I am curious to know how many of those who consider themselves atheists feel very strongly towards religious freedom and who sees religion as a very viable component of human society without associating themselves with a particular religious group.
Quote from: Cforcerunner on November 14, 2011, 02:46:09 PM
I am curious to know how many of those who consider themselves atheists feel very strongly towards religious freedom and who sees religion as a very viable component of human society without associating themselves with a particular religious group.
Society would be better off without religion. However to enforce that condition on society would make me no better than The Inquesition. So I support the rights of all people to follow whatever world view they like up to the point that they also follow the secular laws that govern us or where their world view impinges on my freedom to believe what I want.
I think religious freedom is very important. I'm not anti-religious (as in I don't actively take any steps I'd expect to lead to it going away) but I also don't think religion is necessary for humans and many kinds of religion are much more harmful than any good they do.
Even HAF is a sort of 'religion'.
People come here daily to congregate and chat with their friends. They come to spread their 'gospel', if you will, the good news that god does not exist (among other topics)...that we are alone...and the rest of you (Jesus freaks) are 'lost', not in Hell, but in a hell of stupidity (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8576.msg132881#msg132881) that is simply <non-existent> <existence> <non-existent> The people that frequent HAF, like it here and feel fed in coming around. Some say they miss not being here for a few days, even some NEED to be here daily. There's comraderie...it's all very much religion-like even with 'God' as a major topic.
There's even a baptism of ten (is it still 10?) posts to be a full member...and the baptismal font is called "Getting to Know You".
The 'church' of HAF meets at www.happyatheistforum.com It's not a physical address like our homes or businesses, but it is an address we travel to nonetheless.
I'd dare say that those of you that promote that this world is better off without religion are not really reflecting what HAF is and what it is to you personally. It may not be a religion that looks up to a God, but it is a 'religion' that keeps looking at God. God or gods is a central theme.
Without the disbelief in God, would HAF exist? It's not much different, just opposite thinking at the core.
Even though I've not been here with much frequency as of late, it is still a 'religious' spot for me. I feel the need to be 'fed' here too.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on November 14, 2011, 05:09:07 PM
Even HAF is a sort of 'religion'.
People come here daily to congregate and chat with their friends. They come to spread their 'gospel', if you will, the good news that god does not exist (among other topics)...that we are alone...and the rest of you (Jesus freaks) are 'lost', not in Hell, but in a hell of stupidity (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8576.msg132881#msg132881) that is simply <non-existent> <existence> <non-existent> The people that frequent HAF, like it here and feel fed in coming around. Some say they miss not being here for a few days, even some NEED to be here daily. There's comraderie...it's all very much religion-like even with 'God' as a major topic.
There's even a baptism of ten (is it still 10?) posts to be a full member...and the baptismal font is called "Getting to Know You".
The 'church' of HAF meets at www.happyatheistforum.com It's not a physical address like our homes or businesses, but it is an address we travel to nonetheless.
I'd dare say that those of you that promote that this world is better off without religion are not really reflecting what HAF is and what it is to you personally. It may not be a religion that looks up to a God, but it is a 'religion' that keeps looking at God. God or gods is a central theme.
Without the disbelief in God, would HAF exist? It's not much different, just opposite thinking at the core.
Even though I've not been here with much frequency as of late, it is still a 'religious' spot for me. I feel the need to be 'fed' here too.
That... and I just had potato chips and red mountain dew... body and blood, baby!
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on November 14, 2011, 05:09:07 PM
Even HAF is a sort of 'religion'. [...the classic "even atheism is a belief/religion" cannard]
Got bored refuting your loose comparison's and decided to do this:
re·li·gion/riˈlijən/
Noun:
1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
2. Details of belief as taught or discussed.
Which of these does HAF do agian?
Quote from: Davin on November 14, 2011, 05:32:04 PM
Got bored refuting your loose comparison's and decided to do this:
re·li·gion/riˈlijən/
Noun:
1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
2. Details of belief as taught or discussed.
Which of these does HAF do agian?
It's called a loose comparison for a reason.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on November 14, 2011, 05:40:50 PM
Quote from: Davin on November 14, 2011, 05:32:04 PM
Got bored refuting your loose comparison's and decided to do this:
re·li·gion/riˈlijən/
Noun:
1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
2. Details of belief as taught or discussed.
Which of these does HAF do agian?
It's called a loose comparison for a reason.
What is your reason for making the extremely loose comparison?
Quote from: Davin on November 14, 2011, 05:46:26 PM
What is your reason for making the extremely loose comparison?
As intelligent as you are, I'm sure you see the reason.
I am against hate groups.
Certainly against teaching in mass messages of hate.
When I see Christianity and Islam teaching that homosexuality is a sin then I consider these groups to be messengers of hate.
I am also against discrimination.
When I see Christianity and Islam teaching that men are to rule over women then I consider these groups to be discriminatory and sexist.
I think this is veering off where I intended the conversation to go. I was thinking there maybe a minority of naturalists here whom do not believe in the existence of anything outside the natural world, that are perfectly tolerate and/or perhaps appreciative of religious expression.
Even before I was a theist, I had absolutely no problem with religion being a big part of my culture. I saw most modern religions being a great source of community (what animated dirt is pointing out), and even though you can nit pick particular aspects, having faith in something beyond themselves of a greater good was always something admirable.
Quote from: Stevil on November 14, 2011, 06:26:04 PM
I am against hate groups.
Certainly against teaching in mass messages of hate.
When I see Christianity and Islam teaching that homosexuality is a sin then I consider these groups to be messengers of hate.
I am also against discrimination.
When I see Christianity and Islam teaching that men are to rule over women then I consider these groups to be discriminatory and sexist.
Well, to start, is this presupposing Christianity and Islam to stand for all religions? Secondly, to say Abrahamic religions are institutions for the hate of women and gays is a completely ignorant and and unfounded opinion, mainly being a completely selective and overly dramatized interpretation of them in order to justify your own irreligion.
Quote from: fester30 on November 14, 2011, 05:25:20 PM
That... and I just had potato chips and red mountain dew... body and blood, baby!
Unless it was 'blessed' by a moderator or by Whitney herself, all you did was partake of potato chips and red mountain dew.
;)
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on November 14, 2011, 06:03:03 PM
Quote from: Davin on November 14, 2011, 05:46:26 PM
What is your reason for making the extremely loose comparison?
As intelligent as you are, I'm sure you see the reason.
I personally find it wiser to find out exactly what person means instead of assuming. Why do you not just say why you made very loose comparisons?
Quote from: Cforcerunner on November 14, 2011, 06:32:19 PM
I think this is veering off where I intended the conversation to go. I was thinking there maybe a minority of naturalists here whom do not believe in the existence of anything outside the natural world, that are perfectly tolerate and/or perhaps appreciative of religious expression.
I don't have to appreciate particular expressions to appreciate that people be allowed to express themselves.
Quote from: CforcerunnerEven before I was a theist, I had absolutely no problem with religion being a big part of my culture. I saw most modern religions being a great source of community (what animated dirt is pointing out), and even though you can nit pick particular aspects, having faith in something beyond themselves of a greater good was always something admirable.
Not admirable to me, believing in anything without evidence and/or understanding of the concepts is not something I find admirable. I think people have the right to do it, but I don't see anything worth admiring about it.
Quote from: Davin on November 14, 2011, 06:52:27 PM
I personally find it wiser to find out exactly what person means instead of assuming. Why do you not just say why you made very loose comparisons?
Being less than a whole page into a topic, it seems rather obvious.
To be against religion is basically to be against HAF...extremely loosly saying of course.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on November 14, 2011, 07:01:33 PM
Quote from: Davin on November 14, 2011, 06:52:27 PM
I personally find it wiser to find out exactly what person means instead of assuming. Why do you not just say why you made very loose comparisons?
Being less than a whole page into a topic, it seems rather obvious.
To be against religion is basically to be against HAF...extremely loosly saying of course.
So loosely in fact that is doesn't make much sense. Not everyone is so loose with the defnitions of words as you seem to be, so the comparison can't reasonabely be made between your admittedly loose definitions and what other people are saying.
Cannot one be against the actual definition of religion without being against those things in your loose comparisons? Yes, very much so.
Of course you can be against it. Problem is that you'd simply be denying the reality of comparisons that fit, loosely.
It's not TO prove that HAF is a religion, simply that HAF fits as a 'religion' (by loose comparison) in that it resembles in many aspects other groups that we call 'religions'. To be against religion is to be against that which makes HAF, HAF. It's a community of believers or non-believers. Whichever way you choose to view the HAF thinking. The formation of a group is to protect a certain idea. HAF's idea is that God (or gods) does not exist...and certainly to promote critical thinking and free thinking. It's other main purpose is that there are "happy" Atheists. Not all are angry. So HAF has a set of rules and guidelines that the creator of HAF has seen fit to make/keep this place a haven of sorts for EVERYONE, Christian and Atheist to coexist. HAF does not exclude those that think different unless they are seen as defiant to the rules.
Quote from: Cforcerunner on November 14, 2011, 06:41:28 PM
Well, to start, is this presupposing Christianity and Islam to stand for all religions? Secondly, to say Abrahamic religions are institutions for the hate of women and gays is a completely ignorant and and unfounded opinion, mainly being a completely selective and overly dramatized interpretation of them in order to justify your own irreligion.
ignorant and unfounded.
Let's start with the dehumanising of women, wrapping them up so that one cannot recognise the individual, the person beneath. Not allowing them to be taught in schools, to drive cars or to stay alone in hotel rooms. Not allowing them to travel without a letter of permission from their male owner.
Christians have the "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee"
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on November 14, 2011, 07:34:30 PM
Of course you can be against it. Problem is that you'd simply be denying the reality of comparisons that fit, loosely.
Definitions that are so loose in fact, that you're point falls out. You implied that your loose comparisons were intended to say that those who are against religion, are also against things like buddies getting together to play video games together. While I think it's perfectly reasonable to accept the reality that one can be against religions and not against LAN parties, you seem to be saying that, that is not possible.
Quote from: AnimatedDirtIt's not TO prove that HAF is a religion, simply that HAF fits as a 'religion' (by loose comparison) in that it resembles in many aspects other groups that we call 'religions'. To be against religion is to be against that which makes HAF, HAF. It's a community of believers or non-believers. Whichever way you choose to view the HAF thinking. The formation of a group is to protect a certain idea. HAF's idea is that God (or gods) does not exist...and certainly to promote critical thinking and free thinking. It's other main purpose is that there are "happy" Atheists. Not all are angry. So HAF has a set of rules and guidelines that the creator of HAF has seen fit to make/keep this place a haven of sorts for EVERYONE, Christian and Atheist to coexist. HAF does not exclude those that think different unless they are seen as defiant to the rules.
I don't accept your loose comparison because it includes far too many other things. The only way those loose definitions would make sense to support the point you're failing to make, would be if you take that those loosely compared things only occur in religion, which, all rational people wouldn't accept (given that things like people gathering together are not inherently religious, and so and so forth with all your weak examples). The major reason your comparisons fail to support your point, is because people can be completely against religion, and completely support those things in your comparisons without being contradictory. In one clean quotable: opposition to religion is not in any way exclusive of those examples that you gave.
Quote from: Cforcerunner on November 14, 2011, 02:46:09 PMI am curious to know how many of those who consider themselves atheists feel very strongly towards religious freedom and who sees religion as a very viable component of human society without associating themselves with a particular religious group.
I think that religious freedom is an important quality of any secular society. However, I also think that the freedom to practice according to one's religious beliefs should not extend to the freedom to pursue harmful actions in the name of doctrine, from denying medical care to one's children to stoning women to death for being raped. It is foolish to think that religion is by its nature benign; those who do harm in the name of religion should not be immune from suffering society's sanction.
As for "viable component," that seems to be a poor choice of words. "Viable" means, among other things, "capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately." I don't see any other meaning that would change the question to make sense: Religion has met those criteria all through history, and shows little sign of failing to meet them any time soon. Perhaps a better question would be "Who sees religion as a very
valuable component of human society?"
Personally, I think that religion in general has often been a more detrimental than positive influence on human societies. However, given the number of times believers have trotted through here proclaiming that they would probably be vile destructive people if not for their belief, I suppose that a case might be made for the value of religion to society.
* * *
Good to see you here again,
AnimatedDirt. HAFism ::) wouldn't be the same without its faithful theist acolytes. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg826.imageshack.us%2Fimg826%2F4195%2Flolbymissbangles.gif&hash=a459a670b2fef67538964246ce892a4b5f7d96e2)
Quote from: Stevil on November 14, 2011, 07:40:56 PM
Quote from: Cforcerunner on November 14, 2011, 06:41:28 PM
Well, to start, is this presupposing Christianity and Islam to stand for all religions? Secondly, to say Abrahamic religions are institutions for the hate of women and gays is a completely ignorant and and unfounded opinion, mainly being a completely selective and overly dramatized interpretation of them in order to justify your own irreligion.
ignorant and unfounded.
Let's start with the dehumanising of women, wrapping them up so that one cannot recognise the individual, the person beneath. Not allowing them to be taught in schools, to drive cars or to stay alone in hotel rooms. Not allowing them to travel without a letter of permission from their male owner.
Christians have the "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee"
Okay, so this means that Jesus taught husbands marry for the purposes of dictating the women as personalized slaves? Again, everything must be rationalized in this sort of extreme dramatization in order to convince yourself of this.
...and yet, HAF, loosely defined, can still be a 'religion'/'religious' experience...which was/is my whole point and can plainly be read in the first words of my post you're questioning that HAF is a religion OF SORTS.
If this thread gets too heated, I'll lock it.
Keep it civil folks.
Quote from: Cforcerunner on November 14, 2011, 07:58:37 PM
Okay, so this means that Jesus taught husbands marry for the purposes of dictating the women as personalized slaves? Again, everything must be rationalized in this sort of extreme dramatization in order to convince yourself of this.
What?
The only statement I made in the last post was a direct quote from the bible. I didn't explain any further, because it already says enough to make my point about Christianity.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on November 14, 2011, 08:00:51 PM
...and yet, HAF, loosely defined, can still be a 'religion'/'religious' experience...which was/is my whole point and can plainly be read in the first words of my post you're questioning that HAF is a religion community OF SORTS.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg830.imageshack.us%2Fimg830%2F9161%2Ffixed.gif&hash=c2ae6461414c75393dff00d7891dd29057839d2b)
Quote from: Tank on November 14, 2011, 08:02:59 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on November 14, 2011, 08:00:51 PM
...and yet, HAF, loosely defined, can still be a 'religion'/'religious' experience...which was/is my whole point and can plainly be read in the first words of my post you're questioning that HAF is a religion community OF SORTS.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg830.imageshack.us%2Fimg830%2F9161%2Ffixed.gif&hash=c2ae6461414c75393dff00d7891dd29057839d2b)
Too bad the topic title isn't about anticommunity.
Quote from: Tank on November 14, 2011, 08:01:34 PM
If this thread gets too heated, I'll lock it.
Keep it civil folks.
Didn't realize it was getting heated. Apologies if it was me.
HAF isn't a religion because religion has a very specific meaning....you could call HAF a community or perhaps even a philosophy but we don't have dogma or a set of spiritual beliefs one must follow/have in order to participate here (other than the can't be a troll/jerk/preaching house rules...in which case my physical home is a religion too as the same rules apply).
It's true that HAF would not need to exist if the concept of god didn't exist...but that doesn't make it a religion. The phrase "Atheist is a religion like bald is a hair color" comes to mind.
If you want "religion" to also mean community then we might as well just get rid of the word religion and instead refer to "religions" as "faith communities"...and that just seems unnecessary to me since I'm not big on changing the English language for no good reason.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on November 14, 2011, 08:08:13 PM
Quote from: Tank on November 14, 2011, 08:01:34 PM
If this thread gets too heated, I'll lock it.
Keep it civil folks.
Didn't realize it was getting heated. Apologies if it was me.
It's not heated yet but my spidy sense is twitching ;D
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on November 14, 2011, 08:00:51 PM...and yet, HAF, loosely defined, can still be a 'religion'/'religious' experience...which was/is my whole point and can plainly be read in the first words of my post you're questioning that HAF is a religion OF SORTS.
And yet, equally loosely defined, HAF is not a religion. My point is, that the looseness of your comparisons includes far too many other things to be in any way useful and any equal looseness can apply to contradictory statements. So I find that your looseness of definition is far less effective towards the point you're trying to make than it supports it.
Quote from: Whitney on November 14, 2011, 08:10:54 PM
HAF isn't a religion because religion has a very specific meaning....you could call HAF a community or perhaps even a philosophy but we don't have dogma or a set of spiritual beliefs one must follow/have in order to participate here (other than the can't be a troll/jerk/preaching house rules...in which case my physical home is a religion too as the same rules apply).
It's true that HAF would not need to exist if the concept of god didn't exist...but that doesn't make it a religion. The phrase "Atheist is a religion like bald is a hair color" comes to mind.
If you want "religion" to also mean community then we might as well just get rid of the word religion and instead refer to "religions" as "faith communities"...and that just seems unnecessary to me since I'm not big on changing the English language for no good reason.
While I said, "HAF is a 'religion' of sorts." I didn't mean to imply HAF IS a religion. I hope that is clear. No, HAF has no dogma or set of spiritual beliefs. BUT there are rules to abide by as there are in Christianity...it is a haven for some as church/God is a haven for others.
Disagree with the comparison...you can't deny the similarities is all I'm saying...loose as they may be.
I'm not anti-religious. I dislike certain religions but that doesn't mean I am anti-religious, nor does it mean I dislike a person because they associate their beliefs with that dogma. Do I think religion has a role in society? Yeah I guess it does, even though there have been some of the worst atrocities committed in the name of religion doesn't mean they haven't had a positive impact on society throughout history and in modern times. However I think the crucial question is can any of those positives be repeated without a religious belief? I would have to answer with a resounding yes and that they are, possibly to a better extent and inclusive not exclusive.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on November 14, 2011, 08:39:41 PM
Disagree with the comparison...you can't deny the similarities is all I'm saying...loose as they may be.
But the similarities don't coincide with the key things that make something a religion instead of a philosophy, club, community etc....so, I still don't get why even a loose comparison was made.
I'm anti-religious. Religious people made me that way. If they would just leave me alone, I would do the same. Tired of catching hell from family/friends because I don't believe in an invisible sky fairy.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on November 14, 2011, 08:39:41 PM
BUT there are rules to abide by as there are in Christianity...it is a haven for some as church/God is a haven for others.
Disagree with the comparison...you can't deny the similarities is all I'm saying...loose as they may be.
There are lots of not-religious things that have rules to abide by, and that can function as a haven for some (depending on ones state of mind, just about anything can be a haven). I think the very looseness of the comparison destroys it.
To answer the original question:
QuoteI am curious to know how many of those who consider themselves atheists feel very strongly towards religious freedom and who sees religion as a very viable component of human society without associating themselves with a particular religious group.
I see religion as an inevitable component of most societies (regrettable as it might be), and as such it's a good idea to "de-fang" religion as much as possible, which to me means discouraging fundamentalism. And since, from what I can see, nothing encourages fundamentalism as much as oppression I think a liberal society that protects the religious freedom of all individuals is essential.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on November 15, 2011, 02:02:44 AM
I see religion as an inevitable component of most societies (regrettable as it might be), and as such it's a good idea to "de-fang" religion as much as possible, which to me means discouraging fundamentalism. And since, from what I can see, nothing encourages fundamentalism as much as oppression I think a liberal society that protects the religious freedom of all individuals is essential.
Good insight. If you acknowledge fundamentalists, they seem to multiply. If you ignore them, they cease to exist. Oppressing them or making them illegal is a form of acknowledgement. Therefore, the wisest course of action is ignore, which means that you allow them to blather on, but don't respond, unless they go ballistic, of course.
If there is real freedom for all, eventually everyone sort of congregates in the center in a non-extremist normalcy. Theist and atheist meet together for tea, and the conversation ends up being pretty placid.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 15, 2011, 03:21:56 AM
If there is real freedom for all, eventually everyone sort of congregates in the center in a non-extremist normalcy. Theist and atheist meet together for tea, and the conversation ends up being pretty placid.
That tends to happen to me on a regular basis, though its usually a coffee or beer.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 15, 2011, 03:21:56 AMGood insight. If you acknowledge fundamentalists, they seem to multiply. If you ignore them, they cease to exist. Oppressing them or making them illegal is a form of acknowledgement. Therefore, the wisest course of action is ignore, which means that you allow them to blather on, but don't respond, unless they go ballistic, of course.
No, I don't buy that. Fundamentalists generally aren't content to merely "be fundamentalist." They usually have an agenda; they want to affect the world, to change it so that it conforms more closely to their vision. In the US, that includes things like preventing same-sex marriage and outlawing abortion. They distort history when they say things like "Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant -- they're quite clear -- that we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the Ten Commandments." They cry "oppression" when they aren't allowed to mandate that science teachers teach Creationism in public schools. In fact they often yalp about being oppressed when they are stopped from getting their way.
This is a voting bloc in the US that has power, and would like to have a lot more. It's all very well to say, "Just ignore them," but it's not so simple.
Quote from: Recusant on November 15, 2011, 03:57:02 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 15, 2011, 03:21:56 AMGood insight. If you acknowledge fundamentalists, they seem to multiply. If you ignore them, they cease to exist. Oppressing them or making them illegal is a form of acknowledgement. Therefore, the wisest course of action is ignore, which means that you allow them to blather on, but don't respond, unless they go ballistic, of course.
No, I don't buy that. Fundamentalists generally aren't content to merely "be fundamentalist." They usually have an agenda; they want to affect the world, to change it so that it conforms more closely to their vision. In the US, that includes things like preventing same-sex marriage and outlawing abortion. They distort history when they say things like "Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant -- they're quite clear -- that we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the Ten Commandments." They cry "oppression" when they aren't allowed to mandate that science teachers teach Creationism in public schools. In fact they often yalp about being oppressed when they are stopped from getting their way.
This is a voting bloc in the US that has power, and would like to have a lot more. It's all very well to say, "Just ignore them," but it's not so simple.
Agreed.
Quote from: Recusant on November 15, 2011, 03:57:02 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 15, 2011, 03:21:56 AMGood insight. If you acknowledge fundamentalists, they seem to multiply. If you ignore them, they cease to exist. Oppressing them or making them illegal is a form of acknowledgement. Therefore, the wisest course of action is ignore, which means that you allow them to blather on, but don't respond, unless they go ballistic, of course.
No, I don't buy that. Fundamentalists generally aren't content to merely "be fundamentalist." They usually have an agenda; they want to affect the world, to change it so that it conforms more closely to their vision. In the US, that includes things like preventing same-sex marriage and outlawing abortion. They distort history when they say things like "Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant -- they're quite clear -- that we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the Ten Commandments." They cry "oppression" when they aren't allowed to mandate that science teachers teach Creationism in public schools. In fact they often yalp about being oppressed when they are stopped from getting their way.
This is a voting bloc in the US that has power, and would like to have a lot more. It's all very well to say, "Just ignore them," but it's not so simple.
But it appears that the fundies in the US are starting to self-destruct, which is typical when they take such extreme positions. Fighting against them just evokes a more extreme response. Ignore them, go about your business, voting and getting involved in a positive manner, and eventually they will pack their bags and go away. This next election should test this hypothesis. If they lose to Obama, they will begin to crumble. Most in the younger generation don't have the stomach for this much extremism, and the fundies will begin to see their ranks depleted by attrition. Or that's my theory, anyway.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 15, 2011, 04:34:26 PMBut it appears that the fundies in the US are starting to self-destruct, which is typical when they take such extreme positions.
What evidence would you cite to support your idea that fundamentalism in the US is starting to self-destruct? I think that the growth of the mega-churches in the past decade or so (many if not most having a fundamentalist cast, no matter if they describe themselves as fundamentalist or not) is evidence that fundamentalism is doing just fine in the US. As well, we have self-appointed pundits like Sarah Palin, and contenders for the presidency like Bachmann and Perry who spout fundamentalist ideas and catch-phrases. These people are fairly popular in the US. I'm open to considering evidence to the contrary though.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 15, 2011, 04:34:26 PMFighting against them just evokes a more extreme response. Ignore them, go about your business, voting and getting involved in a positive manner, and eventually they will pack their bags and go away.
If fundamentalists are pursuing an agenda which people disagree with, then I think it makes sense for those who disagree to oppose them. I would not characterize fundamentalists as mere trouble makers who thrive on the attention their antics provoke. They really believe the things that they say, and they will attempt to influence society in a way which is in line with their doctrines whether people oppose them or not.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 15, 2011, 04:34:26 PMThis next election should test this hypothesis. If they lose to Obama, they will begin to crumble. Most in the younger generation don't have the stomach for this much extremism, and the fundies will begin to see their ranks depleted by attrition. Or that's my theory, anyway.
I spend time on a very large conservative forum, with many members who espouse fundamentalist ideas and who really hate President Obama. If he is re-elected, they aren't going to stop hating him, nor will their resolve to oppose him and elect do-nothing obstructionist Tea Party representatives just crumble. If President Obama is re-elected, I think that it will reflect more on the weakness of the Republican candidate than any positive feelings for President Obama, or crumbling of the influence of the fundamentalists.
Quote from: Davin on November 14, 2011, 06:52:27 PM
Not admirable to me, believing in anything without evidence and/or understanding of the concepts is not something I find admirable.
It's funny when I hear the argument of no evidence for God's existence. Especially when one of the apparent "strong" arguments for atheism is the problem of evil. Yet, in the same vein, the reason I believe God actually exists is the same intrinsic reason I believe evil exist. Yet, I apparently have no evidence for either the existence of God nor evil. How unfortunate.
Quote from: Cforcerunner on November 15, 2011, 08:23:41 PM
Quote from: Davin on November 14, 2011, 06:52:27 PM
Not admirable to me, believing in anything without evidence and/or understanding of the concepts is not something I find admirable.
It's funny when I hear the argument of no evidence for God's existence. Especially when one of the apparent "strong" arguments for atheism is the problem of evil. Yet, in the same vein, the reason I believe God actually exists is the same intrinsic reason I believe evil exist. Yet, I apparently have no evidence for either the existence of God nor evil. How unfortunate.
It is unfortunate, it would be easy to "convert" people if you did.
Quote from: Stevil on November 14, 2011, 08:02:30 PM
What?
The only statement I made in the last post was a direct quote from the bible. I didn't explain any further, because it already says enough to make my point about Christianity.
It did make your point about Christianity after I inserted the ridiculous implications which your point inferred. to "rule over" someone, especially in the context given in sacred matrimonial sense, doesn't imply sexist infringement or lowly stature, as your reference to it suggested.
Quote from: Crow on November 15, 2011, 12:55:11 AM
I'm not anti-religious. I dislike certain religions but that doesn't mean I am anti-religious, nor does it mean I dislike a person because they associate their beliefs with that dogma. Do I think religion has a role in society? Yeah I guess it does, even though there have been some of the worst atrocities committed in the name of religion doesn't mean they haven't had a positive impact on society throughout history and in modern times. However I think the crucial question is can any of those positives be repeated without a religious belief? I would have to answer with a resounding yes and that they are, possibly to a better extent and inclusive not exclusive.
I appreciate your open mind, and tolerance. But I wouldn't you also agree that the affects of nihilism and communist soviet union are not as well guilty of negatively impacting society through fervently suppressing religion?
Quote from: Davin on November 15, 2011, 08:27:03 PM
It is unfortunate, it would be easy to "convert" people if you did.
My point is that you can't prove God like you can prove my glass of water will eventually evaporate. What you consider "evidence" is misplaced and very misrepresenting of the subject at hand. Well if you don't see any evidence for moral consciousness or human rights, I suppose they just don't really exist and are far from admirable.
Quote from: Cforcerunner on November 15, 2011, 08:38:27 PM
Quote from: Davin on November 15, 2011, 08:27:03 PM
It is unfortunate, it would be easy to "convert" people if you did.
My point is that you can't prove God like you can prove my glass of water will eventually evaporate. What you consider "evidence" is misplaced and very misrepresenting of the subject at hand. Well if you don't see any evidence for moral consciousness or human rights, I suppose they just don't really exist and are far from admirable.
You have no idea what I consider "evidence" so you cannot make any useful mention pertaining to what I consider "evidence". If you don't find those things admirable, why did you bring them up in this discussion?
Quote from: Cforcerunner on November 15, 2011, 08:33:10 PM
I appreciate your open mind, and tolerance. But I wouldn't you also agree that the affects of nihilism and communist soviet union are not as well guilty of negatively impacting society through fervently suppressing religion?
Yes. in my opinion anything that suppresses anything is a negative towards society and to humanity as a whole, that includes undesirable and 'evil' notions; however by saying that doesn't mean that they should be left unchallenged, rather real solutions and strategies should be developed that help deal with something that people can live with comfortably rather than force it out of sight and out of mind so those beliefs/thoughts are allowed to ferment and get worse until it explodes. Though I would say the examples you gave were not as bad as religion but that may simply be because they have not had the rich history that religion as a whole has had.
Quote from: Crow on November 15, 2011, 09:27:01 PM
Quote from: Cforcerunner on November 15, 2011, 08:33:10 PM
I appreciate your open mind, and tolerance. But I wouldn't you also agree that the affects of nihilism and communist soviet union are not as well guilty of negatively impacting society through fervently suppressing religion?
Yes. in my opinion anything that suppresses anything is a negative towards society and to humanity as a whole, that includes undesirable and 'evil' notions; however by saying that doesn't mean that they should be left unchallenged, rather real solutions and strategies should be developed that help deal with something that people can live with comfortably rather than force it out of sight and out of mind so those beliefs/thoughts are allowed to ferment and get worse until it explodes. Though I would say the examples you gave were not as bad as religion but that may simply be because they have not had the rich history that religion as a whole has had.
Nicely said, your sense of objectivity on the matter is impressive.
Quote from: Cforcerunner on November 14, 2011, 02:46:09 PM
I am curious to know how many of those who consider themselves atheists feel very strongly towards religious freedom and who sees religion as a very viable component of human society without associating themselves with a particular religious group.
Although the demand for religious freedom annoys me (because to me it is just a bunch of people demanding the choice to be incredibly stupid, AND to have that respected) I do accept that anybody should be free to practice any religion they like. As long as they accept that I am free to point and laugh at them.
As for - is religion a viable component of human society? No, it is shit.
I can understand the group meet, group think, mob mentality of it all, but the sooner it is disbanded the better.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 16, 2011, 12:05:06 AM
Quote from: Cforcerunner on November 14, 2011, 02:46:09 PM
I am curious to know how many of those who consider themselves atheists feel very strongly towards religious freedom and who sees religion as a very viable component of human society without associating themselves with a particular religious group.
Although the demand for religious freedom annoys me (because to me it is just a bunch of people demanding the choice to be incredibly stupid, AND to have that respected) I do accept that anybody should be free to practice any religion they like. As long as they accept that I am free to point and laugh at them.
As for - is religion a viable component of human society? No, it is shit.
I can understand the group meet, group think, mob mentality of it all, but the sooner it is disbanded the better.
I was thinking how I was gonna make my point and it seems you've made it for me. I have no respect for people who believe in Yahweh.
Quote from: Heisenberg on November 16, 2011, 03:02:21 AM
I have no respect for people who believe in Yahweh.
Isn't this a warm how-you-do...
Quote from: Cforcerunner on November 15, 2011, 08:38:27 PM
My point is that you can't prove God like you can prove my glass of water will eventually evaporate.
You should be able to, if he is real.
QuoteWhat you consider "evidence" is misplaced and very misrepresenting of the subject at hand. Well if you don't see any evidence for moral consciousness or human rights, I suppose they just don't really exist and are far from admirable.
Moral conciousness and human rights are not proof or evidence for god.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on November 16, 2011, 05:04:56 AM
Quote from: Heisenberg on November 16, 2011, 03:02:21 AM
I have no respect for people who believe in Yahweh.
Isn't this a warm how-you-do...
Not all atheists are interested in being friendly with those they might consider to be deluded. Some of these may entertain the thought of being friendly, but lose the urge to be friendly any more after one too many arguments with a theist where the the theist uses stupid non logic.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on November 16, 2011, 05:04:56 AM
Quote from: Heisenberg on November 16, 2011, 03:02:21 AM
I have no respect for people who believe in Yahweh.
Isn't this a warm how-you-do...
The thread is called 'Are all atheists antireligious', not 'Ask a theist how he's doing'. I'd be willing to bet that most people on here have no respect for the religious. They aren't willing to admit it because we're raised in a society where we're told to question everything except people's religious beliefs. As if those somehow supersede the logic that we apply to everyday life.
Faith is seriously the absolute dumbest concept mankind has ever created. Not only do people believe in things which they KNOW can't be proved, but they actually believe this is something to aspire to. I laugh every time a deconvert on here mentions that they used to believe faith was a virtue. Yet after they come to the big realization that religion is bullshit, they realize that this was the most deluded of their thoughts.
So I guess between faith (another word for ignorance as far as I'm concerned), imaginary friends and this ridiculous belief that our mind goes somewhere after our body breaks down and dies, I have no idea what it is I'm supposed to respect about it.
Quote from: Heisenberg on November 16, 2011, 02:09:43 PMI'd be willing to bet that most people on here have no respect for the religious. They aren't willing to admit it because we're raised in a society where we're told to question everything except people's religious beliefs.
I often find religious belief and the defence of it perplexing, I don't have much respect for the actual belief. The right to believe I have to respect, it's part of the freedom to think as you will. The religious can earn my respect by actions or shared non religious beliefs and values, there is also an assumption humans deserve some respect until they prove unworthy beyond silly ideas. I respect Animated Dirt and wish him well, he bugs me at times but I expect I do the same for him.
Quote from: Heisenberg on November 16, 2011, 02:09:43 PMI'd be willing to bet that most people on here have no respect for the religious. They aren't willing to admit it because we're raised in a society where we're told to question everything except people's religious beliefs.
It's a bit presumptuous to assume the people here haven't examined their motivations to the same degree as you. Perhaps they have and have just reached different conclusions.
Quote from: Heisenberg on November 16, 2011, 02:09:43 PM
Faith is seriously the absolute dumbest concept mankind has ever created.
Maybe, or maybe it served a purpose in the past.
There are other fucked up concepts.
Quote from: Heisenberg on November 16, 2011, 02:09:43 PMI have no idea what it is I'm supposed to respect about it.
There is a difference between not respecting religion and not respecting the religious.
I'd suppose some respect between atheist and theist is desirable, there are shared problems to be solved.
Quote from: Heisenberg on November 16, 2011, 02:09:43 PM
I'd be willing to bet that most people on here have no respect for the religious.
I think it's possible to respect a religious person without being supportive of their religious beliefs. I know way too many smart, nice, fun, good etc religious people to discount them all just because they have a quirky view of reality. Even many skeptics still have some oddball belief even if it may not be religious in nature....we all compartmentalize to some degree.
Now...I can't say there aren't some types of religious beliefs that if a person holds would lose all of my respect as I'd have to think something deep down is horribly wrong with that person; but that doesn't apply to how most believers practice the mainstream religions.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 16, 2011, 10:55:18 AM
Quote from: Cforcerunner on November 15, 2011, 08:38:27 PM
My point is that you can't prove God like you can prove my glass of water will eventually evaporate.
You should be able to, if he is real.
QuoteWhat you consider "evidence" is misplaced and very misrepresenting of the subject at hand. Well if you don't see any evidence for moral consciousness or human rights, I suppose they just don't really exist and are far from admirable.
Moral conciousness and human rights are not proof or evidence for god.
How about this, prove to me moral consciousness and human rights exist, and then I'll prove God to you right after that, deal?!
Quote from: Whitney on November 16, 2011, 03:23:19 PM
Quote from: Heisenberg on November 16, 2011, 02:09:43 PM
I'd be willing to bet that most people on here have no respect for the religious.
I think it's possible to respect a religious person without being supportive of their religious beliefs. I know way too many smart, nice, fun, good etc religious people to discount them all just because they have a quirky view of reality. Even many skeptics still have some oddball belief even if it may not be religious in nature....we all compartmentalize to some degree.
Now...I can't say there aren't some types of religious beliefs that if a person holds would lose all of my respect as I'd have to think something deep down is horribly wrong with that person; but that doesn't apply to how most believers practice the mainstream religions.
That's good to know, I know many secular philosophers from my university with even quirkier worldviews like subjective idealism and forms of existentialism. There are plenty of unique beliefs out there.
Quote from: Cforcerunner on November 16, 2011, 04:22:21 PM
How about this, prove to me moral consciousness and human rights exist, and then I'll prove God to you right after that, deal?!
'moral consciousness' and 'human rights' are concepts, they don't exist in any real concrete sense, they only exist if we choose for them to. Even then they're subjective values created by society and individuals, different people have different views on what 'moral consciousness' and 'human rights' are. Are you saying that your god is also just a subjective concept created by society, and not an objectively real entity?
Quote from: Too Few Lions on November 16, 2011, 04:30:18 PM
Quote from: Cforcerunner on November 16, 2011, 04:22:21 PM
How about this, prove to me moral consciousness and human rights exist, and then I'll prove God to you right after that, deal?!
'moral consciousness' and 'human rights' are concepts, they don't exist in any real concrete sense, they only exist if we choose for them to. Even then they're subjective values created by society and individuals, different people have different views on what 'moral consciousness' and 'human rights' are. Are you saying that your god is also just a subjective concept created by society, and not an objectively real entity?
That have objective effects on people, whole groups and societites. Is god the projection of those effects?
Quote from: Too Few Lions on November 16, 2011, 04:30:18 PM
Quote from: Cforcerunner on November 16, 2011, 04:22:21 PM
How about this, prove to me moral consciousness and human rights exist, and then I'll prove God to you right after that, deal?!
'moral consciousness' and 'human rights' are concepts, they don't exist in any real concrete sense, they only exist if we choose for them to. Even then they're subjective values created by society and individuals, different people have different views on what 'moral consciousness' and 'human rights' are. Are you saying that your god is also just a subjective concept created by society, and not an objectively real entity?
I completely disagree with your presumptions, I believe that humanity really does have inherit inalienable rights and objective moral values, that is not contingent on the majority of people saying it is true. And I believe you and most people here have these same beliefs despite any theoretical philosophical stance .
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 16, 2011, 05:02:44 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on November 16, 2011, 04:30:18 PM
Quote from: Cforcerunner on November 16, 2011, 04:22:21 PM
How about this, prove to me moral consciousness and human rights exist, and then I'll prove God to you right after that, deal?!
'moral consciousness' and 'human rights' are concepts, they don't exist in any real concrete sense, they only exist if we choose for them to. Even then they're subjective values created by society and individuals, different people have different views on what 'moral consciousness' and 'human rights' are. Are you saying that your god is also just a subjective concept created by society, and not an objectively real entity?
That have objective effects on people, whole groups and societites. Is god the projection of those effects?
If you broke it down to a naturalistic worldview versus a theistic. If you offered a scenario with humanity being either created for some kind of purpose or occurring by chance incidentally with absolutely no intention; the existence of objective moral value/worth is much more compatible with the former.
Quote from: Cforcerunner on November 15, 2011, 08:38:27 PM
My point is that you can't prove God
Science does have some similarity to religion. They do start off with logical premises or ideas.
But then the go several steps further to test their ideas/assumptions.
Quite often after testing they find issues with their logical premises and then rethink the whole thing. This is how they keep themselves honest and on track with the truth.
How do theists ensure their premises/ideas/assumptions are correct?
Quote from: Cforcerunner on November 16, 2011, 05:55:45 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on November 16, 2011, 04:30:18 PM
Quote from: Cforcerunner on November 16, 2011, 04:22:21 PM
How about this, prove to me moral consciousness and human rights exist, and then I'll prove God to you right after that, deal?!
'moral consciousness' and 'human rights' are concepts, they don't exist in any real concrete sense, they only exist if we choose for them to. Even then they're subjective values created by society and individuals, different people have different views on what 'moral consciousness' and 'human rights' are. Are you saying that your god is also just a subjective concept created by society, and not an objectively real entity?
I completely disagree with your presumptions, I believe that humanity really does have inherit inalienable rights and objective moral values, that is not contingent on the majority of people saying it is true. And I believe you and most people here have these same beliefs despite any theoretical philosophical stance .
I don't feel I'm the one making the presumptions! You're presuming that humanity has 'inherit inalienable rights and objective moral values', I don't make that presumption. To me we're just highly intelligent animals (by comparison to other animals), and any rights we believe we have or any morals we believe in are personal and social constructs, not an objective reality. I don't think we have any more 'inherent inalienable rights' than any other animal.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on November 16, 2011, 06:21:21 PM
'moral consciousness' and 'human rights' are concepts, they don't exist in any real concrete sense, they only exist if we choose for them to.
This is a presumption. A conceptually problematic one at that. So if everyone doesn't "choose" to acknowledge and adhere to universal human rights. Let's say for example, a Nazi's regime treating jews as "lower" animals to be experimented upon and treated/disposed of, as lab animals for the sake and prosper of their own "superior" race. This appears to be perfectly natural human behavior. Simply natural selection fulfilling it's role in weeding out lesser fit sectors of humankind.
So if we say Nazi Germany has a ("self-created") moral obligation to find and exterminate all Jews in Amsterdam, and the Holland government has their own ("self-created") moral obligation to preserve their Jewish population, both of these are conflicting sets of moral beliefs, both contingent of the existence of their idealists. Are they both simply deluded in believing in something that is contingent upon their own belief? If all forms of what is to be considered "moral", are man-created, can there be such a thing as a "correct" decision? Should the moral decision henge upon the majority (between the two governments)? Is it possible to make no moral action? How is it even possible to make moral reflections upon either of these moral actions?
Quote from: Cforcerunner on November 16, 2011, 07:21:41 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on November 16, 2011, 06:21:21 PM
'moral consciousness' and 'human rights' are concepts, they don't exist in any real concrete sense, they only exist if we choose for them to.
This is a presumption. A conceptually problematic one at that. So if everyone doesn't "choose" to acknowledge and adhere to universal human rights. Let's say for example, a Nazi's regime treating jews as "lower" animals to be experimented upon and treated/disposed of, as lab animals for the sake and prosper of their own "superior" race. This appears to be perfectly natural human behavior. Simply natural selection fulfilling it's role in weeding out lesser fit sectors of humankind.
So if we say Nazi Germany has a ("self-created") moral obligation to find and exterminate all Jews in Amsterdam, and the Holland government has their own ("self-created") moral obligation to preserve their Jewish population, both of these are conflicting sets of moral beliefs, both contingent of the existence of their idealists. Are they both simply deluded in believing in something that is contingent upon their own belief? If all forms of what is to be considered "moral", are man-created, can there be such a thing as a "correct" decision? Should the moral decision henge upon the majority (between the two governments)? Is it possible to make no moral action? How is it even possible to make moral reflections upon either of these moral actions?
I think human rights are very important, but just because I think they are very important and a sign of a civilised society, that doesn't make them an objective reality. The fact that the Nazis were able to do what you have cited above and morally justify their actions shows that human rights and morals are not an objective reality. I feel you have just proven my point!
If there are such things as 'inherit inalienable rights' and 'objective moral values', what are they? For them to be an objective reality they should exist in all societies and have existed in all societies throughout history, otherwise they're not an objective reality (like say gravity). Please tell me what these inalenable rights are, do they exist in Saudi Arabia, Iran or North Korea for example?
Humanity also has a long history of slavery. What inalienable human rights did slaves have throughout history?
Quote from: Too Few Lions on November 16, 2011, 07:40:53 PM
I think human rights are very important, but just because I think they are very important and a sign of a civilised society, that doesn't make them an objective reality. The fact that the Nazis were able to do what you have cited above and morally justify their actions shows that human rights and morals are not an objective reality. I feel you have just proven my point!
How are they "very important" and what constitutes a "civilized" society? How are your first statements both important and yet completely devoid of any sort of reality? Your correct, my example with the Nazi's presupposed your subjective moral values, and made a grand example of natural selection at it's finest!
QuoteIf there are such things as 'inherit inalienable rights' and 'objective moral values', what are they?
You already said they were "very important" and "a sign for civility", so I assume you are familiar with some of their fundamentals that everyone here already takes as granted. But lets limit the scope to simply the right to not get killed or all your possessions capriciously taken from you by the whim of the government.
QuoteFor them to be an objective reality they should exist in all societies and have existed in all societies throughout history, otherwise they're not an objective reality (like say gravity). Please tell me what these inalenable rights are, do they exist in Saudi Arabia, Iran or North Korea for example?
Humanity also has a long history of slavery. What inalienable human rights did slaves have throughout history?
Okay, so moral values are up to bodies of people to make. If slavery was a norm and endorsed in the 1800s, was it then, the moral thing to do relative to that time period?
Quote from: Cforcerunner on November 16, 2011, 08:14:42 PM
Okay, so moral values are up to bodies of people to make. If slavery was a norm and endorsed in the 1800s, was it then, the moral thing to do relative to that time period?
Why don't you answer that question yourself? The bible has a few verses on how slaves (yes, they existed) should be treated. Others have the god of the bible explicitly endorsing slavery and encouraging his people to take slaves from rival tribes. Was it the moral thing to do relative to that time period?
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on November 16, 2011, 03:06:31 PM
It's a bit presumptuous to assume the people here haven't examined their motivations to the same degree as you. Perhaps they have and have just reached different conclusions.
Quote from: Whitney
I think it's possible to respect a religious person without being supportive of their religious beliefs. I know way too many smart, nice, fun, good etc religious people to discount them all just because they have a quirky view of reality. Even many skeptics still have some oddball belief even if it may not be religious in nature....we all compartmentalize to some degree.
You're both right, and I should have chosen my words more carefully.
Magic Pudding, I didn't mean that they hadn't examined their motivations just as I have. I really just meant that they are more accepting of other people's beliefs than I am. I'm not in the business of telling people what they can and can't do, but you better believe I'm going to let them know if I think what they're doing is wrong, be it morally wrong or simply false.
Whitney, I shouldn't say that i just flat out don't respect anyone religious. I can certainly act in a civil manner with them and have a conversation while doing my absolute best not to condescend to them. But to me, if you're into one of the big religions, then you fall into one of two categories. You either believe that your book literally happened, which I find downright stupid, or you pick and choose which parts to believe, which I find to be hypocritical. So should I say that I don't respect ANYONE religious? Probably not. But I am likely to take every single thing they say with a grain of salt based on how they've formed their religious beliefs. It gives me an idea of how they view the world. That there are so many intelligent religious people is what I find so perplexing. At the end of the day I think intelligence can be broken down into different categories, and just because you aced your MCATs doesn't mean that you 'get it'.
Quote from: Cforcerunner on November 16, 2011, 06:02:09 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 16, 2011, 05:02:44 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on November 16, 2011, 04:30:18 PM
Quote from: Cforcerunner on November 16, 2011, 04:22:21 PM
How about this, prove to me moral consciousness and human rights exist, and then I'll prove God to you right after that, deal?!
'moral consciousness' and 'human rights' are concepts, they don't exist in any real concrete sense, they only exist if we choose for them to. Even then they're subjective values created by society and individuals, different people have different views on what 'moral consciousness' and 'human rights' are. Are you saying that your god is also just a subjective concept created by society, and not an objectively real entity?
That have objective effects on people, whole groups and societites. Is god the projection of those effects?
If you broke it down to a naturalistic worldview versus a theistic. If you offered a scenario with humanity being either created for some kind of purpose or occurring by chance incidentally with absolutely no intention; the existence of objective moral value/worth is much more compatible with the former.
Not naturalistic worldview, humanistic. I don't see morality as being a naturalistic thing, and it's non existent outside moral agents.
There are situations and mental states that people generally prefer not to be in, people with conflicting interests need to live in societies in order to thrive and it's really a strategic cooperative game that people have to play in order to reach as many goals as they have in common. Morality isn't purely subjective, because there are goals: people wanting to live well and happy, in cohesion. There's also the biological arguments for altruism and behaviours that societies would see as moral too (mirror neurons which cause people who have them to mirror the mental state of another in themselves, empathy, etc). As I mentioned before, actions do have objective consequences that are independent of one's subjective value. But morality is not objective.
Huh? Where does purpose come in? ??? What does it have to do with morality?
Quote from: Heisenberg on November 16, 2011, 09:05:23 PM
But to me, if you're into one of the big religions, then you fall into one of two categories. You either believe that your book literally happened, which I find downright stupid, or you pick and choose which parts to believe, which I find to be hypocritical.
You may be being a little overly simplistic in this analysis. Today's Christians had their "book" chosen for them by other generations. The Bible as we know it did not exist during the life of the apostles, and the New Testament books were chosen much later. Why would a modern Christian be bound by the selection of texts made by people in the 4th Century? Based on historical analysis of the extant texts, a Christian today might come to the conclusion that some texts have more historical validity than others. That's what I've done, and I don't seen anything hypocritical about that. I have simply arrived at a different conclusion than that of the early church councils. Christians have been somewhat at odds from the beginning about exactly which texts should be in the canon.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 16, 2011, 09:17:05 PM
You may be being a little overly simplistic in this analysis. Today's Christians had their "book" chosen for them by other generations. The Bible as we know it did not exist during the life of the apostles, and the New Testament books were chosen much later. Why would a modern Christian be bound by the selection of texts made by people in the 4th Century? Based on historical analysis of the extant texts, a Christian today might come to the conclusion that some texts have more historical validity than others. That's what I've done, and I don't seen anything hypocritical about that. I have simply arrived at a different conclusion than that of the early church councils.
And what allows you to arrive at these conclusions? Assuming that there is a god, weren't the people that were alive closer to his time and were given 'eyewitness testimony' by people who knew Jesus more qualified to decide what was actually happened than you are? Show me a list written by one these people that says which biblical stories are true and which are metaphorical and I'll concede that this is an acceptable way to view religion.
QuoteChristians have been somewhat at odds from the beginning about exactly which texts should be in the canon.
Yea, from the beginning. As in, right after this stuff was supposed to go down. Even THEY couldn't agree on it, yet here we are 2000 years later and people are still choosing which books to believe.
And I had a good chuckle at the use of canon. It reminded me of arguments I used to have over whether or not the Star Wars EU (thats expanded universe for you cool people) was part of the Star Wars canon.
Quote from: Heisenberg on November 16, 2011, 09:24:34 PM
And what allows you to arrive at these conclusions? Assuming that there is a god, weren't the people that were alive closer to his time and were given 'eyewitness testimony' by people who knew Jesus more qualified to decide what was actually happened than you are? Show me a list written by one these people that says which biblical stories are true and which are metaphorical and I'll concede that this is an acceptable way to view religion.
I'm not aware of any such list, but I am aware of the earliest existing writings, which were the authentic epistles of Paul. He does mention some historical facts (as I interpret them) about Jesus, and he also mentions an allegorical interpretation of one OT story in Galatians (Sarah/Hagar). The writer of Hebrews engages in extensive metaphorical interpretation of the OT.
Quote from: Cforcerunner on November 16, 2011, 08:14:42 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on November 16, 2011, 07:40:53 PM
I think human rights are very important, but just because I think they are very important and a sign of a civilised society, that doesn't make them an objective reality. The fact that the Nazis were able to do what you have cited above and morally justify their actions shows that human rights and morals are not an objective reality. I feel you have just proven my point!
How are they "very important" and what constitutes a "civilized" society? How are your first statements both important and yet completely devoid of any sort of reality? Your correct, my example with the Nazi's presupposed your subjective moral values, and made a grand example of natural selection at it's finest!
You appear to have missed the first part of my sentence (I've put it in bold for you this time). It's a personal view, NOT an objective statement of fact. The rest of your argument appears to make no sense. I see no direct connection between the Nazis persecuting the Jews and natural selection, that is a rather idiosyncratic connection of your own making. It's not representative of my views or moral values, so you dismally failed if you were trying to presuppose my views on the subject. The Nazi hatred and persecution of the Jews would appear to me to be largely built on the 1500+ years of hatred and persecution of Jews by Christians in Europe that directly preceded it.
QuoteQuoteIf there are such things as 'inherit inalienable rights' and 'objective moral values', what are they?
You already said they were "very important" and "a sign for civility", so I assume you are familiar with some of their fundamentals that everyone here already takes as granted. But lets limit the scope to simply the right to not get killed or all your possessions capriciously taken from you by the whim of the government.
Fair enough I agree that those are good things, but they're not objective values or inalienable rights. If I'd have been an atheist living 500 years ago in Europe I'd have been tortured and murdered for not believing in your god, and those Christians of the time would have thought that I had no human rights as a non-believer, not even the right to live.
We take these things for granted because we live in civilised modern (probably western) countries. Not all countries hold these values as dearly as we do, and very few societies throughout history have.
QuoteQuoteFor them to be an objective reality they should exist in all societies and have existed in all societies throughout history, otherwise they're not an objective reality (like say gravity). Please tell me what these inalenable rights are, do they exist in Saudi Arabia, Iran or North Korea for example?
Humanity also has a long history of slavery. What inalienable human rights did slaves have throughout history?
Okay, so moral values are up to bodies of people to make. If slavery was a norm and endorsed in the 1800s, was it then, the moral thing to do relative to that time period?
The point is that slavery existed for thousands of years, obviously we view it as wrong, but it clearly hasn't been viewed as immoral or wrong for most of human history. You're claiming we all have inherent inalienable human rights and that's an objective reality and not a subjective cultural view, but how can that be when slavery existed for thousands of years and was completely morally acceptable? Even today there are plenty of people living in societies where they don't have the most basic human rights you listed above.
Quote from: Cforcerunner on November 16, 2011, 04:22:21 PM
How about this, prove to me moral consciousness and human rights exist, and then I'll prove God to you right after that, deal?
I have no interest in proving whether they exist. Just prove god, that'll be fine. Crack on. We're waiting. Thanks.
Quote from: Whitney on November 16, 2011, 03:23:19 PM
I think it's possible to respect a religious person without being supportive of their religious beliefs. I know way too many smart, nice, fun, good etc religious people to discount them all just because they have a quirky view of reality. Even many skeptics still have some oddball belief even if it may not be religious in nature....we all compartmentalize to some degree.
Now...I can't say there aren't some types of religious beliefs that if a person holds would lose all of my respect as I'd have to think something deep down is horribly wrong with that person; but that doesn't apply to how most believers practice the mainstream religions.
I have no respect for anybodies religious beliefs at all, those beliefs are undeserving of the time of day. I do respect some theists for their views on other matters though, like sport or whatever.
It is easier to have no respect for religious belief in countries like the UK and Scandinavia where it is socially acceptable to be an atheist or agnostic. In fact our culture is I would call socially atheist/neutral. Church on a Sunday is just something where the god botherers go.
The USA seems to be MILES behind culturally in this respect, and it must be very hard to "not respect" anybody when you have a majority of people being theists who demand respect for it.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 17, 2011, 03:45:20 PM
It is easier to have no respect for religious belief in countries like the UK and Scandinavia where it is socially acceptable to be an atheist or agnostic. In fact our culture is I would call socially atheist/neutral. Church on a Sunday is just something where the god botherers go.
I do love that about the UK, people who attend church on a Sunday are seen as mildly eccentric and deluded at best and just plain crazy at worst, depending on which church they attend.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on November 18, 2011, 10:54:49 AM
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on November 17, 2011, 03:45:20 PM
It is easier to have no respect for religious belief in countries like the UK and Scandinavia where it is socially acceptable to be an atheist or agnostic. In fact our culture is I would call socially atheist/neutral. Church on a Sunday is just something where the god botherers go.
I do love that about the UK, people who attend church on a Sunday are seen as mildly eccentric and deluded at best and just plain crazy at worst, depending on which church they attend.
And the other critical thing is that if a person is a Christian in the UK 99 times out of 100 you wouldn't know as they do not generally feel obliged to tell anybody as some do in other countries.
Because they might get laughed at.