It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)A Message to Atheists and Agnostics - I get you(2370 posts)(2370 posts)
(2370 posts)
Pages:
1
25
38
39
40
41
42
75
100
125
150
158
This is my favourite topic
Posted January 29, 2014
avatar
TStael: The probably issue from your perspective, I think, is that I actually do not mind the dogma, but rather should like to focus on how we behave amongst each other, and if we find inspiration to be generous or mean.

If I pick and choose, and find that this inspires me not to do wrong, possibly be nice even - what say you against it?

And let us say you disapprove of Christians or their apologists - how shall have this inspired you to be a better person?
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: I don't mind christians, it's the people that try to push their faiths onto me and also trying to push their faith into government, and also saying athiests cannot be moral that tick me off, and likely many others.
Oh well, the puritanist thing is already an accomplished fact in the US - but this is as such your responsibility to change in a more substantial ways than any one liners to our posts here.

From the self-righteous behavior I shall charitably assume Bushes Sr & Jr were fundamentalists, lest he be totally cynical - but can you vouch any other US president really was or is a believer, rather than an ambitious man?

I cannot see that realistically, a single, non-religious person shall be any time soon elected the US president, and gasp, could this person be a female... or even homosexual???

I voted for Haavisto in the last presidential election in Finland, but for his merit and his person. So, what shall you do?

And again: I certainly was not saying atheists could not be moral - I would assimilate Lenin with Jesus in level of idealism, though maybe not in self-sacrifice.

But my feeling from your response somehow is that maybe you have not given it yet too much thought how you shall be a better man with whatever you reject or can embrace as beliefs.

Edit: correct grammar
Post edited January 29, 2014 by TStael
Posted January 29, 2014
I don't need to give it too much though, there's no proof in a religion. So there's no reason to believe it.
Posted January 29, 2014
avatar
iippo: yes but no.

For some sort general every day "rule of thumb" that might be okey - but at the same time i can come up with situations, which if they were to happen - i would forexample have no trouble using deadly force if necessary. Ive for example served my time in the army and would do so again if called at some point. >> Some people are pacifist to the point of death - i certainly would not be.

Your comment actually points out the problem most (all?) religions and philosophies have - its very difficult to make rules that apply exactly to every single situation you face in life so, that everyone would inteprete these rules in the same way. Also if youre too vague about rules, you end up in situation where there might not be any worthy rules in reality.

->> so i suppose my one and only "real" rule that i have, is that i have no real fixed rules. Time flows, stuff changes - one must adapt somehow...but at the same time, there are also things you dont want adapt to - and especially at these points one has to choose carefully indeed.
avatar
TStael: Just wondering though if you do have some sort of moral compass how you aspire to navigate such ebbs and flows?

I do tend to think that the matter of principles emerges there, or at least it should. Whether the results are for the good or the bad, this is especially the case when highly idealistic persons actually go and try to change, or even revolutionize a system, rather than go along what they think is wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

...stuff like this makes one wonder.
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: I don't need to give it too much though, there's no proof in a religion. So there's no reason to believe it.
ever heard of "faith"?

Anyways, in religions the "proof" tends to be rather personal rather than scientific.
Post edited January 29, 2014 by iippo
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: I don't need to give it too much though, there's no proof in a religion. So there's no reason to believe it.
Still, pimpmonkey : +3 from me for what you responded fairly, meaning anything between your first post and this - which I again think is a nonresponse.

I quite thought you might have been a troll, but this in truth made me appreciate your proper responses better, even when I think we would almost always mostly disagree.

But if you shall come into a going in position about US political system (how will you influence it) or your think through what atheist you wish to be (being at least equal to what you criticize) - either post it here, or PM me.

I will not comment meanwhile what I quite possibly subjectively think shall be a "non-responses" on this thread going forward. But I would quite like your response to any question well read, or an argued position never asked.

But I shall, besides, personally elevate you as a figurative righteous in Sodoma / Gomorra, because you cared to ponder what was said.
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: I don't need to give it too much though, there's no proof in a religion. So there's no reason to believe it.
Saying there is no proof of something is not the same a saying there is no evidence for it, or there is no reason to believe it. For instance, you can't prove that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, yet there is good historical evidence that gives us reason to believe that it happened. If a friend asks to borrow money, you can't prove that he will pay you back, but you can still have reason based on the evidence of you past experience with him to believe that he will pay you back.

It is in fact humanly impossible to form the belief that something is true without any evidence indicating that to be the case. If there was nothing indicating something to be true, then no one would form the belief that it was in the first place, so every belief, religious or not, has reason to believe it. Whether it is good reason is a different story.

Speaking as a Christian, I happen to think there are good reasons to believe it is true, otherwise I wouldn't still be a Christian. There are also a number of proofs out there for the existence of God, such as Aquinas's Five Ways. It's fine if you think my reasons are poor or the proofs are flawed, but to say there is no reason to believe it is incorrect.
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
iippo: ever heard of "faith"?

Anyways, in religions the "proof" tends to be rather personal rather than scientific.
Faith in itself is not a reason to form a belief. Rather, it is someone's will to keep their mind fixed precisely on the reasons they had for forming that belief. For instance, if someone has good reason to trust their son home alone, they can have faith by keeping their mind focused on those reasons and acting confidently that their trust is well placed, without giving in to doubt and calling to check on them every half hour.
Post edited January 30, 2014 by Soyeong
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
iippo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

...stuff like this makes one wonder.
I take this as the cohesion factor - ie what makes humans social, also makes them merciless, when a real or supposed authority figure dictates them. But if this was our lowest denominator, shall we (Finland) not have handed over more than the seven refugees over to the Nazis during WWII?

BTW - all these years forward, anytime SUPO (Finnish Securtiy Police) pushes for more autonomy, I remember them as plausibly the most morally cohesive handmaidens of Nazis in Finland - probably they would have been quite enthusiastic to comply with the above experiment.

I need to search this further as I recall sending the article to a pseudo-nihilistic friend of mine, but it was about innate helpfulness of young infants (18 mths or so) who would mostly come to aid of a person struggling with a load and dropping something. But such young children could also tell when the thing was dropped purposefully, and would then not rush to aid.

I only found what is posted at the bottom, but hopefully shall find the original ref!

But really, one only has to read Tadeusz Borowski ("Kotimme Auschwitz") - where a son shall lead his father into the gas-chamber in hopes to survive a little longer - to see that humans can be turned against each other, but I would not say this shall be more natural than infant helpfulness cum solidarity.

http://www.hs.fi/mielipide/a1381813184767

Edit: add a few commas for readability
Post edited January 30, 2014 by TStael
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
hedwards: The fact that it's not something that's readily solvable, is a pretty clear indication of how pointless the whole debate is.
I have been avoiding getting involved in this topic for this very reason. It is the definition of 'moot'. In my opinion, the (dis)belief in a higher power is a person's private choice, and it should stay such. Problems only abound when governments and politics get involved, as they are wont to do.
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
iippo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

...stuff like this makes one wonder.
avatar
TStael: I take this as the cohesion factor - ie what makes humans social, also makes them merciless, when a real or supposed authority figure dictates them. But if this was our lowest denominator, shall we (Finland) not have handed over more than the seven refugees over to the Nazis during WWII?
Honestly i do not remember about that WW2 thing. I do remember Finland didnt ever hand off people to Nazi's in the numbers they requested - but i wouldnt be surprised if some were still given out for whatever reason.

Anyways, it would have been "good foreign politics" for Finland to give more or even all jews and whatever Nazi's demanded of Finland. So i actually think that the finnish government showed surprising backbone back then.

I mean its very rare for any politician to actually show backbone and either admit to mistake or really risk their career for their (political) convinctions. Worringly many are more of the slippery teflon-type.
Posted January 30, 2014
It's been solved already, and the point is not moot. The fewer people believing in a selfish, xenophobic, sexist and invisible dictatorship residing in the sky, the better. Down with these bastards, they only rule in the recesses of our monkey brains, time to use reason and logic and all that shit and leave superstition to bygone ages. Is it not self evident that the very gods we idealize and worship for thousands of years tend to bring the absolute worst out of humanity? One would think after a few millennia they'd get it right, but no. More raping, genocide, pedophilia, war, human slavery, you name it, we have more of it now than ever before, all under the auspices of some desert-dwelling douchebags who died long ago and should have been forgotten.
Post edited January 30, 2014 by scampywiak
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
Soyeong: Speaking as a Christian, I happen to think there are good reasons to believe it is true, otherwise I wouldn't still be a Christian. There are also a number of proofs out there for the existence of God, such as Aquinas's Five Ways. It's fine if you think my reasons are poor or the proofs are flawed, but to say there is no reason to believe it is incorrect.
I will take a potshot at you were born into christian family and country where christianity was the "main beef" so to speak?

I mean if i had born in muslim country, i would most likely be muslim. Had i born in Israel i would be jew. Had i born India i would be hindi. ...and so it goes.

On average people tend to keep and value the beliefs and, well values of their childhood also later in their life. Ofcourse there are always converts and those who lose their faith (if they had one) - but i dare to say that on average most stick to what they were born with.

Anyways - i was not asked where i wanted to be born, not certain if someone else choice in the matter.

--

Existence of God - well that is ofcourse hard one. Instead of arguing about God's existence, i have some seriously trouble understanding what kind of person/entity/force/?? "God" would actually be in the first place. I mean for something to be able to create "everything" has pretty much lovecraftian implications of being way-way over human understanding and comprehension.

-> In this sense i actually see some great wisdom in (for example) muslim ban on depicting God.
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
scampywiak: It's been solved already, and the point is not moot. The fewer people believing in a selfish, xenophobic, sexist and invisible dictatorship residing in the sky, the better. Down with these bastards, they only rule in the recesses of our monkey brains, time to use reason and logic and all that shit and leave superstition to bygone ages. Is it not self evident that the very gods we idealize and worship for thousands of years tend to bring the absolute worst out of humanity? One would think after a few millennia they'd get it right, but no. More raping, genocide, pedophilia, war, human slavery, you name it, we have more of it now than ever before, all under the auspices of some desert-dwelling douchebags who died long ago and should have been forgotten.
Hey. You shouldn't blame monkeys for this. You don't see them worshiping "God" and "Jesus", do you? They know better.
Post edited January 30, 2014 by monkeydelarge
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
jamotide: Intelligent maybe, but rational? Not at all. Just remember that any argument made in favor of theism can also apply to any gods you make up on the spot right now. To defend such a thing is irrational by default.
avatar
rockyfan4: You're wrong in both directions. On the one hand, theism is only the belief in the existence of the supernatural entity (or entities) most would refer to as god. It doesn't follow that an argument is false just because it doesn't establish a specific god, most classical arguments only try to establish a God who possesses certain necessary attributes... and those attributes are not arbitrary.

On the other hand, arguments from specific scriptures or miracles only apply to the existence of certain gods.

So I'm afraid I'm not seeing the force of the argument here. I just think its a bad idea to assume someone is irrational just because they have a difference of opinion on an issue like this... particularly when people (as I said, very smart people) devote their lives to the subject.
So how does that make what I said wrong, especially "in both directions"? So are you saying it is rational, but not intelligent to believe in something somebody made up? How is it relevant what those gods attributes are? I did not say anything about false or true at all.
And I did not assume anyone is irrational because they have a different opinion, I assume they are irrational because they are irrational. They could have my opinion (see below) and still be irrational.

btw...did you know "jamotide" is the name of a large team of gods that created everything, even your god? If you don't believe that,you are an atheist.
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
scampywiak: It's been solved already, and the point is not moot. The fewer people believing in a selfish, xenophobic, sexist and invisible dictatorship residing in the sky, the better. Down with these bastards, they only rule in the recesses of our monkey brains, time to use reason and logic and all that shit and leave superstition to bygone ages. Is it not self evident that the very gods we idealize and worship for thousands of years tend to bring the absolute worst out of humanity? One would think after a few millennia they'd get it right, but no. More raping, genocide, pedophilia, war, human slavery, you name it, we have more of it now than ever before, all under the auspices of some desert-dwelling douchebags who died long ago and should have been forgotten.
War is always motivated by politics and the lust for money and power, so there would be plenty of cruelty to each other even if there were no religions. You just have to look at the death caused by atheists in the last century to see religion is not the problem here. Religion is often used as a convenient tool by politicians to gain support and unfortunately people have short memories. I think if more people behaved like Jesus taught people to behave, then the world would be a much better place, and you would see that religion can also bring out the absolute best of humanity.
Post edited January 30, 2014 by Soyeong
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
scampywiak: It's been solved already, and the point is not moot. The fewer people believing in a selfish, xenophobic, sexist and invisible dictatorship residing in the sky, the better. Down with these bastards, they only rule in the recesses of our monkey brains, time to use reason and logic and all that shit and leave superstition to bygone ages. Is it not self evident that the very gods we idealize and worship for thousands of years tend to bring the absolute worst out of humanity? One would think after a few millennia they'd get it right, but no. More raping, genocide, pedophilia, war, human slavery, you name it, we have more of it now than ever before, all under the auspices of some desert-dwelling douchebags who died long ago and should have been forgotten.
avatar
Soyeong: War is always motivated by politics and the lust for money and power, so there would be plenty of cruelty to each other even if there were no religions. You just have to look at the death caused by atheists in the last century to see religion is not the problem here. Religion is often used as a convenient tool by politicians to gain support and unfortunately people have short memories. I think if more people behaved like Jesus taught people to behave, then the world would be a much better place, and you would see that religion can also bring out the absolute best of humanity.
Jesus was an idiot. That turn the other cheek shit does not work. As for the rest of your post, you're in a comfortable fantasy land. Try your thinking in Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt. See how it works.
Pages:
1
25
38
39
40
41
42
75
100
125
150
158
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)A Message to Atheists and Agnostics - I get you(2370 posts)(2370 posts)
(2370 posts)