View Full Version : Which is more rational: Christian Theism or Atheism?
MuAlphaChi
07-17-2006, 12:51 AM
I have an ongoing debate with my fundamentalist Christian friend. I've just recently discovered this forum, and I would love to hear some other people's opinions and their respective reasoning on this point of view. The question is simple: based on the way that humans obtain knowledge (scientific method, inductive and deductive reasoning, general logic) and our present level of scientific knowledge, which is a more rational conclusion: Christian Theism or Atheism?
Mayberry
07-24-2006, 04:00 PM
based on the way that humans obtain knowledge (scientific method, inductive and deductive reasoning, general logic) and our present level of scientific knowledge, which is a more rational conclusion: Christian Theism or Atheism? This is a completely personal issue. Our methods of attaining knowledge really has nothing to do with it. You can be a scientist and a Christian. You can believe in the theory of evolution, and believe evolution was initiated by God. You can believe in whatever you want. It's how you apply your knowledge in your own mind that determines what is right for you. Personally, I think life had to be created by a higher power, but I don't believe that God controls my destiny. I don't believe there is some "master plan". I don't believe in organized religion. But that's just how things have worked out in my mind.
dsanthony
07-24-2006, 05:32 PM
I have an ongoing debate with my fundamentalist Christian friend. I've just recently discovered this forum, and I would love to hear some other people's opinions and their respective reasoning on this point of view. The question is simple: based on the way that humans obtain knowledge (scientific method, inductive and deductive reasoning, general logic) and our present level of scientific knowledge, which is a more rational conclusion: Christian Theism or Atheism?
Most people do not obtain knowledge though the scientific method, reasoning or logic. The entire concept of a "revealed religion" is opposed to all three. Faith, not knowledge, is the core of Christian Theism. The question, as you've posed it, is obvious.
Athena
07-30-2006, 01:33 AM
The only choices are not Christianity or atheism.**I have a passionate relationship with God, but reject the Judeo/Christian/Islam mythology as myth and a deliberate effort to have power and control over others.**
I have posted quotes from the ancient Roman, Cicero, and his understanding of God came from Athens.**This is a God of reason, universal laws, and Cicero believed as we discovered universal laws, and applied them ourselves, we all live in peace. **Several of the USA forefathers literate in Cicero and other Greek and Roman classics, were diest.**This is acceptence of God and rejection of religious mythology.**The way to discover God is through science.**The way to make moral decisions is through logic.**Being scientific and logical and developing the higher skills of reasoning, is not oppose to a belief in God.**This understanding of God is essential to democracy and our liberty and justice.**
The problem with God comes up when people insist their myths are the literal truth.**If we counted demons coming out of people's bodies it might be easier to believe the mythology of the bible, but personally I think a faith based on a God wanting a God/human sacrifice (Jesus) is pretty pagan.**Pagan- the Greek word meaning unwilling to accept the Greek stand of civilized.**But then Athenians had developed logic and abstract thinking, and the rest of the world had not, so those unwilling to learn logic and abstract thinking, could not grasp the standards of Athens civiliation.**Obviously this new way of thinking rejects superstition and myths.**Thank goodness, I would not to live with the superstition of the past.**
Nathan Brazil
08-01-2006, 02:45 PM
I have an ongoing debate with my fundamentalist Christian friend. I've just recently discovered this forum, and I would love to hear some other people's opinions and their respective reasoning on this point of view. The question is simple: based on the way that humans obtain knowledge (scientific method, inductive and deductive reasoning, general logic) and our present level of scientific knowledge, which is a more rational conclusion: Christian Theism or Atheism?
Christianity postulates that some intelligent being either always existed (whatever that means) or came into existence (from where?) and who then developed a consciousness (how?) or who always had a self-awareness (without an environment?) who then acted to create what is seen in the world today...somehow. Christian's have no way of proving these assumptions, and throughout history, knowledge has advanced only when that postulate was pushed away and the world was treated as a system reacting without consciousness.
Atheism assumes that the universe came into being as a result of random natural processes lacking any intelligent guidance (but is there a "before"?). This assumption is perfectly reasonable, and can be disproven at any time by anyone able to prove that a deity exists. Atheism has not be disproven to date.
Clearly, atheism, with fewer unproven assumptions, is more rational.
Nathan Brazil
08-01-2006, 02:52 PM
But then Athenians had developed logic and abstract thinking, and the rest of the world had not, so those unwilling to learn logic and abstract thinking, could not grasp the standards of Athens civiliation.**Obviously this new way of thinking rejects superstition and myths.**Thank goodness, I would not to live with the superstition of the past.
The Athenians were logical? They rejected the zero because it scared them, and the zero's cousin, the infinite, for the same reason. They rejected the religions of others, their own pantheon was as fully embraced in Greece (and Athens) as religions always are in their homelands.
Certainly, they were more rigorous as geometers than most, but Pythagoras was creating a religion, not a technical institute, and he was afraid of beans.
Please, the greeks did wonderful things, and they certainly were the shining star of their age, but one shouldn't put them up on a pedestal.
Athena
08-03-2006, 08:53 AM
But then Athenians had developed logic and abstract thinking, and the rest of the world had not, so those unwilling to learn logic and abstract thinking, could not grasp the standards of Athens civiliation.**Obviously this new way of thinking rejects superstition and myths.**Thank goodness, I would not to live with the superstition of the past.
The Athenians were logical?**They rejected the zero because it scared them, and the zero's cousin, the infinite, for the same reason.**They rejected the religions of others, their own pantheon was as fully embraced in Greece (and Athens) as religions always are in their homelands.
Certainly, they were more rigorous as geometers than most, but Pythagoras was creating a religion, not a technical institute, and he was afraid of beans.
Please, the greeks did wonderful things, and they certainly were the shining star of their age, but one shouldn't put them up on a pedestal.
I think you need to know about the Athenians.** Pythagoras didn't have numbers period.**He used stones not numbers to do math.**As the Chinese used little beads sliding on a rod.**His thinking was much more wholistic than our linear thinking today.This is a different way to concieve of math, and it is much about space than just using numbers.**
He was not looking at the matter from today's point of veiw.**Far from it.**His understanding of math was full of emotional reactions we just don't have today.**
Pythagoras was not the first to conceive of the Pythagoras theorem, but his application of it was more scienfitic as he turned the secret and sacred knowledge of Eygptians, and others, into a theorem.**He first learned from the Eygptians whose priest treated math as a mystical, sacred power and taking math to a more scientific level had to do with the system of logic invented by the Athenians.*
Not that the logic of Aristotle is perfect.**It is not, but it was essential to our our justice and our science.**And it is what separated the West from the East.**In the West people use linear logic, and in the East they use wholistic logic.**One results in science and the other in religion.**It was devastating to the knowledge of humanity when Christianity threw this knowledge out the window and focused exclusively on theology and life after death, neglecting the practical, mondane lives we live, and political science.**Thank heavens the Arabs had perserved so much of the Greek and Roman classics, we were able to bring this intellectual advancement into the present.**
Perhaps we need a thread on logic, because it is so misunderstood and talking about any of our thinking without an understanding of how we think, means we don't have the foundation of understanding necessary to agreements, and understanding what each other are talking about.**The biggest religious conflict is between those who are concrete thinkers and those who are abstract thinkers, but I don't think most the people reading this, have any idea what concrete thinking verses abstract thinking is all about. Nor what wholistic logic verses linear logic is all about.**
Without linear logic, the Chinese could not advance technology as the West has done.**But with wholistic logic, they have the advantage with it comes to quantum physics.**How many understand what I am saying here?**
You all could be experts in your fields, and far more knowledgeable in fields that I nothing about.**What I am talking about is a peice of information most people just don't have, because the US has specialized, and completely neglected this kind of information.
Everyone is an expert in his own specialty, but in general knows very little outside his specialty.**This makes it difficult to understand history and the humanity with whom we share this planet.**Anyway, there are things about thinking that it would be very benefacial for us to know, and it is linear logic that made Athens so important to the rest of the world.**This is what lead to science instead of superstition and religion.
It took time.**Yes, the Athenians believed in Gods as did everyone else, but they had begun a way of thinking that would move the world away from superstition and towards a scientific understanding of everything.**Go to the thread gospel of Paul for an understanding of the God of reason, that came out of this developing system of logic.**Socrates gave his life to defend this new way of thinking and give the world something better than superstition.**The God of reason essential to democracy is not the myth based God of Arabham. **
Mayberry
08-04-2006, 08:20 AM
Pythagoras didn't have numbers period. He used stones not numbers to do math. As the Chinese used little beads sliding on a rod. These weren't "numerals", but they still represented numbers.
Athena
08-04-2006, 09:30 AM
Pythagoras didn't have numbers period.**He used stones not numbers to do math.**As the Chinese used little beads sliding on a rod. These weren't "numerals", but they still represented numbers.
Let's see the question is what more rational Christianity of Atheism? I think Pythagoras is followers are a fascinating subject, but not the subject of this thread. I guess I will start a thread for that subject, because it does relate to religion and the present apparent conflict of science.
More important to this thread is the Hellenistic concept of God that was shared by John in the gospels and Cicero. Cicero's writings strongly influeced the church in the middle ages and this brough us to democracy, rule by reason. I will restate my argument. It is not either accepting Judaism/Christianity/Islam which are all built on the Hebrew tribal god of Abraham, or being atheist, believing in no God at all. We can remove the myth from that God, and still have a concept of God based on reason. This is important to preserving our democracy.
Mayberry
08-04-2006, 09:40 AM
Let's see the question is what more rational Christianity of Atheism? I believe you were the one who led us off in this direction.
Athena
08-04-2006, 10:29 AM
Let's see the question is what more rational Christianity of Atheism? I believe you were the one who led us off in this direction.
Sad, but I am sure you, and your peers, do believe that. It seems many of you do not understand a concept, and I have said more about this in the Pythagoras thread, and will say still more about it in the Education for Democracy thread. I want to thank you all for helping me develop the concepts you are helping me develop.
In the future when you have a personal comment for me, please, PM me. Your comment here adds nothing to the thread. Do you grasp the concept of God that is not tied to a particular tribal God, nor mythology, but is acceptance of universal laws and God/human consciousness?
Mayberry
08-04-2006, 10:49 AM
In the future when you have a personal comment for me, please, PM me. Your comment here adds nothing to the thread. So pointing out that you were the one who diverted the thread off topic added nothing. O.K. Got it. Do you grasp the concept of God that is not tied to a particular tribal God, nor mythology, but is acceptance of universal laws and God/human consciousness? I believe I've said as much in another thread. I follow no particular faith, yet I retain Christian principles, which I think of as "universal laws". But I don't necessarily buy into the "all knowing, all seeing, all powerful God" thing. My destiny is under my control, I don't buy into some "great plan" for me. If God can see and control everything, then he is one sick sadistic son of a b!%&h. I believe the universe must have been created by some higher power. I do believe in the "Big Bang" line of thought, but I think someone or something must have set off the Big Bang. Evolution is a obvious process, but must have been set in motion by something more. There is too much that just can't be explained.
Athena
08-05-2006, 11:40 AM
Yeah, real discussion.**How do we come to know universal law?**This is where the Athenians did a mind blowing thing.**The whole world believed things are as they are because of some deity making things as they are, and along come the Athenians who say, reason, is the controlling force of the universe.**Things happen as they do, because of cause and effect, not because some God makes things happen by his whim.**
This does not mean there is no God.**It means instead of a God ruling by whim, the God rules by laws, universal laws.**Now we can not know this God, which is beyond human comprehension, but we can discover the laws and govern ourselves with laws.**It also means humans should not act like Zeus or Bush, or Israel, or the God of Abraham, or any of those trying to get their way by force, but should obey laws and should engage in open discussion so conflicts are resolved by reasoning through those universal laws.**This is an importantly different way to understand God and our relationship with God.**
That is the theory of the Big Bang and Evolution are not saying there is no God, but rather are stating the laws of creation that God uses.**Now which is more rational, a God like Zeus or the God of Abraham, ruling by whim, arbitarily and unrestrained by anything like universal laws, or a God who is these laws and is himself controlled by these laws.**That is democracy.**We share reason with this God, and it is Godly to know and the law.**No good can come from breaking these laws, so naturally they are obeyed when we understand the reason of them.**
For awhile Christianity accepted this understanding of God, but without the literacy for this understanding of God, people fall back on the supernatural, Zeus like God and fear of the supernatural being of evil and his army of demons.**Supernatural beings who can rule by whim and be pleased or displeased by human actions and acts of worship which can malniplate this God, and Satan, to do our bidding if we are properly pleasing to the supernatural being of good or the one of evil.**This is the belief that makes Satanism possible.**Satanism is does not oppose the Christian belief system, but fully accepts it.**Anyway, which is more rational, a God of laws or one**who rules by whim and can be malniputed by our sacrifice of animals, burning of candles and insense, and our prayers and pious acts?**
Nathan Brazil
08-05-2006, 05:19 PM
Yeah, real discussion.**How do we come to know universal law?**This is where the Athenians did a mind blowing thing.**The whole world believed things are as they are because of some deity making things as they are, and along come the Athenians who say, reason, is the controlling force of the universe.**Things happen as they do, because of cause and effect, not because some God makes things happen by his whim.**
Pbbtbtbtbtbtbtbt!!!! The Greeks had several different concepts of human genesis, ranging from man being a construct of Prometheus (in opposition to Zeus, the head god) to a being made of mud by Cura and imbued with life by Zeus at Cura's request, to several other possibilities. And the Athenians were just as religious as the rest of the greeks. If one or several minds arose and challenged these notions to a degree, fine, that happens everywhere, but the average Athenian was as tied to the religion of his culture as any other greek of the time.
This does not mean there is no God.**It means instead of a God ruling by whim, the God rules by laws, universal laws.**Now we can not know this God, which is beyond human comprehension, but we can discover the laws and govern ourselves with laws.**It also means humans should not act like Zeus or Bush, or Israel, or the God of Abraham, or any of those trying to get their way by force, but should obey laws and should engage in open discussion so conflicts are resolved by reasoning through those universal laws.**This is an importantly different way to understand God and our relationship with God.*
What's wrong with resolving conflicts by killing your enemies? Worked on Carthage.
That is the theory of the Big Bang and Evolution are not saying there is no God, but rather are stating the laws of creation that God uses.
Neither evolution nor modern cosmology makes statements regarding any concept of god. They both presume merely that the processes described are not intelligent nor directed by intelligence. The statements about god are applied by others.
Now which is more rational, a God like Zeus or the God of Abraham, ruling by whim, arbitarily and unrestrained by anything like universal laws, or a God who is these laws and is himself controlled by these laws.
Neither. Both presume that a being with magical powers does things without explaining the origins of those powers or the origins of the magical beings themselves. Neither has a shred of reason attached to them.
That is democracy.**We share reason with this God, and it is Godly to know and the law.**No good can come from breaking these laws, so naturally they are obeyed when we understand the reason of them.
"Natural" law cannot be broken. All that can occur is that deeper understanding of nature permits men to use other aspects of the same natural law to circumvent certain limitations. Man can fly, but he needs a machine.
CockySOB
08-05-2006, 05:45 PM
I think I'm agreeing with Athena here - the question fails to address any of the real issues and instead, puts forth an implied hypothesis that one of the two (Judeo-Christianity or athiesm) is a superior "religion." The fact of hte matter is that all religions find their basis in the attempt to find rationality in what is perceived as an irrational world.
Perhaps the better question would be this: which is more rational - theism or athiesm?
Athena
08-05-2006, 09:10 PM
Neither evolution nor modern cosmology makes statements regarding any concept of god.
Yes, these theories do speak of God. The Protestants believed for awhile that science would reveal God, and I think science should ask how God works, just as the Athenians were doing when they concluded reason, is the controlling force of the universe, made manifest in speech, and Athens became a democracy. God is universal law and is subject to that law. So are we subject to the law and capable of being conscious of the law. We share this in common with God.
The problem with Protestantism is they also thought reforming religion meant a literal interpretation of the bible. Catholics had rationalized the things in the bible that don't make since for a long time, so when they could no longer deny the sun is the center of our solar system, they had an easier time accepting truth than the Protestants. Scientific truths are devastating to Protestants who insist on a literal (fundamental) interpretation of the bible. Catholics have handled the inaccuaracies of the bible, by announcing it was never might to be a historically or scientifically accurate book, but a book of theology.
But like Spinoza, I say science can speak of God. It is simply a matter of your understanding of God and how we come to know God.
Athena
08-05-2006, 09:22 PM
What's wrong with resolving conflicts by killing your enemies? Worked on Carthage.
You jest, right? Rome took out Carthage, and expanded its power through military might, but it also fell, so this worked for whom?
Killing my nieghbors is considered anti social and our culture handles such anti social behavior with prison or death sentences. Like if it weren't for these complications, than perhaps resolving our conflicts by killing those who are problem to us, would be a good thing.:D I sure can appreciate the thought of being the one to do the killing. But I don't like so well the idea of being the one killed.
Announcing I can appreciate the point of view of suicide killers, does not increase my popularity. Especially not when Jews are in the room. :D
Athena
08-05-2006, 09:53 PM
"Natural" law cannot be broken. All that can occur is that deeper understanding of nature permits men to use other aspects of the same natural law to circumvent certain limitations. Man can fly, but he needs a machine.
Cicero and Jefferson speak of the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. This is also the Athenian God of reason, the logos with God since the beginning, and universal law. This concept of God is essential to democracy. The following is a quote from Cicero's "The Republic and The Laws".
And if Nature is not to be considered the foundation of Justice, that will mean the destruction [of the virtues on which human society depends]. For where then will there be a place for generosity, or love of country, or loyalty, or to show gratitude for favours receivied? For these virtues originate in our natural inclination to love our fellow-men, and this is the foundation of Justice.....But if the principles of Justice were founded on the decrees of people, the edicts of princes, or the decisions of judges, then Justice would sanction robbery and adultry and forging of wills, in case these acts were approved by the votes or decrees of the populace. But if so great a power belongs to the dicisions and decrees of fools that the laws of Nature can be changed by their votes, then why do they not ordain that what is bad and baneful shall be considered good and salutary? Or, if a law can make Justice out of Injustice, can it also make good out of bad? But in fact we can preceive the difference between good laws and bad by referring them to no other standard than Nature, but also and without exception things which are honourable and dishonourable. For since an intelligence common to us all makes things known to us and formulates them in our minds, honourable actions are ascribed by us to virture, and dishonourable actions to vice; and only a madman would conclude that these judgements are matters of opinion and not fixed by Nature.
Rider
08-06-2006, 12:49 PM
To me the whole point of religion is the development of faith in something greater than us. Faith will never be measured by a micrometer or weighed on the most sensitive scale. It won't yield its secrets to spectrum analysis. That's why it's called faith. People who reject faith will never find it; only those who choose to accept it will find it. I know that sounds simplistic, but to me, personally, it is.
Also atheism cannot be proven; I don't believe that it is possible to prove that anything "doesn't exist".
Nathan Brazil
08-06-2006, 07:56 PM
What's wrong with resolving conflicts by killing your enemies? Worked on Carthage.
You jest, right?**Rome took out Carthage, and expanded its power through military might, but it also fell, so this worked for whom?[/quote]
It worked for the Romans. Duh.
They didn't fall because of Carthage, they fell because they had their own version of welfare and socialist security.
And they fell 600 years AFTER Carthage. Does anyone here expect the United States to be around in 2606 AD? I don't.
Societies aren't immortal, and only a fool expects them to be.
Killing my nieghbors is considered anti social and our culture handles such anti social behavior with prison or death sentences.**Like if it weren't for these complications, than perhaps resolving our conflicts by killing those who are problem to us, would be a good thing.:D**I sure can appreciate the thought of being the one to do the killing.**But I don't like so well the idea of being the one killed.
That's why socieites should strive for strength, or strive to behave. Small societies that slap the big dog on the nose deserve to be killed. Especially since MY society is the big dog in town right now.
I know damn good and well what the terrorist nations inpired by their looney-toon retarded religion of Islam would do if they had the power we do now. That's why it's perfectly reasonable to kill them.
Nathan Brazil
08-06-2006, 08:01 PM
To me the whole point of religion is the development of faith in something greater than us.
The whole point in faith is for the religious leaders to get you to believe that there's something greater than you and that the religious leader is it's interpreter.
Faith is a con-man's tool, reason and skepticism are your friends. Cultivate your friends and beware your enemies.
Also atheism cannot be proven; I don't believe that it is possible to prove that anything "doesn't exist".
It doesn't have to be proven. It's logical. Run your life as if it's the only one you have, as if there's no sky pixie rescuing your imaginary soul or torturing you today so you'll be in a happier place when you're dead, and you'll move to a happier place today.
Want someone to adopt a religion? How about proving that their false presumption of a god isn't false, first. Never did make any sense to me why people would follow religious charlatans just because he says to. Don't they have minds able to think for themselves?
Athena
08-06-2006, 08:52 PM
They didn't fall because of Carthage, they fell because they had their own version of welfare and socialist security.
That's why socieites should strive for strength, or strive to behave. Small societies that slap the big dog on the nose deserve to be killed. Especially since MY society is the big dog in town right now.
I know damn good and well what the terrorist nations inpired by their looney-toon retarded religion of Islam would do if they had the power we do now. That's why it's perfectly reasonable to kill them.
I am sorry, this subject doesn't belong here and I don't know how we got off religion.**I know I have heard "welfare destroyed Rome" often, but I don't believe it.**Do you want to convince me to believe what you said in a thread for this purpose, under history?**The fall of civilizations really does deserve our attention.**And I think you expressed the attitude that brings civilizations down.
Back to the subject of religion, your opinions are what feed the arguement of those who insist we need religion. There are powers greater than you and your country, and if you don't accept that fact gracefully, you will discover it the hard way. All arrogant civilizations have. Are you as opposed to Naturalism and Humanism as you are opposed to religions? What do you think holds a civilization together and determines its values?
Rider
08-07-2006, 10:23 AM
Nathan- You're living up to your name with this one."
"The whole point in faith is for the religious leaders to get you to believe that there's something greater than you and that the religious leader is it's interpreter."
Now, I kind of go along with that. Regardless whether a religion is true or not, it can coerce behavior in its followers. In the case of "bad" religion we get Islamist nutcases whose lust for destruction can tear apart civilization and bring darkness to the world. In the case of "good" religion we can get kindness, brotherhood and the advancement of human kind through democracy and enlightenment.
I detect serious cynicism in your comments about religion in general. I say this because having been a dedicated atheist for twenty or so years, I recognize the tone. That's OK, I won't argue the point with you, but consider this:
Atheism might be logical, but I think that logic is no answer in itself. By your philosophy I am justified in whacking that ass kissing SOB at work who is in line ahead of me for that career topping promotion. Why not? I'm just looking out for me and mine. Why should I let some finger wagging charlatan priest dissuade me from success?**On a grander scale; why not enslave my conquered enemies and take their women for my use?**Why not purge all of my political enemies to ensure my power? (hint- this is kinda leading back to the whole communist thing) Mankind may invent religion; or discover it. I guess it doesn't really matter, but it most definitely is necessary.
AlonzoMourning23
08-07-2006, 10:45 AM
Not that relevant, but it is being discussed.
I have known a lot of atheists. The ones in high school were largely a joke and just angry kids. But, outside of that, it's not like that. I have known atheists who devote their lives to charity and social work, and many who are very compassionate. Those angry kids tend to eventually become a follower of some religion again (at least in my experience, most went back to what they were born into).
Between the bigotry against atheists, and the minority of nutcases like Nathan (which every religious group has) who confirm peoples prejudices, Atheists get attacked for no reason. All the Atheists I know would be disgusted with the whole of Nathan's opinions.
Rider
08-07-2006, 01:07 PM
Zo- I have found that most atheists have a personal moral framework that has been built up from religious teaching in their childhood. Of course one does not have to be religious to be good, but as religion fades from society there is far less influence to do good.
Nathan Brazil
08-07-2006, 01:41 PM
I am sorry, this subject doesn't belong here and I don't know how we got off religion.**I know I have heard "welfare destroyed Rome" often, but I don't believe it.
Wasn't the sole cause. The principle cause was the technological inadequacies of the time, mainly in communications, but also in understandings of human psychology and mob control, which gets us back to religion.
There are powers greater than you and your country, and if you don't accept that fact gracefully, you will discover it the hard way.[/quote]
Certainly there are. Does that mean we have to follow a superstition? No.
What do you think holds a civilization together and determines its values?
Money.
Nathan Brazil
08-07-2006, 01:42 PM
All the Atheists I know would be disgusted with the whole of Nathan's opinions.
Frankly, that's a good thing, in that once again you're confirming the truism of the wrongness of the majority.
Nathan Brazil
08-07-2006, 02:10 PM
Oh, and atheists believe there's no god. Since there's not a shred of evidence pointing the other way, this belief is definitely more rational than any belief claiming there is a god.
But that's it. If some of Zo's atheist pals think that people should be forced to pay taxes to support others, they're simply socialist atheists, is all, and they're not really free from the irrationality of religion, since socialism is yet another religion of faith in the impossible.
Rider
08-07-2006, 03:12 PM
Hmm, I wonder Nathan... did the fledgeling American Republic have more money at its disposal than the fledgling French government after their revolution? Money is certainly a huge factor, but if it were the determining factor I'd think that all that's needed for a successful nation is money. The Soviet Union had more money at its disposal than most of the rest of the world combined, but they collapsed. Maybe it was how they spent it that mattered.
Nathan Brazil
08-07-2006, 04:20 PM
Hmm, I wonder Nathan... did the fledgeling American Republic have more money at its disposal than the fledgling French government after their revolution? Money is certainly a huge factor, but if it were the determining factor I'd think that all that's needed for a successful nation is money. The Soviet Union had more money at its disposal than most of the rest of the world combined, but they collapsed. Maybe it was how they spent it that mattered.
Money - the pursuit thereof.
That's the motivating force behind people, especially people who seek power, because money IS power.
AlonzoMourning23
08-07-2006, 05:36 PM
Zo- I have found that most atheists have a personal moral framework that has been built up from religious teaching in their childhood. Of course one does not have to be religious to be good, but as religion fades from society there is far less influence to do good.
And how do you know that? Religious influence in our society has faded as tolerance has increased. Do you have anything to show that the morals come from religion. It's difficult to tell cause and effect, though I see more evidence suggesting that our morals influence religion, our religion is really only responsible for less significant morals. I have found moral atheists, christians, sikhs, muslims, buddhists, wiccans etc., both those raised that way and those who changed their beliefs later in life. The basic elements of religious teaching, theft, murder, rape etc. (excluding things pertainly directly to the religion, like respect for a particular God) are essentially the same throughout.
Morality is also subjective. There are things I consider very moral and you may see as immoral, and vice versa.
Mayberry
08-07-2006, 06:07 PM
Religious influence in our society has faded as tolerance has increased. Don't you think maybe tolerance has increased DUE TO the lack of religious influence? Of course you see that as a good thing. Time will tell who's right and who's wrong.
AlonzoMourning23
08-07-2006, 06:09 PM
Don't you think maybe tolerance has increased DUE TO the lack of religious influence?
They kind of play off each other as far as I'm concerned.
Though religion can't be totally separated from tolerance. After all, while religion was used to condemn civil rights, it was also used to fight for civil rights.
Rider
08-07-2006, 09:07 PM
Zo- As I've written elsewhere, the only example that I can find of a religion free society is communism. The communist countries did everything in their power to eradicate religion, didn't they? What was the result? No power greater than the state was acknowledged and the state became inhumanly; or rather HUMANLY arrogant and cruel. Millions were imprisoned, tortured and murdered. We have this fixation with the Nazi death camps (the Nazis also abandoned religion), but compared to the communists they were small potatoes. Between the USSR, China, N Korea and S E Asia at least 100 million human beings were slaughtered.
OK, maybe this had nothing to do with religion or the lack of it, but what then?
You seem to exalt the concept of tolerance, but is tolerance the complete answer for society? We became tolerant of almost all forms of sexual behavior. We now have a completely new segment of society mired in poverty- single mothers and their children. Children who face an uphill battle in life because of the absence of a father in their home. Well, we'll solve that little connundrum! We'll allow homosexuals to marry each other and adopt kids! Oh yeah, that will do it. It has to work- it's just so tolerant.
We have an epidemic of a deadly disease - AIDS. An epidemic that we astonishingly refused to quell by all known methodologies because we were afraid that we would be seen to be intolerant.
Yep, we've become so much more tolerant since we abandoned that stodgy old intolerant religion. We wish the Muslims would abandon theirs, too, but whatever- we'll be tolerant of them, too. No racial profiling at airports for us!
Like I've said, I'm not a very religious guy, but I have eyes; I can see what's happening to our society.
AlonzoMourning23
08-07-2006, 10:53 PM
Zo- As I've written elsewhere, the only example that I can find of a religion free society is communism. The communist countries did everything in their power to eradicate religion, didn't they? What was the result? No power greater than the state was acknowledged and the state became inhumanly; or rather HUMANLY arrogant and cruel. Millions were imprisoned, tortured and murdered. We have this fixation with the Nazi death camps (the Nazis also abandoned religion), but compared to the communists they were small potatoes. Between the USSR, China, N Korea and S E Asia at least 100 million human beings were slaughtered.
Those states all essentially had religion, Stalin, Mao etc. essentially became God and the morals were communism. They replaced traditional religion with worship of the state and the leader.
The Nazi's didn't abandon religion, there's was a mixture of Christianity and Nordic Mythology. Hitler was often seen as sent by God.
We now have a completely new segment of society mired in poverty- single mothers and their children. Children who face an uphill battle in life because of the absence of a father in their home.
Single mothers existed before, they were just shamed and outcasts. Often women would stay with abusive husbands just to make sure they didn't go through the shame of being single, or figured being beaten was better than the kid having no father. It also worked the other way. My father had a very abusive mother, yet his father thought (and even told him) that it was better this way than for him to grow up without a mother.
Well, we'll solve that little connundrum! We'll allow homosexuals to marry each other and adopt kids! Oh yeah, that will do it. It has to work- it's just so tolerant.
Can Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals Be Good Parents?
Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent's sexual orientation does not dictate his or her children's.
Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children.
http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html
Overall, then, results of research to date suggest that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal relationships with peers and that their relationships with adults of both sexes are also satisfactory. The picture of lesbian mothers' children that emerges from results of existing research is thus one of general engagement in social life with peers, with fathers, and with mothers' adult friends--both male and female, both heterosexual and homosexual. Studies in this area to date are few, and the data emerging from them are sketchy. On the basis of existing research findings, however, fears about children of lesbians and gay men being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities are unfounded....
In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.
http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes....
The gender identity of preadolescent children raised by lesbian mothers has been found consistently to be in line with their biologic sex. None of the more than 300 children studied to date have shown evidence of gender identity confusion, wished to be the other sex, or consistently engaged in cross-gender behavior. No differences have been found in the toy, game, activity, dress, or friendship preferences of boys or girls who had lesbian mothers, compared with those who had heterosexual mothers.......
Children born to and raised by lesbian couples also seem to develop normally in every way. Ratings by their mothers and teachers have demonstrated children’s social competence and the prevalence of behavioral difficulties to be comparable with population norms...
Children living with divorced lesbian mothers have better outcomes when they learn about their mother’s homosexuality at a younger age, when their fathers and other important adults accept their mother’s lesbian identity, and perhaps when they have contact with other children of lesbians and gay men.
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/341?fulltext=homosexuality&searchid=QID_NOT_SET
The American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychiatric Association, all the largest and most respected organizations in their field, have echoed the same results.
We have an epidemic of a deadly disease - AIDS. An epidemic that we astonishingly refused to quell by all known methodologies because we were afraid that we would be seen to be intolerant.
AIDs does not spread according to orientation, it's due to behavior. If you have many sex partners, use drugs, engage in anal sex etc. you are at an elevated risk for AIDS.
Globally, about half of the 12,000 people ages 15 to 49 infected every day are women. Sixty-two percent of those ages 15 to 24 living with HIV-AIDS are girls and women. In South Africa, that figure climbs to 77 percent. Most women worldwide, including in the United States, acquire HIV infection through heterosexual intercourse.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31115-2004Oct13.html
Yep, we've become so much more tolerant since we abandoned that stodgy old intolerant religion. We wish the Muslims would abandon theirs, too, but whatever- we'll be tolerant of them, too. No racial profiling at airports for us!
I see religious language in every sector of the u.s., including the White House. We are tolerant of Christianity (try getting elected as an Atheist or Agnostic), and are much less tolerant of any other religion.
Rider
08-07-2006, 11:25 PM
Those states all essentially had religion, Stalin, Mao etc. essentially became God and the morals were communism. They replaced traditional religion with worship of the state and the leader.
No, the communist states were atheist, regardless of how you may interpret the situation. No one believed that their leaders were deities. You're not wiggling out that easy.
Single mothers existed before, they were just shamed and outcasts. Often women would stay with abusive husbands just to make sure they didn't go through the shame of being single, or figured being beaten was better than the kid having no father. It also worked the other way. My father had a very abusive mother, yet his father thought (and even told him) that it was better this way than for him to grow up without a mother.
Yes, single mothers have always been around. It's just that now about 30% of all children born are born to single mothers. It's damn near 80% in the black community. Please don't expect us to believe that even a significant number of these can be laid at the feet of "abusive" husbands. There's just no stigma on it any more.
The American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychiatric Association, all the largest and most respected organizations in their field, have echoed the same results.
Oh, sure you can quote dozens of studies that support homosexual and lesbian parenting. It's the hotest politically correct issue at the moment. Let's wait about another 10 to 20 years before we decide this one, shall we?
Many people wander through life dysfunctionally, never knowing why they have problems and not seeking help until midlife. Who hasn't known the terror and terminal embarassment suffered by a teenager, especially a teenage girl when she realizes that her old parents actually HAVE SEX! OH MY GOD! Now just imagine how she feels when she realizes that her two dads are having perverted anal intercourse. Oh yeah, no problem there.
I remember all of the studies that proclaimed that divorce had no effect or even a positive effect on children. A decade later we know the truth.
AIDs does not spread according to orientation, it's due to behavior. If you have many sex partners, use drugs, engage in anal sex etc. you are at an elevated risk for AIDS.
I've heard some attempts at explaining why AIDS strikes so many women in the third world, but not in the US or Europe. Here, if you take away intraveinous drug use and sex with bisexual men (usually anal) the rate of infection is very low. Of course the AIDS virus doesn't care about one's orientation, but anal sex is second only to direct blood transfer as a vector for the disease. Homosexuals are famous for having incredible numbers of partners. My point was that instead of applying standard techniques to control the epidemic, homosexual activists screamed and browbeat health organizations into allowing the spread virtually unchecked. What a tragic waste of life.
I see religious language in every sector of the u.s., including the White House. We are tolerant of Christianity (try getting elected as an Atheist or Agnostic), and are much less tolerant of any other religion.
Secular forces are working tirelessly to eliminate religion in this country. Please don't try and deny that. When is the ACLU going to insist that the ten commandments be blasted off the SC building.
You're have to come up with a lot better arguments that this to make the your case.
Nathan Brazil
08-07-2006, 11:41 PM
Zo- As I've written elsewhere, the only example that I can find of a religion free society is communism. The communist countries did everything in their power to eradicate religion, didn't they?
Communism is a form of socialism, and is it's own religion. Commies didn't try to eradicate religion, they merely tried to make their politics their religion.
While humans do have an instinctual defect that leads them to religion, that doesn't mean they can't be rational if they try.
As for the fairy marriage thing, it's their lives, not yours. Butt out.
AlonzoMourning23
08-07-2006, 11:54 PM
No, the communist states were atheist, regardless of how you may interpret the situation. No one believed that their leaders were deities. You're not wiggling out that easy.
Religion does not require deities. There is perhaps no better example of that than Buddhism.
Cults of personality do essentially take on a religious aspects. The leader, while not divine, is also not viewed as an ordinary person. For example, hitler was often seen as a saviour sent by God, and both Kim's in North Korea have been seen as superhuman.
And if you look at our past, slavery, segregation, lynchings etc. all those existed right alongside religion and faded with an increasingly secular worldview. Religion functions best as a personal, not state, issue.
Yes, single mothers have always been around. It's just that now about 30% of all children born are born to single mothers. It's damn near 80% in the black community. Please don't expect us to believe that even a significant number of these can be laid at the feet of "abusive" husbands. There's just no stigma on it any more.
Abuse takes place in a significant minority of cases, stigma helps to ensure that the victim does not leave.
Oh, sure you can quote dozens of studies that support homosexual and lesbian parenting. It's the hotest politically correct issue at the moment. Let's wait about another 10 to 20 years before we decide this one, shall we?
As of 3 months ago, not a single study exists to support your argument. I've done reports on it and one time spent 2 days trying to find a single study against it. I could not do it and I've known others who try and they failed too. Even organizations considered discredited by mainstream science, such as the family research council, have failed to find anything.
We always need more good parents, you're doing no one any good by reducing the pool.
Why should I believe your baseless assumptions as opposed to science? It doesn't even make sense. Good parenting is based on the behavior of the parent(s). Genitalia doesn't decide quality.
Many people wander through life dysfunctionally, never knowing why they have problems and not seeking help until midlife. Who hasn't known the terror and terminal embarassment suffered by a teenager, especially a teenage girl when she realizes that her old parents actually HAVE SEX! OH MY GOD! Now just imagine how she feels when she realizes that her two dads are having perverted anal intercourse. Oh yeah, no problem there.
It's simply prejudice that leads you to describe it as any more perverted than the sexual activities of a heterosexual couple. No study has shown any social difficulties in children with homosexual parents.
Also many homosexuals men do not engage in anal sex. And many heterosexual couples do.
I remember all of the studies that proclaimed that divorce had no effect or even a positive effect on children. A decade later we know the truth.
A amicable divorce is much better than a conflict ridden (non abusive) marriage. It's never been a case of there being no effect. Basically, the situation with less conflict and happier parents produces the greater benefit.
I've heard some attempts at explaining why AIDS strikes so many women in the third world, but not in the US or Europe. Here, if you take away intraveinous drug use and sex with bisexual men (usually anal) the rate of infection is very low. Of course the AIDS virus doesn't care about one's orientation, but anal sex is second only to direct blood transfer as a vector for the disease. Homosexuals are famous for having incredible numbers of partners. My point was that instead of applying standard techniques to control the epidemic, homosexual activists screamed and browbeat health organizations into allowing the spread virtually unchecked. What a tragic waste of life.
Uhh... ya. Which side was advocating condom use? And which side has been denouncing condoms for decades?
And some homosexual men have more sex partners. It has nothing to do with homosexuality, it has to do with men. The only reason heterosexual men don't have as much sex is they have to deal with women.
Secular forces are working tirelessly to eliminate religion in this country. Please don't try and deny that. When is the ACLU going to insist that the ten commandments be blasted off the SC building?
That's absurd. Removing religion from the government has absolutely nothing to do with eliminating religion. Try taking away the right of a christian to worship as they please on their own property, the ACLU would be there to defend that.
Also, I accidentally edited your post instead of quoting it. I did my best to fix it. Sorry.
Mayberry
08-08-2006, 08:28 AM
My point was that instead of applying standard techniques to control the epidemic, homosexual activists screamed and browbeat health organizations into allowing the spread virtually unchecked. What a tragic waste of life. I don't think it's a tragic waste of life, I think it's a just reward for a deviant lifestyle. The simple fact is that promiscuity, regardless of sexual orientation, greatly increases your chances of contracting the disease, as does intraveinous drug use. You knew the risks, took the chance anyway, and AIDS is what you end up with. Sorry, no sympathy from me. I do have sympathy for the kids who are born with the disease because of their stupid parents, the kids had no choice.
Rider
08-08-2006, 12:06 PM
Zo- "Religion does not require deities. There is perhaps no better example of that than Buddhism.
Cults of personality do essentially take on a religious aspects. The leader, while not divine, is also not viewed as an ordinary person. For example, hitler was often seen as a saviour sent by God, and both Kim's in North Korea have been seen as superhuman."
Nice try Zo, but no cigar. By that definition, secular becomes sectarian and vice versa. Atheism is not religion.
"And if you look at our past, slavery, segregation, lynchings etc. all those existed right alongside religion and faded with an increasingly secular worldview. Religion functions best as a personal, not state, issue. "
Excuse me? Are you trying to say that religion was responsible for slavery, segregation, lynching, etc.? That's just reprehensible. What were the abolitionists? Christians! The fact that these inhumane abuses existed alongside religion does not mean they were a result of religion. Nor can you credit secularism for their demise. Get real.
I won't ask you to believe my "baseless assumptions" about homosexual adoption. Political correctness is a process where common sense and millenia of human experience are tossed out in favor of political dogma. Any thoughtful person, especially one who has raised children and believes that two men or two women can do as good a job as a man and a woman cannot claim to have much in the way of common sense or experience. The overwhelming majority of Americans realize this.
If homosexual sex is not perverted then what behavior would be? It is not a matter of opinion, prejudiced or not. At least during my college biology class the human rectum was listed as a digestive organ with no reproductive capability.
"Uhh... ya. Which side was advocating condom use? And which side has been denouncing condoms for decades?
And some homosexual men have more sex partners. It has nothing to do with homosexuality, it has to do with men. The only reason heterosexual men don't have as much sex is they have to deal with women. "
What do you mean by side? The fact is standard methodology for stopping the spread of disease has never been put into place for AIDS. This is especially critical with homosexual sex because as you mentioneld men are far more promiscuous.**This was from the homosexual "side" (whatever that means). AIDS activists have always been more concerned about their cause than the people afflicted with the disease.
"That's absurd. Removing religion from the government has absolutely nothing to do with eliminating religion."
My big problem with the process of eliminating religion from government is that the left is trying to force this upon the American people through the courts. If the people vote to remove it, so be it. The claim of a "wall of separtion" between church and state rings hollow when one realizes that the founders themselves put the ten commandments on the SC building.
Athena
08-09-2006, 12:54 AM
My point was that instead of applying standard techniques to control the epidemic, homosexual activists screamed and browbeat health organizations into allowing the spread virtually unchecked. What a tragic waste of life. I don't think it's a tragic waste of life, I think it's a just reward for a deviant lifestyle. The simple fact is that promiscuity, regardless of sexual orientation, greatly increases your chances of contracting the disease, as does intraveinous drug use. You knew the risks, took the chance anyway, and AIDS is what you end up with. Sorry, no sympathy from me. I do have sympathy for the kids who are born with the disease because of their stupid parents, the kids had no choice.
One of the earlist cases of AIDS to get our attention, was a young boy with hemophila who had to have blood transfusions.**Before we understood how the disease was being transmitted, we contaminated our blood supply and completely innocent people got AIDS through medically needed transfusions.
Huh, how did homosexuality become an issue in a discussion about the most rational way to understand God and reality? Perhaps all this talk of homosexuality could be moved to a thread about homosexuality?
Next is the large number of women inflected with AIDS.**Some of these women were married and did nothing wrong.**Young hetrosexual lovers
can spread AIDS without knowing it.**We have taken down the barriers against sex out side of marriage, and I don't think it is a sin to have sex without marriage, but an unwanted disease or pregnacy can happen.**Who are we to judge the victims?**Jesus said, let those who have sinned not throw the first stone.**Just how perfect are you?**
Self righteousness without compassion, is not an attractive human trait.
Besides males do have a bundle of nerves in their rectum that is responsive to rubbing and can result in a sexual climax.**That is the way God made men, and I think there is a good reason for this.**If you have a problem with the behavior that results from how men are made, take it up with God.**There is also evidence that homosexuality is caused by hormones, and is not simply something people choose.**Like having blond hair or brown hair, it is determined by our biology, and we credit God with our creation.**If you don't like the way God did things, take it up with God.**Some cultures thought homosexual males were gifted and they were made Shamans.**
Huh, how did homosexuality become an issue in a discussion about the most rational way to understand God and reality? Perhaps all this talk of homosexuality could be moved to a thread about homosexuality? It doesn't belong in this thread.
Athena
08-09-2006, 01:17 AM
Yes, single mothers have always been around. It's just that now about 30% of all children born are born to single mothers. It's damn near 80% in the black community. Please don't expect us to believe that even a significant number of these can be laid at the feet of "abusive" husbands. There's just no stigma on it any more.
I am not sure if this moral question belongs in this thread.**However, several things changed in my life time.**We destroyed our traditional values, and this about much more than religion or the lack of it.**I think the destruction of traditional values came through public education for economic reasons of which the public remains unaware.**But since 1958 we have been educating for a technological society with unknown values.**In the 1950's class room our values were not so unknown!**We taught the strength of our democracy is built on the strength of our families and being a good citizen was tied to being a good mother or father.**
I started a thread to about family values and the law, and no one has said anything in that thread.**
Only in the US are people so uptight about sex and marriage, and this seems to be at least partly the Puritan influence.**Catholic countries seem to be more relaxed about sex and marriage.**Muslims are much more Puritanical about sex.**In fact one of the biggest reasons for Muslims opposing the west is the relaxed sexual morals in the west.**
Back to the economic explanation of increased single parenthood, income taxes are a communism idea. Our constitution had to be rewritten to make income taxes possible, and at that time only the top economic bracket paid taxes. Before we entered WWII average working class people didn't pay income taxes. But rushing through time and back to the communist...
When the communist took control of the USSR, they destroyed tradional values by saying a full time mother and homemaker was an unproductive member of society. We just said, "just a homemaker" and destroyed all the pride and esteem of being a tradition mother and wife. When this is done, women rush into the job market, and when this happens at first there is an ecomonic boom because of increased productivity but then the trouble hits. Abortion and divorce rates soar and increasing women and children fall below the poverty level. Also, increasingly women and children are involved in crime and violence both as victims and purpetrators. It is not about being godless, but about destroying the traditional family values for economic reasons. The nation benefits from doubling the tax payers and increasing revenue through increasing productivity.
Nathan Brazil
08-09-2006, 01:28 AM
We destroyed our traditional values, and this about much more than religion or the lack of it.
Yes, the welfare state was created that promised prego women an income without a man, thereby making men superfluous.
Technology finally created an effective contraceptive...well, it's effective if it's used properly, which it mostly isn't, becuase the ultimate in contraception, infanticide, is also medically available.
Athena
08-09-2006, 01:56 AM
We destroyed our traditional values, and this about much more than religion or the lack of it.
Yes, the welfare state was created that promised prego women an income without a man, thereby making men superfluous.
Technology finally created an effective contraceptive...well, it's effective if it's used properly, which it mostly isn't, becuase the ultimate in contraception, infanticide, is also medically available.
Darling, and yes you can call me Babe, because I think that is sexy, It was not welfare that destroyed the pride and self esteem of being a full time wife and mother, but the change in public education, and then a shift in media that destroyed the traditional values.**I remember the confusion of those years of transition from being the traditional wife and mother to the New Age Woman, and the shift from when a person with reasonable intelligence could expect to get a good job, to present demand for college educations and expertise.**I am history.**I am female, and therefore, especially sensitive to what happened to how we value women and protect them.**Women's liberation made it taboo to be femenine and unleashed the masculine aspects of our society, as though the whole nation went on steriods.**We now think our national pride is our affluence and military might.**We are the enemy of Muslims who want to maintain traditional values.**
Now if you want to stand when I enter the room, hold the door for me when I get in the car, pull back my chair when I sit down, and pay for the dinner and entertainment, I will graceously accept your right to be a man and to treat me as a woman.**
Babe
AlonzoMourning23
08-09-2006, 05:24 AM
Nice try Zo, but no cigar. By that definition, secular becomes sectarian and vice versa. Atheism is not religion.
All these states essentially used worship of the state to replace religion. They served the same function.
And, depending on how you define religion, Atheism can be considered a religion. After all, it is a set of unconfirmed beliefs that one adheres to by faith.
Excuse me? Are you trying to say that religion was responsible for slavery, segregation, lynching, etc.? That's just reprehensible. What were the abolitionists? Christians! The fact that these inhumane abuses existed alongside religion does not mean they were a result of religion. Nor can you credit secularism for their demise. Get real.
Segregation, slavery etc. were justified using biblical arguments. Religion essentially supports whatever its followers want it to.
I won't ask you to believe my "baseless assumptions" about homosexual adoption. Political correctness is a process where common sense and millenia of human experience are tossed out in favor of political dogma. Any thoughtful person, especially one who has raised children and believes that two men or two women can do as good a job as a man and a woman cannot claim to have much in the way of common sense or experience. The overwhelming majority of Americans realize this.
The overwhelming majority of people once believe the world to be flat, that didn't make it correct. Science has not found a shred of evidence to support your opinion. It is baseless. There is no reason to act on a belief that lacks any evidence.
If homosexual sex is not perverted then what behavior would be?
Hiding in a womens locker room and masturbating while watching them undress?
It is not a matter of opinion, prejudiced or not. At least during my college biology class the human rectum was listed as a digestive organ with no reproductive capability.
I have a leg fetish, that has no reproductive capability. Is that perverted?
What do you mean by side? The fact is standard methodology for stopping the spread of disease has never been put into place for AIDS. This is especially critical with homosexual sex because as you mentioneld men are far more promiscuous.**This was from the homosexual "side" (whatever that means). AIDS activists have always been more concerned about their cause than the people afflicted with the disease.
And why have AIDS activists faced such opposition to advocating safe sex and condom use?
And to say homosexual men are far more promiscuous would be incorrect, as it ignored the vast differences within the group. But, as a whole, a man who hits on men will have more success than a man who hits on women (assuming they are hitting on people who are attracted to their gender), simply because men are sluts.
Though you seem to totally ignore female homosexuals in all of this.
My big problem with the process of eliminating religion from government is that the left is trying to force this upon the American people through the courts. If the people vote to remove it, so be it. The claim of a "wall of separtion" between church and state rings hollow when one realizes that the founders themselves put the ten commandments on the SC building.
The supreme court building was created in the 1930's. I didn't realize the founding fathers could rise from the dead.
Athena
08-09-2006, 03:00 PM
What if we accept there is a God, but dismiss the biblical explanation of this God as history confused with myth?**Does this work for anyone?**
Is there another explanation of God, such as Spinoza's, that is acceptable to others?** How about the idea that death is passing from this dimension to another, using quantum physics, Eastern philosophy and string theory, to understand this different explanation of realty, God and life after death?
Rider
08-09-2006, 03:43 PM
Zo-
"All these states essentially used worship of the state to replace religion. They served the same function."
Really? I don't recall offers of forgiveness, redemption of all sin and eternal life in Mao's little red book.
"And, depending on how you define religion, Atheism can be considered a religion. After all, it is a set of unconfirmed beliefs that one adheres to by faith."
Absolutely Zo, it's a form of fundamentalist agnosticism.
"Segregation, slavery etc. were justified using biblical arguments. Religion essentially supports whatever its followers want it to."
Pretty much, but to imagine that religion was the root cause is baloney.
" The overwhelming majority of people once believe the world to be flat, that didn't make it correct. Science has not found a shred of evidence to support your opinion. It is baseless. There is no reason to act on a belief that lacks any evidence."
In the politically correct world of academia and science I don't for a second believe that anyone is looking for anything less than a whole hearted blessing of homosexual parenting. A mother gives a child inputs that no man will ever be able to provide. The reverse is true. This is sort of a fundamental, observable, biological common sense sort of thing, don't you agree? Look, I'm not suggesting that homosexual parents will warp children or pass on their perverse behavior, but every year thousands of heterosexual couples go wanting for children.
"Hiding in a womens locker room and masturbating while watching them undress?"
Sad and disfunctional behavior, yes; perverted, no.
"I have a leg fetish, that has no reproductive capability. Is that perverted?"
Actually, I'd say that you tend to be pretty normal, as certain physical aspects of a female's (geez, you were talking about a woman's leg, right?) physical body serve to arouse, but that arousal normally leads to reproductive activities, no?
"And why have AIDS activists faced such opposition to advocating safe sex and condom use?"
I don't know, Zo. On my planet there has been no opposition that I know of, unless you would consider warning about the lack of total effectiveness of condom use "opposition".
"Though you seem to totally ignore female homosexuals in all of this."
Lesbianism is a very safe perversion.
"The supreme court building was created in the 1930's. I didn't realize the founding fathers could rise from the dead."
My bad, Zo. However you could write books (and I'm sure plenty have been written) about the influence of religion on the founders. I presume that daily operations in congress and the SC have always been started with prayer, but I'm not positive.
Nathan Brazil
08-09-2006, 06:02 PM
What if we accept there is a God, but dismiss the biblical explanation of this God as history confused with myth?**Does this work for anyone?*
No, you're just moving god from one religion to another, and not resolving the basic irrationalities implied by the invention of any god whatsoever.
Is there another explanation of God, such as Spinoza's, that is acceptable to others?** How about the idea that death is passing from this dimension to another, using quantum physics, Eastern philosophy and string theory, to understand this different explanation of realty, God and life after death?
1) There's no evidence of life after death.
2) There's plenty of evidence of the basic unsanity of homo sapiens, without having to invent a god and confirm it.
Athena
08-10-2006, 01:35 AM
[No, you're just moving god from one religion to another, and not resolving the basic irrationalities implied by the invention of any god whatsoever.
Is there another explanation of God, such as Spinoza's, that is acceptable to others?** How about the idea that death is passing from this dimension to another, using quantum physics, Eastern philosophy and string theory, to understand this different explanation of realty, God and life after death?
1) There's no evidence of life after death.
2) There's plenty of evidence of the basic unsanity of homo sapiens, without having to invent a god and confirm it.
Actually there is evidence of life after death. You must not have tried to look for it. You remind me of the period when people refused to accept something unseen called germs and bacteria could make us sick and cause infection, or were sure the earth is flat. When people are so sure of what they think they know, they may hold false ideas of what is so.
Scientific evidence for survival of consciousness after death. These findings support other NDE evidence suggestive of life after death. Sources: ... The Scole Experiment: Scientific Evidence for Life After Death ...
www.near-death.com/evidence.html - 219k - Cached - Similar pages
Athena
08-10-2006, 01:43 AM
Baruch SpinozaSpinoza's God is not the God of Abraham and Isaac, not a personal God at all, ... Since Spinoza explicitly identifies his God with Nature, it doesn't even ...
www.friesian.com/spinoza.htm - 18k - Cached - Similar pages
We can gather how this works in Spinoza by examing the details of his metaphysics, as found in Book I of his postumously published Ethics. The fundamental thing to keep in mind when thinking about Spinoza is one simple, striking, and paradoxical proposition:**God is the only thing that exists. Although a relatively unfamiliar notion in Western philosophy and religion, this is a venerable position in India, and Spinoza's theory can be classified as a version of "qualified Advaita Vedânta," where everything that we ordinarily think of as existing, does exist as a part of God. It is also noteworthy that the Jewish-Islâmic Mediaeval mystical tradition also approached this.
I think this discussion of God is excessively restricted, because there is so little knowledge of other concepts of God.** How about knowledge of quantum physics and String Theory? When we give our opinions of what we believe, how well informed are we? How willing is anyone to know more than s/he already knows?
AlonzoMourning23
08-10-2006, 02:47 AM
Really? I don't recall offers of forgiveness, redemption of all sin and eternal life in Mao's little red book.
So only certain religions are religions to you? Many religions don't fit that.
In the politically correct world of academia and science I don't for a second believe that anyone is looking for anything less than a whole hearted blessing of homosexual parenting.
And there's plenty of groups, like the Family Research Council, that have been denounced for misuse of data and other things, yet they have found nothing.
The only reason you insist otherwise is due to a baseless preconceived notion of parenting.
A mother gives a child inputs that no man will ever be able to provide. The reverse is true. This is sort of a fundamental, observable, biological common sense sort of thing, don't you agree?
Common sense is simply opinion based on ones understanding of the world. It differs from person to person, often significantly. It is better than nothing, and may often be correct, but in terms of hard facts it is worthless.
It does not make sense to me how having 2 loving mothers is fundamentally different, in terms of parenting ability, than having a mother and a father. My common sense tells me it makes no difference. But, unlike your viewpoint, all the scientific evidence supports that. In the end, on things like this, evidence is all that counts.
Look, I'm not suggesting that homosexual parents will warp children or pass on their perverse behavior, but every year thousands of heterosexual couples go wanting for children.
Actually, I'd say that you tend to be pretty normal, as certain physical aspects of a female's (geez, you were talking about a woman's leg, right?)
You know what they say about assuming...
but that arousal normally leads to reproductive activities, no?
If one partner is infertile then there's no reproductive potential. There is no reproductive potential with a condom, with oral sex etc. Yet these things aren't perverted.
I don't know, Zo. On my planet there has been no opposition that I know of, unless you would consider warning about the lack of total effectiveness of condom use "opposition".
You must have missed the whole safe sex vs abstinence debate.
Nathan Brazil
08-10-2006, 07:54 PM
Scientific evidence for survival of consciousness after death. These findings support other NDE evidence suggestive of life after death. Sources: ... The Scole Experiment: Scientific Evidence for Life After Death ...
www.near-death.com/evidence.html - 219k - Cached - Similar pages
You are aware that there's a difference between being near death and being dead, don't you? Hallucinations as the brain is suffering oxygen deprivation, enhanced CO2 levels, and simultaneous sudden endorphin release isn't evidence of what happens, if anything happens at all, when the brain is dead and won't be reviving.
Skeptics on NDE (http://skepdic.com/nde.html)
Rider
08-14-2006, 04:29 PM
Zo said- It does not make sense to me how having 2 loving mothers is fundamentally different, in terms of parenting ability, than having a mother and a father. My common sense tells me it makes no difference. But, unlike your viewpoint, all the scientific evidence supports that. In the end, on things like this, evidence is all that counts.
So you think that a woman has no special insight into being a woman? Do you really think that a man can deal with a daughters first period as well as a mother?**Or that a man has no special insight into being a man? And a mother is going to give a young boy the courage to stand up to the school bully? This is what I meant about common sense.
And I reiterate- what passes for science in matters under the politically correct microscope is nothing more that a surrender to dogma.
Zo also said- So only certain religions are religions to you? Many religions don't fit that.
OK, fair enough, but what religious qualities does atheistic communism have, then?
And Nathan wrote- You are aware that there's a difference between being near death and being dead, don't you? Hallucinations as the brain is suffering oxygen deprivation, enhanced CO2 levels, and simultaneous sudden endorphin release isn't evidence of what happens, if anything happens at all, when the brain is dead and won't be reviving.
I won't defend NDE and the issue of life after death, but the physiological symptomology you're talking about here are, in my opinion nothing more than an attempt to counter the idea of an afterlife. Sheer conjecture, not science.
Nathan Brazil
08-14-2006, 06:50 PM
I won't defend NDE and the issue of life after death, but the physiological symptomology you're talking about here are, in my opinion nothing more than an attempt to counter the idea of an afterlife. Sheer conjecture, not science.
No, the sheer conjecture part is the assumption of any life after the brain housing that consciousness is a putrid mass. The science I posted explains how the subjective phenomena that is reported by brains that lived through near deadly traumas might be replicated.
That's what science does, it attempts to explain events in terms of known data.
Rider
08-14-2006, 07:09 PM
Nathan wrote- No, the sheer conjecture part is the assumption of any life after the brain housing that consciousness is a putrid mass. The science I posted explains how the subjective phenomena that is reported by brains that lived through near deadly traumas might be replicated.
That's what science does, it attempts to explain events in terms of known data.
The first part of your post is inarguably true. The question of life after death is conjecture. But, the "science" that you posted is pure conjecture also. There is no evidence that any of the explanations you offered have any basis in science at all. It's more like scientific hubris attempting to squelch discussion of something science has not been able to explain. Scientific terms strung together don't equal science.
AlonzoMourning23
08-14-2006, 10:04 PM
So you think that a woman has no special insight into being a woman? Do you really think that a man can deal with a daughters first period as well as a mother?**Or that a man has no special insight into being a man? And a mother is going to give a young boy the courage to stand up to the school bully? This is what I meant about common sense.
Well, no evidence has shown any difference in social functioning. If these were significant issues that needed to be resolved in accordance with gender stereotypes then social functioning would be impaired. It isn't.
Common sense has value when that's all you have. My common sense tells me that 2 loving parents is just that, the gender isn't important. That's what my common sense tells me. But common sense is simply reasoning based on the opinions and worldview I already have, it is not something that can compete with science in areas such as this.
And I reiterate- what passes for science in matters under the politically correct microscope is nothing more that a surrender to dogma.
You have no evidence of that other than science disagrees with your personal opinion. It's perfectly normal that your opinion is not held by scientists since scientific work, even going back to the decade or two before homosexuality was taken off of the disorder work, has repeatedly failed to support your argument. The evidence existed before the opinion became mainstream.
OK, fair enough, but what religious qualities does atheistic communism have, then?
Worship of the state and the all powerful leader. The mythology of the state and how it came to be. Take Kim Il Sung, he is beyond reproach. He is treated as almost superhuman. Or Hitler, with Mein Kompf (which outsold the bible) and the belief of many that he was sent by God as Germany's saviour. Sure, nazi germany wasn't atheist, but the same aspects that were at play in many other countries were at play there.
These things, while not traditional religion, take the place of them and, for the strong supporters of these states, they adopt the same function.
Athena
08-16-2006, 03:09 PM
Okay, prehaps it is too strong to say life after death experiences are proof of such, but we could say these experiences are evidence of life after death, that can not be fully proven either way, in favor of life after death, or to disprove such.
Here is some more food for thought to consider when comtemplating religious truths.
Amazon.com: Life After Death: The Burden of Proof: Books: Deepak ... Amazon.com: Life After Death: The Burden of Proof: Books: Deepak Chopra by Deepak Chopra.
www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307345785 - 86k - Cached - Similar pages
Deepak Chopra has touched millions of readers by demystifying our deepest spiritual concerns while retaining their poetry and wonder. Now he turns to the most profound mystery: What happens after we die? Is this one question we were not meant to answer, a riddle whose solution the universe keeps to itself? Chopra tells us there is abundant evidence that “the world beyond” is not separated from this world by an impassable wall; in fact, a single reality embraces all worlds, all times and places. At the end of our lives we “cross over” into a new phase of the same soul journey we are on right this minute.
In Life After Death, Chopra draws on cutting-edge scientific discoveries and the great wisdom traditions to provide a map of the afterlife. It’s a fascinating journey into many levels of consciousness. But far more important is his urgent message: Who you meet in the afterlife and what you experience there reflect your present beliefs, expectations, and level of awareness. In the here and now you can shape what happens after you die.
By bringing the afterlife into the present moment, Life After Death opens up an immense new area of creativity. Ultimately there is no division between life and death—there is only one continuous creative project. Chopra invites us to become cocreators in this subtle realm, and as we come to understand the one reality, we shed our irrational fears and step into a numinous sense of wonder and personal power.
Athena
08-16-2006, 03:27 PM
Worship of the state and the all powerful leader. The mythology of the state and how it came to be. Take Kim Il Sung, he is beyond reproach. He is treated as almost superhuman. Or Hitler, with Mein Kompf (which outsold the bible) and the belief of many that he was sent by God as Germany's saviour. Sure, nazi germany wasn't atheist, but the same aspects that were at play in many other countries were at play there.
These things, while not traditional religion, take the place of them and, for the strong supporters of these states, they adopt the same function.
The Webster dictionary includes in the definition of religion, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life.**Some people include Buddhism as a religion, yet Buddhism is not a belief in God, it is a belief of spiritual reality.** I think it would be fair to say that Hinduism is also a belief in spiritual reality, because there is not exactly a God but a consciousness expressed in many ways.** Deism, is closer to this concept of a consciousness/God than the God of Abraham, and perhaps we could say Hellenism is along this line of consciousness/God also.
Athena, the patron of goddess of Athens, didn't give man law as did the God of Abraham, but she taught them to make their own laws.**Really, it is not unusual to feel inspired or to realize truths, so the claim that the writers of the bible knew something intuitively, or were inspired to write God's truth, doesn't strike me as unusual.**Many holy books have been written.**People around the world have similar myths, so we could conclude God speaks to everyone.**Democracy is based on the idea that God gives everyone his authority.**
It is for us to determine truth, and universal laws. How do we do that?****
Technocrat
09-02-2006, 04:05 AM
If we are simply comparing the concept of Atheism to the concept of Christianity, prima facie, Atheism is a more rational belief than Christianity. This is for a variety of reasons.
1. Atheism does not promulgate any actual ideology, so it's very limited in what it says, which gives it fewer chances to say something wrong, convoluted, or ideological. In actuality, it's ideologically neutral (unless you are a positive Atheist, which is really Secular Humanist+Atheism).
2. Atheism also makes no positive claims about the existence of any phenomenon; therefore, it cannot be asked to do so prove so. It has nothing to "prove," since the burden of proof is almost always on the side who promotes a positive belief of existence in something. Christianity, unlike Atheism, does espouse both a doctrine/dogma (ideology) as well as the positive existence of something. Therefore, simple logical principles state that the burden of proof be placed on those who claim God does exist; this burden is the Christian one alone (or any other deistic religion, at that).
Quite rightly, Atheism simply is skeptical and holds the assumed position of denial of a claim; due to the burden of proof, one ought not ask them to prove that God doesn't exist, since that would entail proving a metaphycial, universal negative--that is, there're no Gods. To ask so would itself be fallacious. No one need prove God doesn't exist any more than one need prove that we don't reside in an undetecable Wachowski-brothers matrix or that we don't harbour invisible souls. The claimers are responsible to substantiate their claims.
3. The best position, and the position oft taken by scientists when studying a phenomonen, is simply assumed denial (note that this is different from 100% "truth.") untill evidence shows otherwise. Upon which time, there can be a reason to believe in the claims of the Christians.
4. Christianity itself is self-contradicting. That doesn't bode well for a philosophy's rationality status.
5. Christianty posits the existence of something which is inherently untestable in concept--an unfalsifiable deity that's supernatural. Supernatural beings are often, as is in the Christian religion, dominated by beings beyond the realm of the physical, the natural, and cannot be tested or discovered or understood through any power of reason.
6. Stemming from point 5, the system of thought is just unreasonable. St. Thomas Aquinace saw this, which is why he instituted the policy of "faith." Christians oft claim they need no evidence to substantiate their claims, because they have "true belief" or "faith." Faith is always irrational in this sense, since it is the belief in that for which there is no evidence, even in spite of evidence to the contrary.
Faith in that sense is the anti-thesis of reason.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.