will deny most scientific evidence up until the point where they figure out a way for god to take credit for it.

 

[Manic]

If you can look at the bible and ignore all of the outdated things in it and just stick to things you like and seem beneficial to mankind then fine. But picking and choosing kind of discredits the text as a whole doesn't it?

Plus people will say that things like the earth was created in 7 days is a metaphor for the actual billions of years it took our world and life on it to take shape, that is awfully convenient, seems like the religious community will deny most scientific evidence up until the point where they figure out a way for god to take credit for it.

Pretty much everybody who reads the Bible is picking and choosing, so you can't dock them points for inconsistency. I mean, we're talking about a book that tells people not to wear fabric blends.

 

[Bubonic]

So what validity does it have if anyone can pick and choose, rework it and interpret it anyway that suits them or their agenda?

Certainly seems to solidify the case for atheism, and it isn't like atheist don't benefit from the bible as much as they would from Deepak Chopra or Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance.

 

[Bat-Mite]

Ah, but according to Leviticus 18:18, Mosaic Law prohibited polygamy. Furthermore, Exodus 21:10 is part of the law concerning slaves, not the general public. Perhaps you took the verse out of context? Atheists have been known to do that, ya know. And in regards to David's polygamy: http://www.theblazingcenter.com/2011/01/just-because-its-in-the-bible-doesnt-mean-its-good.html

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:

7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

"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:

Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

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:

In other words, just because it is in the Bible doesn’t mean that it’s good. In Genesis 1-2 we see God’s ideal: a marriage between one man and one woman. In Deuteronomy 17:17, God says to the future kings of Israel: “And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.” God never intended a king, or anyone else for that matter, to have multiple wives.

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.

 

[Manic]

So what validity does it have if anyone can pick and choose, rework it and interpret it anyway that suits them or their agenda?

That's the beautiful part. It then becomes just as valid as their new interpretations allow. t:




In case you haven't figured it out by now, I'm basically just in this thread to play devil's advocate. I've done the same in Christian discussions before, but it never turns out pretty when you're literally advocating the devil.

 

[Bubonic]

Devil can't be so bad or God would of zapped him by now, so it's all good.

 

[Manic]

I know this is hardly the place, but I really do have this elaborate argument that Satan isn't remotely as bad most Christians believe. It involves misinterpretations that several different characters in the Bible are the same person when they aren't, Satan really working for God the whole time, and a few other things that would've gotten me burned at the stake centuries ago-- or today in certain parts of the South.

 

[Bat-Mite]

I know this is hardly the place, but I really do have this elaborate argument that Satan isn't remotely as bad most Christians believe. It involves misinterpretations that several different characters in the Bible are the same person when they aren't, Satan really working for God the whole time, and a few other things that would've gotten me burned at the stake centuries ago-- or today in certain parts of the South.

That reminds me of this article that I read on the Jewish view of Satan. It's really an extremely different view on him than the Christian one, which presents him as the cosmic villain. Jews see him as one of God's servants who is simply doing his job. In fact, in the Jewish view, an angel is not able to go against the will of God, so the story of Lucifer rebelling and being cast from heaven is an impossibility.

 

[Bubonic]

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

 

[Manic]

I've read something similar to that. Also, the idea that there was an angel named Lucifer who fell from God's graces is a crock. The term "lucifer" or "morning star" (depending on which re-translation you're looking at) is used to describe a few different people, and lucifer is just the Latin word for "light bringer." The story most people are thinking of is that of a noble king who fell from God's graces.

Then you've got all the people who just tack the character onto the snake in the Garden of Eden for some weird reason...

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

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

Best thing ever said.

 

[Spider-Who?]

And what has religion done for the advancement of anything else but itself for the longest while?

For one, on a smaller scale, religious groups are constantly helping out their communities: fundraisers, food drives, half-way homes, etc; not to mention the global activities of christian-based humanitarian groups such as World Vision, Habitat for Humanity, and the Salvation Army make up 25% of the top 100 non-profit charity groups of the world. So, to answer your question: A LOT.

Science and religion are completely different and unrelated, it's too bad some nitwits in your country haven't made the realization that you have.

And yet you sit here and repost the same Science v. Religion picture over and over, among other posts comparing the two. Seems a lot like a pot calling the kettle black, if you ask me.

As for all these scientist who were deeply religious, sure, it's happened, might be that a lot of them held to their careers and wouldn't of wanted to be ostracized for their unpopular viewpoints.

Really? That's your counter-argument? For one, its not a matter of it "happening" as if it was an occasional thing. At all. Delve into your history books. It's all right there. And your hypothesis that they "pretended" to be christians in an effort to maintain their position is equally baseless and sad. It is possible? Sure, but the biographies, writings, and actions of these countless religious scientists say otherwise.

What legs do the religious have to stand on really, you're good at being condescending without having much to back your claim of God as you know it, you're just able to point out what others are doing wrong according to you.

My ability to address issues I find in your argument is not a matter of being condescending. As my other posts here can attest, I feel that I have handled others' opinions with respect and peacefully expressed my own. I don't think the same can be said of you at all (calling your intellectual opponents "nitwits" is a good example"). So I'm not concerned with whether you consider my posts towards you to be condescending. I just don't bother with being too patient with trolls.

As far as what legs the religious have to stand on, its hard to discuss a topic that the other party vehemently disagrees with, regardless of the topic. Its especially so when the topic involves something like the existence of a supernatural being. Both parties can agree on this fact. With that in mind, I've personally tried to make an attempt to discuss the points we CAN debate, such as the religious scientists of history (and present day), as well as explain why that Pat Condell video you posted earlier is wrong (something I've noticed you've failed to address).

 

[Bubonic]

For one, on a smaller scale, religious groups are constantly helping out their communities: fundraisers, food drives, half-way homes, etc; not to mention the global activities of christian-based humanitarian groups such as World Vision, Habitat for Humanity, and the Salvation Army make up 25% of the top 100 non-profit charity groups of the world. So, to answer your question: A LOT.

Most of that is making up for the damage religion has caused, they're just catching up and taking credit for fixing things they've broken.

And yet you sit here and repost the same Science v. Religion picture over and over, among other posts comparing the two. Seems a lot like a pot calling the kettle black, if you as me.

Nice way to take my phrase out of context in order to prove a point, bravo, watch a lot of Fox News do you?

Really? That's your counter-argument? For one, its not a matter of it "happening" as if it was an occasional thing. At all. Delve into your history books. It's all right there. And your hypothesis that they "pretended" to be christians in an effort to maintain their position is equally baseless and sad. It is possible? Sure, but the biographies, writings, and actions of these countless religious scientists say otherwise.

Historically there have been a lot of religious scientist, if anything it has held back scientific progress when the scientist in question is trying to solve the mysteries of the world under the dogmatic shroud of religion. My hypothesis that some scientist were forced to hold their tongue isn't sad and baseless, but it is sad many had to live lies.

My ability to address issues I find in your argument is not a matter of being condescending. As my other posts here can attest, I feel that I have handled others' opinions with respect and peacefully expressed my own. I don't think the same can be said of you at all (calling your intellectual opponents "nitwits" is a good example"). So I'm not concerned with whether you consider my posts towards you to be condescending.

Can creationist be considered anything else but nitwits in this day and age? You're just as self-righteous as me and are posing as if you're the voice of reason and objective.

As far as what legs the religious have to stand on, its hard to discuss a topic that the other party vehemently disagrees with, regardless of the topic. Its especially so when the topic involves something like the existence of a supernatural being. Both parties can agree on this fact. With that in mind, I've personally tried to make an attempt to discuss the points we CAN debate, such as the religious scientists of history (and present day), as well as explain why that Pat Condell video you posted earlier is wrong (something I've noticed you've failed to address).

Must of missed your response on the Condell vid and I'll go back to it.
If you can't defend the existence of the supernatural being at the head of your religion then what is the point of defending said religion at all?

 

[Bubonic]

You really didn't deconstruct the Pat Condell videos worth for ****, just pointed out some ambiguities and possible mistakes.

In the end you're no more an authority on the matter then he is and depending on where you are looking either your answers or his will be confirmed or denied.

 

[Manic]

People always talk about religion and science coming into conflict, but those arguments always seem to come back to the same one or two religions. I never hear the arguments about how Hinduism held scientists back for centuries. In fact, a lot of anti-theism seems to stem from a resentment toward only a couple of the major religions.

 

[Bubonic]

People always talk about religion and science coming into conflict, but those arguments always seem to come back to the same one or two religions. I never hear the arguments about how Hinduism held scientists back for centuries. In fact, a lot of anti-theism seems to stem from a resentment toward only a couple of the major religions.

Well they are for all intents and purposes the top dogs and the ones with the most influence in our Western lives.

Hinduism and Sikhism aren't an issue in the everyday lives of most Americans and Canadians, those particular ideologies aren't entrenched within the government and educational systems as much as Judeo-Christian beliefs.

 

[~fox~]

I have an invisible, intangible unicorn in my back garden. You can't disprove it, so I guess that means you are basing your opinion on blind faith.

In my garden I can see evidence of Creation...when you start seeing unicorn poop, you let me know.

 

[Manic]

When you're aware that Shintoism isn't the problem, it seems a little unfair to lump it in with the two or three religions you're actually talking about. That's like arguing against fruit when you're really just talking about grapefruits and oranges. Nevermind that you have no quarrel with apples, pears, bananas, or all the other fruits. Oranges and grapefruits did this bad thing to your tastebuds or bowels, so now it's time to argue against all fruit.

 

[Bubonic]

In my garden I can see evidence of Creation...when you start seeing unicorn poop, you let me know.

Nothing is being created in your garden, it is just being.

When you're aware that Shintoism isn't the problem, it seems a little unfair to lump it in with the two or three religions you're actually talking about. That's like arguing against fruit when you're really just talking about grapefruits and oranges. Nevermind that you have no quarrel with apples, pears, bananas, or all the other fruits. Oranges and grapefruits did this bad thing to your tastebuds or bowels, so now it's time to argue against all fruit.

Just because other religions haven't been as forceful doesn't make them any more valid. If we are just speaking about reality and the likelihood of any of these individual religions properly explaining cosmology then I'd still argue that they aren't any more useful.

All that said I'm not advocating the complete eradication of religions as they are inextricably tied to culture, but when it comes down to making laws and educating people then they shouldn't be accorded as much weight as science.