I would probably give $1,000,000 to anyone that could convince me that God exists.

[spockman]

I'm projecting? How? By providing examples of wicked atheists in response to people providing examples of wicked Christians?

And the detestable religious acts put forward are unbiased? At the very least, they are manipulations. While we are at it... Let's just say that Muhammad taught we should all wage bloody wars killing children to take back Israel. And that's projecting bias. Talking about Stalin is no more biased or distracting than bringing up any other example. How is it different? It is not a pot shot- unless we just have to have a one sided fling-fest with only occasional apologetics thrown in from the believers.

As far as saying that many acts of violence in and of themselves are immoral, (in the Bible that is,) well, it is an honest argument. (And more feasible than a lot of the attempts to show how Christianity is in line with evil stuff outside of it.) I won't try and pretend it didn't happen.

And you can justify terrible acts through atheism. Easier than with Christianity, actually. At least it is not required to find various verses and try and find a way how they apply in any given scenario. Nope. Just say that since there is no objective morality, nothing is wrong. The whole ethics dilemma is solved. Could, let's say humanism, explain why they believe differently? Sure. It's why I am not attacking your belief system. Yes, atheism is the lack of belief in something. Not the belief in something itself so I can see where one would think that without a standard you can't lump them together. Fair enough. I guess talking about atheism as a whole is as broad as creationism. If you would rather I bring up humanism for sake of argument, (since it wouldn't be that fair to assault Christianity with examples from the ancient Greeks.)

Before I come back to this, I will research humanism. Since I don't know that much about it.

EDIT: I'd like to touch on the whole mind set thing. There are many different mind sets within any belief system. I can mostly understand your mind set, O'nus, parts of it for sure. I've been on the other side of this discussion before. (Though I was never a humanist. More of a... Rationalist. And even today I consider myself an existentialist.) So yeah. Just to let you know that I get where you are coming from. I should hope you would do the same- or try to- for everyone else.

[TamiDoll]

Can't convince you since I don't believe in the Bible myself. (Even though I'm Catholic lol)

[Noogah]

Originally Posted by spockman

Before I come back to this, I will research humanism. Since I don't know that much about it.

Same here.

[O'nus]

Originally Posted by spockman

I'm projecting? How? By providing examples of wicked atheists in response to people providing examples of wicked Christians?

The original point was that the bible can easily be mis-interpreted to justify violence. So, in reply, you say that Atheists are violent to?

First of all, if your point is that simply all people are violent, then you may notice that I already agree.

However, when we speak about justifying cruelty via beliefs, we do not. Stalin did not do those things because he was Atheist. As a side note, he did teach his daughter to believe in Christ, so obviously his religious code is a bit misconstrued.

The point is;
+ Atheism is the lack of belief in God
- How do you use this to justify cruel acts?

Remember, atheism is a constituent belief in other belief systems. It is prepositional when you ask a Humanist Existentialist, like myself, "what do you believe?" when I really do not "believe" in anything. Thus, I am forced to answer "Atheist" - perhaps more for the sake of brevity.

And the detestable religious acts put forward are unbiased? At the very least, they are manipulations. While we are at it... Let's just say that Muhammad taught we should all wage bloody wars killing children to take back Israel. And that's projecting bias. Talking about Stalin is no more biased or distracting than bringing up any other example. How is it different? It is not a pot shot- unless we just have to have a one sided fling-fest with only occasional apologetics thrown in from the believers.

Find one instance when a Humanist justifies murder because of Humanism and I will shut up. (Of course, he ought to be obviously in a proper state of mind; I won't quote insane Theists murders like Jeffrey Dahmer).

The point was that I was strictly speaking of the good in the bible and instead of debating that, the rebuttal pointing the finger elsewhere. If you say, "Humanism justifies murders because of X" I won't say, "Ohhh but.. uhm.. crusades!" I will try to look further into X, question it, and either admit you are right or try to show how you are wrong (or some reconciliation).

As far as saying that many acts of violence in and of themselves are immoral, (in the Bible that is,) well, it is an honest argument. (And more feasible than a lot of the attempts to show how Christianity is in line with evil stuff outside of it.) I won't try and pretend it didn't happen.

Listen, Stalin is not a fair comparison at all because his views are not even remotely the ones I am addressing. It is irrelevant.

Your point ought to be that violence is ubiquitous regardless of religious beliefs.

In that case, the point is still moot because how can you justify cruelty via Humanism? I beg of you to prove that point and I would humbly admit being wrong.

Either way, the point I was making was; religion can be used to justify cruelty. But the good in religion can exist independently without the dogmatic potential to be misinterpreted for justifying cruelty. That independent ideal is Humanism (for me).

And you can justify terrible acts through atheism. Easier than with Christianity, actually. At least it is not required to find various verses and try and find a way how they apply in any given scenario. Nope. Just say that since there is no objective morality, nothing is wrong. The whole ethics dilemma is solved. Could, let's say humanism, explain why they believe differently? Sure. It's why I am not attacking your belief system. Yes, atheism is the lack of belief in something. Not the belief in something itself so I can see where one would think that without a standard you can't lump them together. Fair enough. I guess talking about atheism as a whole is as broad as creationism. If you would rather I bring up humanism for sake of argument, (since it wouldn't be that fair to assault Christianity with examples from the ancient Greeks.)

Yes, it would be much fairer because how the hell can you justify anything with just Atheism alone? Let alone Theism alone? Do you realize that you are arguing that the non-belief in something can justify murders? Are you really prepared to argue that Stalin did not believe in anything?

Before I come back to this, I will research humanism. Since I don't know that much about it.

EDIT: I'd like to touch on the whole mind set thing. There are many different mind sets within any belief system. I can mostly understand your mind set, O'nus, parts of it for sure. I've been on the other side of this discussion before. (Though I was never a humanist. More of a... Rationalist. And even today I consider myself an existentialist.) So yeah. Just to let you know that I get where you are coming from. I should hope you would do the same- or try to- for everyone else.

I will post a thread on humanism tomorrow and then existentialism's injection. Remember that I really consider myself a Humanist Existentialist, and have for a while. It is just that Existentialism is a difficult step after accepting Humanism. I think you will understand, considering the above quote. If it seems that I do not try to be insightful to others points, please, by all means, let me know.

~

[spockman]

Originally Posted by O'nus

The original point was that the bible can easily be mis-interpreted to justify violence. So, in reply, you say that Atheists are violent to?

I'll concede this one, since I mis-interpreted your point as simply pointing towards instances where Christians have been violent, not a point about the actual text.

First of all, if your point is that simply all people are violent, then you may notice that I already agree.

Well, that is what I was getting at with the post before my last post. (The one about fealty and such.)

However, when we speak about justifying cruelty via beliefs, we do not. Stalin did not do those things because he was Atheist. As a side note, he did teach his daughter to believe in Christ, so obviously his religious code is a bit misconstrued.

I probably could have found a better/more creative example. Stalin is kind of the new Godwin's law. Try and ignore any laziness on my part since the general point that atheists can use their lack of belief to justify stuff. Later in my post, I clarified that this doesn't apply to you, or humanists specifically, because I realized atheism is too broad- thus unfair- to look at collectively at all.
EDIT: I'll have to research that daughter thing, it is interesting.

The point is;
+ Atheism is the lack of belief in God
- How do you use this to justify cruel acts?
Okay. As of right now, I am not budging on this one. You can use the lack of belief in God to justify cruelty.
Remember, atheism is a constituent belief in other belief systems. It is prepositional when you ask a Humanist Existentialist, like myself, "what do you believe?" when I really do not "believe" in anything. Thus, I am forced to answer "Atheist" - perhaps more for the sake of brevity.

After reading about humanism, it seems some parts of existentialism are inherent in humanism. At the very least, I can see how they would go well together.

Find one instance when a Humanist justifies murder because of Humanism and I will shut up. (Of course, he ought to be obviously in a proper state of mind; I won't quote insane Theists murders like Jeffrey Dahmer).


The point was that I was strictly speaking of the good in the bible and instead of debating that, the rebuttal pointing the finger elsewhere. If you say, "Humanism justifies murders because of X" I won't say, "Ohhh but.. uhm.. crusades!" I will try to look further into X, question it, and either admit you are right or try to show how you are wrong (or some reconciliation).


Listen, Stalin is not a fair comparison at all because his views are not even remotely the ones I am addressing. It is irrelevant.

Agreed.

Your point ought to be that violence is ubiquitous regardless of religious beliefs.

In that case, the point is still moot because how can you justify cruelty via Humanism? I beg of you to prove that point and I would humbly admit being wrong.
Alright. Well, the crusades doesn't apply to myself either, then. Messianic Jewish acts of violence could be, if they can be justified through the new testament. Even if you may think that using the 'new testament' argument is illogical/inconsistent, not acknowledging the new testament as the new covenant would mean that it doesn't apply to my beliefs, thus not to me. (In the same way that someone saying ''atheism shouldn't defend morality'' wouldn't change the fact that your branch of atheism does believe in morality.) Does that make sense?
Either way, the point I was making was; religion can be used to justify cruelty. But the good in religion can exist independently without the dogmatic potential to be misinterpreted for justifying cruelty. That independent ideal is Humanism (for me).

Okay. However, as a Christian, I accept everything within the Bible as from God and thus positive- I should analyze it- but synthesizing it based on the parts that make me feel good would be hypocritical. As an atheist, you can find the ideal that works best for you. (Heck, one could say that doing so is a major part of many types of existentialism.)

Yes, it would be much fairer because how the hell can you justify anything with just Atheism alone? Let alone Theism alone? Do you realize that you are arguing that the non-belief in something can justify murders? Are you really prepared to argue that Stalin did not believe in anything?

Eh, I don't want a semantics argument but believing that God is false is still a belief. Just an exclusive belief is all.

I will post a thread on humanism tomorrow and then existentialism's injection. Remember that I really consider myself a Humanist Existentialist, and have for a while. It is just that Existentialism is a difficult step after accepting Humanism. I think you will understand, considering the above quote. If it seems that I do not try to be insightful to others points, please, by all means, let me know.

I wasn't trying to say that you don't. But I wonder in what spirit was Richard Dawkins quoted. I can't speak for anyone else, but I am sure others will agree with me when I say that religion is or should be a search for truth.
~

There you go.

[O'nus]

Originally Posted by spockman

There you go.

You bastard - that is such a pain to quote and reply to, lol.

Okay. As of right now, I am not budging on this one. You can use the lack of belief in God to justify cruelty.

Listen, just because someone has no belief in God does not mean that they are a fundamentalist anarchist.

Obviously, there are people who are existential atheists and have no quarrel with murdering people in a war. However, these people are only atheists because it is a constituent of their beliefs.

Actually, I think we just agree really. All people do violence. I just argue that Humanist Existential Atheists are the most flourishing morality systems available - no dogma and beneficial to all people.

Alright. Well, the crusades doesn't apply to myself either, then. Messianic Jewish acts of violence could be, if they can be justified through the new testament. Even if you may think that using the 'new testament' argument is illogical/inconsistent, not acknowledging the new testament as the new covenant would mean that it doesn't apply to my beliefs, thus not to me. (In the same way that someone saying ''atheism shouldn't defend morality'' wouldn't change the fact that your branch of atheism does believe in morality.) Does that make sense?

Not really. The new testament is still used to justify cruelty. How could you possibly think otherwise? The NT was used to justify the crusades.. you claim to still believe in the same testament.. where's the point here? Are you saying that you still take a medieval scripture as a provident guidance to life?

Okay. However, as a Christian, I accept everything within the Bible as from God and thus positive- I should analyze it- but synthesizing it based on the parts that make me feel good would be hypocritical. As an atheist, you can find the ideal that works best for you. (Heck, one could say that doing so is a major part of many types of existentialism.)

But.. if you accept everything from the bible as from God and positive.. then why are you not killing people on sabbath and homosexuals? Not to mention all the other things.

Of course, you would be inclined to argue that those are misconceptions. Which is exactly my point. The good you would likely advocate is easily extrapolated and exists independently out of a potentially mis-interpreted context known as Humanism. There is no mis-interpretations of it and I do not think there is any possible way to twist it to justify cruelty - that would actually be a contradiction of its core quintessence.

Eh, I don't want a semantics argument but believing that God is false is still a belief. Just an exclusive belief is all.

I really get irritated when people say this. Tell me if I got it wrong, but from this sentence I get that you would say:

People either:
A) Believe in God
or
B) Do not believe in God

But what about this:
A) Believe in God
B) Do not believe in God
C) Unsure/open

Of course, you must realize that I am arguing that my form of Atheism would fall into C. You cannot possibly argue that it is known fact that God exists, and neither could I deny it. Thus, I find it best to sit at C.

Also, I should note, Agnostics are the people that argue we can never know the truth or understand it with our feeble comprehension.

I wasn't trying to say that you don't. But I wonder in what spirit was Richard Dawkins quoted. I can't speak for anyone else, but I am sure others will agree with me when I say that religion is or should be a search for truth.

If you mean the creationist quote, it is because creationists completely neglect all forms of reasoning to favour their own conjured ones.

Also, I, as an academic, find it a bit offensive to imply that religion is the search for truth and not science.

What exactly is science then? The search for non-truth? Religion makes the presumptions and prepositions and then tries to prove them right. The onus is on them for the truth. Science does the exact opposite and you can see my arguments for it in my "Scientific Method" link in my signature.

The bottom-line though, it seems to me that we relatively agree on most matters. I am just curious to clear up these few things to be sure I understand you correctly.

~

[spockman]

Originally Posted by O'nus

You bastard - that is such a pain to quote and reply to, lol.

Hehe

Listen, just because someone has no belief in God does not mean that they are a fundamentalist anarchist.

Obviously, there are people who are existential atheists and have no quarrel with murdering people in a war. However, these people are only atheists because it is a constituent of their beliefs.

Actually, I think we just agree really. All people do violence. I just argue that Humanist Existential Atheists are the most flourishing morality systems available - no dogma and beneficial to all people.


Yeah. Although, as a religious existentialist myself I do not believe that there is some magical quality which is who we inherently are individually- that is we become who we choose to be, (not discrediting genetic disposition, though,) - I do believe we have inherent qualities as a species. Human nature. Which I get from you.

Not really. The new testament is still used to justify cruelty. How could you possibly think otherwise? The NT was used to justify the crusades.. you claim to still believe in the same testament.. where's the point here? Are you saying that you still take a medieval scripture as a provident guidance to life?

[COLOR="rgb(255, 140, 0)"]To be honest, the NT didn't have to justify the crusades. To the ancient Catholics the clergy was the religion since the literacy rate was so low. My point is that seeing as I am not a Catholic and don't believe the pope is a special guy, it isn't fair to em burden me with their faults just like it isn't fair for me to em burden you with the flaws of the atheist Soviet union.[/color]

But.. if you accept everything from the bible as from God and positive.. then why are you not killing people on sabbath and homosexuals? Not to mention all the other things.

Because we are no longer under the Mosaic Covenant.

Of course, you would be inclined to argue that those are misconceptions. Which is exactly my point. The good you would likely advocate is easily extrapolated and exists independently out of a potentially mis-interpreted context known as Humanism. There is no mis-interpretations of it and I do not think there is any possible way to twist it to justify cruelty - that would actually be a contradiction of its core quintessence.



I really get irritated when people say this. Tell me if I got it wrong, but from this sentence I get that you would say:

People either:
A) Believe in God
or
B) Do not believe in God

But what about this:
A) Believe in God
B) Do not believe in God
C) Unsure/open

Of course, you must realize that I am arguing that my form of Atheism would fall into C. You cannot possibly argue that it is known fact that God exists, and neither could I deny it. Thus, I find it best to sit at C.

Any reasonable person can admit that they may be wrong, sure.

Also, I should note, Agnostics are the people that argue we can never know the truth or understand it with our feeble comprehension.



If you mean the creationist quote, it is because creationists completely neglect all forms of reasoning to favour their own conjured ones.

See, and that is where I implore you to try and understand everyone else's mind-set. If you truly believe the quote, than I am saying that you aren't trying to be insightful because the way I see it I've made it clear that my reason for being here is not to be some fanatically pushy, ignorant creationist. Rather, I enjoy this. That being socializing, discussing. Is there a mutual respect here? Because if we can't both believe that we aren't both here to learn than I am inclined to believe that you aren't.

Also, I, as an academic, find it a bit offensive to imply that religion is the search for truth and not science.

And that is because they are separate issues to you. See, I don't think that there is science and religion, both searching for different types of truth. I believe that there is the search for truth and that it is a thing in and of itself. Religion and science are both sub-sets of that. The same difference to me, really.

What exactly is science then? The search for non-truth? Religion makes the presumptions and prepositions and then tries to prove them right. The onus is on them for the truth. Science does the exact opposite and you can see my arguments for it in my "Scientific Method" link in my signature.

Religion does that. It does not mean that all religion does that. Heck, people accuse me of being too logical, if anything. A very point a proves point b proves point c kind of mind. Frankly, not only does it avoid the actual topic but it is presumptuous to say that someone else has made conclusions before he or she did any research.

The bottom-line though, it seems to me that we relatively agree on most matters. I am just curious to clear up these few things to be sure I understand you correctly.

I agree. At the core of things, anyway, there are a certain fundamental items which we don't agree on but more things which I think we do agree on. If you are curious where I am coming from on moral or philosophical issues, I've written some short papers on it if you are interested. As I will likely follow the link in your sig.

~

Apparently the message I have entered is too short. Howzabout this, then?