Atheism: Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[Superman_200]

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd....

I'm done. Have a nice life fellas. Way to be open-minded and congrats on the excellent reading comprehension.

What do you mean "and"? If any religion promotes any kind of violence or harm, physical or psychological against a person or group, how can that be good?

There are no atheists promoting violence anywhere because of their beliefs in nothing. Who says "We must kill infidels who believe there is a god"? No one! A person without religious beliefs can not be willing to kill or die in the name of religion! They just can't because they don't believe in it.

 

[Manic]

While it doesn't hold them back in terms of scientific progress, it can not be good for your thought process to believe in something illogical like spirits and blessings. Allowing those thoughts of spirituality into your mind is not opening your mind to greater things, it is opening your mind again to mysticism. It can only make you seem more gullible for lack of a better word if you believe in those things.



Because, it would be nice to see people actually free themselves from mystical, magical little fantasies. I believed all that crap that I learned as a child only to later realize the truth. It changed the way I think about organized religions and has made me be able to look at something like organized religion and be able to question it. Questioning is good, it makes you do research on things, it makes you expand your horizons, your views on science, it is beneficial. It helps you know as much as possible. Knowledge is the best and most powerful tool that humanity has at its' disposal, it has the power to enlighten us, to make us see the world and understand. It has the power to put a man in space, to view each other differently. Not as people who are divided by our beliefs but united by the fact that we are all human sharing this planet and should do the best to live together. Not to be divided by beliefs in different fictional mystical gods and creatures and demons to be feared.

Not to rag on your beliefs or anything, but your insistence that religion divides us and getting rid of religion would allow us to unite somewhat smacks of naivete. The only reason religion divides some people is because some people are insular and dislike people with differing beliefs. Those beliefs don't even have to be religious in nature.

Just look at racists; some of those people use science to justify their views. Science isn't to blame for them being racist, of course. Those people are just a-holes who'll find a reason to hate people different from them.

People get divided over political views that have nothing to do with religion. Have you seen the way some people argue over money and social structure?

The problem with the world isn't religion. Religion is yet another outlet that some people use to spread the problems. However, you can't eliminate religion outright because there are other people who use it to benefit mankind. I know recovering drug addicts and alcoholics who used religious beliefs to pull through. Churches create charity groups to help those less fortunate than themselves. Yes, people could do all of those good things without religion, but like I said before, religion is just a tool that can be used to do good or bad things. You don't blame or credit the tool; you blame or credit those who use it.

 

[DBryan]

SuperFerret, only one third of elite University scientists believe in God.

And in the UK, the monarchy has royal perogative. They have real power.

 

[redhawk23]

Not to rag on your beliefs or anything, but your insistence that religion divides us and getting rid of religion would allow us to unite somewhat smacks of naivete. The only reason religion divides some people is because some people are insular and dislike people with differing beliefs. Those beliefs don't even have to be religious in nature.

Just look at racists; some of those people use science to justify their views. Science isn't to blame for them being racist, of course. Those people are just a-holes who'll find a reason to hate people different from them.

People get divided over political views that have nothing to do with religion. Have you seen the way some people argue over money and social structure?

The problem with the world isn't religion. Religion is yet another outlet that some people use to spread the problems. However, you can't eliminate religion outright because there are other people who use it to benefit mankind. I know recovering drug addicts and alcoholics who used religious beliefs to pull through. Churches create charity groups to help those less fortunate than themselves. Yes, people could do all of those good things without religion, but like I said before, religion is just a tool that can be used to do good or bad things. You don't blame or credit the tool; you blame or credit those who use it.

The things they cite are hardly scientific or based on any objective method of study.

People do however directly quote scripture in or to repress those they disagree with.


I agree with you on your overall point, just calling attention to a few things.


I think people who are against religion put way way too much stock into science. There are limits of science, inherently, because of the purpose of science. Science is a rational process used to make observations of the world around us. There are limits to that that though. Morality cannot be quantified, or empirically studied.

Morality can be examined rationally however. Science is based on rationality, on logic, but it does not represent those two things in their entirety.

 

[Superman_200]

Not to rag on your beliefs or anything, but your insistence that religion divides us and getting rid of religion would allow us to unite somewhat smacks of naivete. The only reason religion divides some people is because some people are insular and dislike people with differing beliefs. Those beliefs don't even have to be religious in nature.

Just look at racists; some of those people use science to justify their views. Science isn't to blame for them being racist, of course. Those people are just a-holes who'll find a reason to hate people different from them.

People get divided over political views that have nothing to do with religion. Have you seen the way some people argue over money and social structure?

The problem with the world isn't religion. Religion is yet another outlet that some people use to spread the problems. However, you can't eliminate religion outright because there are other people who use it to benefit mankind. I know recovering drug addicts and alcoholics who used religious beliefs to pull through. Churches create charity groups to help those less fortunate than themselves. Yes, people could do all of those good things without religion, but like I said before, religion is just a tool that can be used to do good or bad things. You don't blame or credit the tool; you blame or credit those who use it.

I feel it has been used to do some good things, but again, even though it may not be the main (or maybe the main, but not only cause of division) if religion ended, then people would have less things to fight about. Imagine if we had never gone to war against Hitler because he did not exist, or if we had never gone to this "war on terror" because their religious beliefs did not exist. A world where people don't get offended because of religious beliefs. That would be a better place than one who uses religion to do good things but also to do bad things. In other words, do the cons of religion outweigh its pros? I don't believe so, too much blood has been shed in the name of my/your/our god. I feel it has done more harm than good. I don't think it has saved more people's lives than it has taken. I feel religion must completely die.

Now religion does not cause all conflict, but it does shape beliefs, and it is better to have wars over different political views than wars over religion. You take religion out of the equation, and most wars would be about economy and equal rights. I think the world would be more peaceful and more united without religion. It is not the entire problem, but it is a big one.

 

[Dr.]

To all people in this thread talking about how bad religion is, I once again ask this question: exactly how many religions are you talking about and which ones specifically? Because I'm seeing an awful lot of complaining about the god of Abraham and no one else.

Intellectually, the atheist disagrees with all religions that espouse the existence of god/gods.

Politically, it’s not so surprising that atheists take aim at culturally influential forms of religion (like Christian/Muslim fundamentalism) - rather than at fairly innocuous ones like Jainism.

Maybe the onus should be on the religions, themselves, to define which ones are “good” and “bad.” Of course, they don’t do this because they can’t criticize the other guy’s faith and personal revelation without invoking an obvious hypocrisy.

 

[SuperFerret]

They keep pulling me back in.

You take religion out of the equation, and most wars would be about economy and equal rights.

You take religion out of the equation, and most wars would STILL be about dirt and egos.



I swear I'm like a ****ing addict.

 

[redhawk23]

How is it better for a war to be over political nonsense than religious dogmatism? Many wars have little to do with religion. We've fought many wars on ideology alone. There will always be conflict. There will always be disagreement as people experience reality in different ways. The problem thus far however is how react to the existence of conflict. Wouldn't the best scenario be to simply sidestep it all and examine and approach our conflicts peacefully? It can be done, and in some cases has been done.

 

[DBryan]

Isaac Asimov envisioned a future in his Foundation series in which humanity is being lead by science, and that through psychology human beings are finally able to understand each other.

 

[Manic]

I've made my overall point. I have little else to say to any of you if you disagree. I think religion in itself is neither cause nor cure to humanity's problems, and getting rid of religion wouldn't be the boon to society many of you believe it would be. If you have to ask why, please refer to my previous posts because I've already explained my reasoning. I accept what you've all said (though goodness knows I don't agree with it), so I ask that you do the same.

 

[redhawk23]

Isaac Asimov envisioned a future in his Foundation series in which humanity is being lead by science, and that through psychology human beings are finally able to understand each other.

Hari Seldon's plan depends on the manipulation of the human population through portraying sciences as mysticism and religion. All of this to shorten the span of galactic barbarism of course and yet still dependent upon dressing up truths in religious contexts. The Foundation succeeds because they think they can do no wrong, they are simply living out "The Seldon Plan." How is that any different than "God's Plan"? Also of course Seldon's plan necessitates political and economic subjugation and quite a bit of war. And while the first foundation elects it's "Mayors" the plan is of course in control of the secret foundation of psycho-historians. This understanding of which you reference is the secret power of a hidden few. The knowledge of their advanced psychology is purposely kept from everyone else. These few go so far as to erase and modify peoples personalities to keep their plan in tact. Though these few are educated to the highest degree and are doing what they believe best for humanity, they are still imposing their will on others. Its rather really. I love that book, but its hardly enlightened.

 

[Dr.]

It's hard to talk to people of 'strong faith' because no matter what you say, sooner or later they go into a kind of shut down mode.

Take my sister, for example.

She tries to hit me with the ol' "where does morality come from?", and I'm retorting with morality being beneficial from an evolutionary stand point, and I also bring up bible stories.

I bring up Abraham being told by God to sacrifice Isaac and how immoral this is.

And the wheels are turning in her head and she tries her best to rationalize it. She says its a test of faith and I'm telling her that by today's standards there is no way this could be considered moral, and saying that God stopped Abraham at the last moment is a cop out - he still directed a human being to sacrifice their child. And I gave my sis the imagery of the scenario, Abraham rising his knife into the air as the child lays there on the rock. If a person did that today, they would be considered to be insane.

My sister KNEW she couldn't rationalize it, she has kids of her own, but that didn't stop her trying to find a way around it.

Religion needs to be confronted.

In the “atheist blogosphere,” there’s an ongoing debate about “aggressive” rhetoric vs. polite “accommodationism.” Both camps presumably want the same thing – a more secular world. But it’s the old question about catching more flies with honey than with vinegar.

But to the extent that there’s a more public awareness of - and sensitivity towards – a non-religious point-of-view, it would be hard credit this to accommodationism. It seems to be correlated to the uncompromising criticism put forth by folks like Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens, et. al. So maybe vinegar works after all.

In the heat of argument, it’s human nature for opponents to dig in their heels. It’s almost unheard of for one person to pull a 180 and suddenly admit they were wrong. But there have been testimonials by former believers that sound arguments actually had a gradual effect on them. It’s a marathon, not a sprint.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Most of the Christians I've met are willing to discuss (really discuss, not push) their beliefs. Hell, most religious people I've met in general are like that if you ask them.

Well it must be nice living in Lollipop Valley.

 

[Dandy Man]

Meh! I'm an atheist but I don't wear it on my sleeve like so many others do. However, I'm not above celebrating the holidays with my parents even though I don't believe.

I'm understanding and tolerant as long as you don't throw your beliefs in my face (something which I have never encountered)

 

[muertevilla]

It's hard to talk to people of 'strong faith' because no matter what you say, sooner or later they go into a kind of shut down mode.

Take my sister, for example.

She tries to hit me with the ol' "where does morality come from?", and I'm retorting with morality being beneficial from an evolutionary stand point, and I also bring up bible stories.

I bring up Abraham being told by God to sacrifice Isaac and how immoral this is.

And the wheels are turning in her head and she tries her best to rationalize it. She says its a test of faith and I'm telling her that by today's standards there is no way this could be considered moral, and saying that God stopped Abraham at the last moment is a cop out - he still directed a human being to sacrifice their child. And I gave my sis the imagery of the scenario, Abraham rising his knife into the air as the child lays there on the rock. If a person did that today, they would be considered to be insane.

My sister KNEW she couldn't rationalize it, she has kids of her own, but that didn't stop her trying to find a way around it.

Religion needs to be confronted.

It's not enough to be arm chair guys that only defend atheism when we ourselves are confronted, as is usually the case with me.

Religion, it trains people to ignore reason and logic, it trains them to either accept things blindly, or to rationalize things that can't be rationalized. This isn't a "religion causes all the wars" speech, but religion, every single day, holds humanity back. The UK, today, in the year 2011, still has a monarchy, still has a House of Lords, still holds to the idea that certain people are just born into power and that is just fine. The monarchy has political power, it has royal perogitave.

That's just one obvious example.

Another example, creationism being taught in the science classes of American schools. Creationism is not held up to the same standards of the scientific method as evolution and other theories. Abstinence only sex education is taught, let's not kid ourselves, because of peoples' religous beliefs, it is a violation of the seperation of church and state.

People accept these things, and many other things, because of religion.

I am confused as to the extent that I should express my views and when it is appropriate.

God asking Abraham to sacrifice his child was not immoral. It is true that it was a test and Abraham trusted God. Abraham's son, also trusted God and his father. It is very true that these days that would be preposterous because there is no need for that to happen anymore. The task has been done and all sin was judged on the cross with Jesus. To truly understand the texts you need to dig into the Hebrew and Greek and really read your bible, which most atheists I encounter are "Contradictions in the bible" google searchers. The funny thing is, most atheists have something in common with Jesus in which he was anti-religion himself. In the book of James 1:27 the apostles ask Him what religion they should follow and he responds with, "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
Religion has seriously distorted a lot of people and sadly, some people are easily influenced. It is the American way. Let someone else do all the work for you and believe it instead of reading it yourself. When I go to church, I take notes. You go home and TEST what was preached against the Word of God. In Greek that word is dokimazo. I had a confrontation with a pastor a while back and had to check him on some stuff he was preaching. I speak only of Christianity. Now, whether or not it is the "right" belief or not is something I leave up to my faith. This is long haha... Anyway... Former atheist here transformed by the SIMPLE love of Christ. God doesn't need you to believe in Him to exist or love you.

 

[DBryan]

Explain to me how God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son is moral.

Also, explain how the many deaths that would have occured in the great flood is moral.

And what about the firstborn of Egypt who were killed?

How about Lot's incestious relationship with his daughters, and that he offered them to be raped? How is that moral?

It's a cop out, to say that that stuff doesn't count because it occured before the birth of Jesus.

 

[muertevilla]

Explain to me how God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son is moral.

Also, explain how the many deaths that would have occured in the great flood is moral.

And what about the firstborn of Egypt who were killed?

How about Lot's incestious relationship with his daughters, and that he offered them to be raped? How is that moral?

It's a cop out, to say that that stuff doesn't count because it occured before the birth of Jesus.

I'd be happy to try my best.

God tested Abraham. It is symbolic to the coming of Christ. Abraham was a strong man of faith. If you READ the scriptures He trusts that what God says is good.
Gen 22: 5 He said to his servants, “Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.”

He had 3 whole days to reconsider what God asked him to do. But he is sure that what God commands is good; that what he promises cannot be broken. That is TRUE faith right there.. This is before the bible was ever written either, so Abraham trusted the holy spirit. Abraham's son even asked in Gen 22: 7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, “Father?” “Yes, my son?” Abraham replied.
“The fire and wood are here,” Isaac said, “but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?”
8 Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them went on together.

So yes.. God, or as it is written, The Angel of the LORD (which was Jesus before he was flesh) stopped him. When Abraham says God will provide the lamb is a prophesy, that I'm not sure Abraham was even aware of, for the coming of Christ. Trusting in God is moral. Trusting in religion is not.

Ok next (this is gonna be long lol)
The flood.. You are referring to Genesis Chapter 6. The world was wicked. There were only a few God fearing, praying people in the world, one of which was Noah. Matthew Henry explains this well when he wrote, "God looks down upon those with an eye of favor, who sincerely look up to him with an eye of faith. It is easy to be religious when religion is in fashion; but it shows strong faith and resolution, to swim against the stream, and to appear for God when no one else appears for him; Noah did so. All kinds of sin were found among men. They corrupted God's worship. Sin fills the earth with violence, and this fully justified God's resolution to destroy the world. The contagion spread. When wickedness is become general, ruin is not far off; while there is a remnant of praying people in a nation, to empty the measure as it fills, judgments may be long kept off; but when all hands are at work to pull down the fences, by sin, and none stand in the gap to make up the breach, what can be expected but a flood of wrath?"
Hope that helps...

Next.. The first born of Egypt were killed to those who did not openly display their faith in the Lord. What you have to remember is the old testament.. as much as you read and read always points to Jesus. Chapter 6 in Exodus marks the passover. God didn't just go through and kill ALL of the first born sons. The angel of the Lord, when destroying the first-born of the Egyptians, would pass over the houses marked by the blood of the lamb: hence the name of this holy feast. The passover was kept every year, both as a remembrance of Israel's preservation and deliverance out of Egypt, and as a remarkable type of Christ. Their safety and deliverance were not a reward of their own righteousness, but the gift of mercy. Of this they were reminded, and by this ordinance they were taught, that all blessings came to them through the shedding and sprinkling of blood. Jesus.
Next...
Lot.. 2 Peter 2:7 refers to Lot as a righteous man. He lived in a wicked, wicked place though. Him offering up his daughters always gets people wound up. History and theologians believe the homosexual act was a form of punishment at that time to unwanted visitors. Lot was probably trying to calm the mob down that wanted to rape the angels that were visiting him. Maybe he was calling their bluff? I don't know. I haven't read Genesis in a while. The incest, though, is a clear example of how drunkenness easily opens the door to sin. His daughters got him drunk and well.. You know the rest. Remember where they lived and really try to picture life there. It is easy to stand tall and proud when you have absolutely nothing to relate to quality of life in Sodom and Gomorrah.
I hope you appreciate the time I am taking to explain this to a total stranger by the way.
It is not a cop out when you truly read, strive, and want to know God through his Word. You asked a lot of questions from the early books in the old testament. Have you read the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

God from the old testament is THE SAME God from the new testament.

Thanks for the bible study.

 

[SuperFerret]

Why must a god be held up to human morality? Do you look down upon cats that mate with their siblings or hamsters that eat their young?

 

[chaseter]

I've made my overall point. I have little else to say to any of you if you disagree. I think religion in itself is neither cause nor cure to humanity's problems, and getting rid of religion wouldn't be the boon to society many of you believe it would be. If you have to ask why, please refer to my previous posts because I've already explained my reasoning. I accept what you've all said (though goodness knows I don't agree with it), so I ask that you do the same.

Your reasoning is sound and extremely logical. Hell, even South Park has dealt with this. Praise Science.

 

[Anubis]

I don't know man. There's very little that you can say to rationalize offering up your daughters to be raped.


On the whole abolishing religion to somehow magically stop conflict, what chu smokin' and can you pass it to the left please? I think you've had enough.

There's only one way to stop conflict amongst people and that is to get rid of all people.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

I'm definitely not the most religious person in the world but I have a few questions that I wonder if any man of faith can explain in plain terms:

If God knows your fate, why does he create millions (billions?) of people whom he knows will eventually burn in hell?

If the end of the world is eventually foretold and mankind manages to colonize space, what happens to those people who leave Earth entirely?

If God is behind creation and you are given a child with Spina bifida and they are quadriplegic and bed-ridden, how is that fair that one your children lives a life of comfort, has the potential of travelling the world, getting the most out of life, while the other gets to live life stuck to a chair or bed and unable to travel anywhere without assistance.

Why does God punish us for the mistakes of Adam and Eve?

If the end of humanity comes with the end of our planet, then is God saying that mankind has a limited potential and existence?

 

[muertevilla]

I'm definitely not the most religious person in the world but I have a few questions that I wonder if any man of faith can explain in plain terms:

If God knows your fate, why does he create millions (billions?) of people whom he knows will eventually burn in hell?

If the end of the world is eventually foretold and mankind manages to colonize space, what happens to those people who leave Earth entirely?

If God is behind creation and you are given a child with Spina bifida and they are quadriplegic and bed-ridden, how is that fair that one your children lives a life of comfort, has the potential of travelling the world, getting the most out of life, while the other gets to live life stuck to a chair or bed and unable to travel anywhere without assistance.

Why does God punish us for the mistakes of Adam and Eve?

If the end of humanity comes with the end of our planet, then is God saying that mankind has a limited potential and existence?

Those are all fair questions, but where you fail, my friend, is relying on someone to give you the answer. That is the reason this thread exists. For far too long we have relied on people to answer our spiritual questions without looking for them ourselves. It is all there... written and waiting for you to read it. If you truly have sincere questions, shoot me a message and I'll try my best to point you in the right direction.

 

[Bill]

Ok next (this is gonna be long lol)
The flood.. You are referring to Genesis Chapter 6. The world was wicked. There were only a few God fearing, praying people in the world, one of which was Noah. Matthew Henry explains this well when he wrote, "God looks down upon those with an eye of favor, who sincerely look up to him with an eye of faith. It is easy to be religious when religion is in fashion; but it shows strong faith and resolution, to swim against the stream, and to appear for God when no one else appears for him; Noah did so. All kinds of sin were found among men. They corrupted God's worship. Sin fills the earth with violence, and this fully justified God's resolution to destroy the world. The contagion spread. When wickedness is become general, ruin is not far off; while there is a remnant of praying people in a nation, to empty the measure as it fills, judgments may be long kept off; but when all hands are at work to pull down the fences, by sin, and none stand in the gap to make up the breach, what can be expected but a flood of wrath?"
Hope that helps...

The problem is that sin still filled the Earth after the flood, so much so that God decided he needed to sacrifice his son to go along with the multitude that died during the supposed flood which strangely left no evidence behind at all.

Next.. The first born of Egypt were killed to those who did not openly display their faith in the Lord. What you have to remember is the old testament.. as much as you read and read always points to Jesus. Chapter 6 in Exodus marks the passover. God didn't just go through and kill ALL of the first born sons. The angel of the Lord, when destroying the first-born of the Egyptians, would pass over the houses marked by the blood of the lamb: hence the name of this holy feast. The passover was kept every year, both as a remembrance of Israel's preservation and deliverance out of Egypt, and as a remarkable type of Christ. Their safety and deliverance were not a reward of their own righteousness, but the gift of mercy. Of this they were reminded, and by this ordinance they were taught, that all blessings came to them through the shedding and sprinkling of blood. Jesus.

Ah, Exodus. I wonder why God, when he first approached Moses to go before the pharaoh, did not simply wait for Aaron instead of wasting time listening to Moses balk at his less than adequate speaking ability.

In fact, God was about the kill Moses if it had not been for Zipporah's quick thinking circumcision. Why?

Apparently God had an agenda with the people of Egypt. Their first born were going to be killed no matter what. God explained to Moses that He was going to harden the heart of pharaoh so that he wouldn't let the people go. I wonder, if the pharaoh was such a stubborn man, then God would have no need to harden his heart. Logic would dictate that the pharaoh may have let them go many times before any of the latter, more deadly, calamities befell the Egyptians. But that would not have been according to God's agenda, so the pharaoh's heart was hardened by God to facilitate the answer He desired that his agenda could be carried to it's fruition. The pharaoh did not appear to have a choice.

 

[Schlosser85]

SMH at the arrogance of some in this thread who think it's their job to go persuade all religious people to stop believing in their religion.

It's no different at all from the fundamentalists who go around knocking on everyone's door with their pamphlets and trying to lecture everyone about how they're right and you're going to Hell.

And Franklin, if you don't believe that there are plenty of Christians who are open-minded, tolerant people perfectly willing and able to debate faith, you're even more ignorant than I thought.

 

[Schlosser85]

I'm not a very religious person. My beliefs waver from atheist to agnostic to very, very, very loose Christian and back again.

But I shake my head to see that some atheists so appalled by the way some religious people try to shove their beliefs down everyone's throat utterly fail to see how they are exactly the same way, just in reverse.

Again...it's not your place or your job to go around to religious people and try to persuade them to abandon their faith.