Good men will do evil deeds [Archive] - Debate Policy

Microcosmos

03-15-2010, 11:39 PM

SassyLady

03-16-2010, 02:43 AM

I am not an atheist, nor am I religious. I do believe in God, just don't need religion to justify my belief. I did find this interesting.

“Militant” Atheism 2.0
Militant atheists’ bias is revealed by their argument that in religion we find all that is malevolent in humankind. Religion is perceived as being false and dangerous. To aggressive atheists, the only legitimate response to religious faith is an unremitting assault on its credence using the tools of reason and science. Certainly as a response to Islamic and Christian extremism, atheists have some legitimate points to present. But by including the rest of the religious world in their condemnation and by arguing for the elimination of all religion, they are essentially a mirror image of their fundamentalist enemy.

According to militant atheists, to understand religion we need look no further than to its extremists, literalists, deviants, inquisitors and terrorists - as if these fringe elements represent all religionists. These uncompromising atheists not only reject God, they reject religion as a cultural institution and seek to extirpate it from society. They consider religion the “root of all evil” (Dawkins) and that only when religion is eradicated “will we stand a chance of healing the deepest and most dangerous fractures in our world” (Harris).

These angry atheists present an extremist perspective that of necessity excludes any ambiguity or openness to opposing views. My book An Atheist Defends Religion is an attempt to expose the extremism in the militant atheists' arguments, the same “fundamentalist” qualities exhibited by the religionists they so strenuously oppose. Indeed, fundamentalist atheists are in the thrall of an infallible belief based on the deity of Natural Selection as revealed to the prophet Darwin, proselytized by the apostles Dawkins and Gould, and disseminated to devout disciples like Harris and Dennett who preach conversion and salvation to the unenlightened masses.

http://www.anatheistdefendsreligion.com/blog/2009/12/schism-within-distinguishing-between.html

Noir

03-16-2010, 06:48 AM

Noir, this is your quote at the moment, and I have some questions for you (and anyone else who cares to comment) about it:
"A good man will do good deeds.
An evil man will do evil deeds.
If you want a good man to do evil deeds, give him religion."

1. What makes someone good, or evil?
2. What is religion, in the context that it is used in this quote? It is (not to answer the question for you, just adding to it) quite obviously one of the most negative connotations of the word that is described here.
3. Are there not countless examples that support the opposite view, that given a strong faith, someone originally seen as "evil" can be found good?
4. Given your quote, you seem awfully pressed to put down religious faith. Are you? If so, why? If not, are you open to any type of spiritual understanding, or awakening? Not that I'm the one to do it, mind you, but would you be willing to try to twist not just your brain, but your heart around something like that?

Okie dokes, by the way just to clarify, the phrase is not mine, i heard someone quote someone else as saying it (or something like it) in a debate, though both the author of the quote and debate it was used in have slipped my mind.

1 - Massive question of the block; I believe that goodness is innate within all humans, and has evolved within us (and other animals) to ensure the survival of our species. Some evolutionary biologists like to call this the 'Selfish Gene' or the 'Co-operative Gene' ect.

Evil is a different kettle of fish all together, there is a phrase suck in my head at the minute 'Is evil something we are, or something we do?' And while it is clear that there are people that are evil out there, why they are evil is lost on me.

2 - Religion in the context i am using implies anything which is designed to be from a higher, unquestionable authority. In most cases this can been seen in faith based religions like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism ect, however, it is also applicable to quasi-religions, such as Stalinist Russia, and modern day North Korea.

3 - If by this you mean a story such as 'I was a murderer, but then found God and changed my ways' Yes there are such stories, however, i think allot of the comes from the feeling of acceptance, if i went into prison for murder and came out saying i'd changed my ways, acceptance of that may be dubious, however, if i came out saying 'I've found God and changed my ways' i now instantly have a network of support, in the same why that an alcoholic will gain a network of support by visiting AA.

4 - I am against religion, being both an Atheist and an Anti-theist. I'm tired of religious people believing that have the say one what is moral and what is not. I am tired of seeing innocent men and women shot, stoned and blown up in the name of some god or another, and i am tired of being told to 'respect' and not to cause 'offence' over religion.

I live by the golden rule, and that is all any human need do.

Microcosmos

03-16-2010, 10:22 AM

Thanks, both of you, for your responses! Very enlightening.

bullypulpit

03-16-2010, 05:50 PM

Morality exists independent of religion.

SassyLady

03-16-2010, 05:50 PM

Morality exists independent of religion.

So? What is your point?

Noir

03-16-2010, 05:56 PM

Morality exists independent of religion.

:clap::clap::clap:

True, though religions will do their best to try and steal this great human trait.

SassyLady

03-16-2010, 05:58 PM

:clap::clap::clap:

True, though religions will do their best to try and steal this great human trait.

Are you saying that atheists are never immoral? Just people of religion?

Noir

03-16-2010, 06:01 PM

Are you saying that atheists are never immoral? Just people of religion?

Nope, ofcourse i am not, what i am saying is that you do not need religion or gods to be good and moral. Many religious people don't like that however, and religions try and hold the moral card, when they have no right to.

Morality does not come from holy books, gods or revelled truths, but from humans.

SassyLady

03-16-2010, 06:19 PM

Noir

03-16-2010, 06:30 PM

I do have to agree with you on the fact that one does not need religion to be moral or inherently good. However, I know that many people do need religion to give them direction and one shouldn't fault them for using whatever tools they can to stay on their path.

I know that I am a good leader and yet I will still continue to attend leadership forums to hone my skills and knowledge. And while I did not find my leadership skills in a book, all the books I have read regarding leadership have honed the skills I was born with.

If people want to use religion, the Bible, or anything else to hone their morality, then so be it. Who are you to judge their sources?

If people wana believe in Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Thor, the tooth fairy ect because it helps them through their life then fair enough, however, that does not give them the right to interfere in my life, as they do, and more importantly, it does not given them the right to meddle with science by teaching children that evolution is a myth, or that the world is only thousands of years old, or whatever other crackpot ideas they happen to believe.

SassyLady

03-16-2010, 06:42 PM

If people wana believe in Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Thor, the tooth fairy ect because it helps them through their life then fair enough, however, that does not give them the right to interfere in my life, as they do, and more importantly, it does not given them the right to meddle with science by teaching children that evolution is a myth, or that the world is only thousands of years old, or whatever other crackpot ideas they happen to believe.

And they can say the same about you and your beliefs Noir. Who are you to cram your belief system down their throats? Who are you to be teaching your children about your beliefs some day?

Why can't religion meddle with science? Science has certainly meddled with religion over the years.

What it all boils down to is that one should never close their minds to new information. In fact, the more one is open to hearing opposing opinions, the more they will know what is their truth.

Your truth, for now, is that God does not exist. Especially not the God talked about in the various religions of the world. However, you may find that some day you will not be able to explain something using the world of science and you may then wonder about the possibilities of a higher power than science.

And, I'm sorry that religion has interferred in your life. Hopefully you have the ability to not let it interfer any more.

Noir

03-16-2010, 07:02 PM

And they can say the same about you and your beliefs Noir. Who are you to cram your belief system down their throats? Who are you to be teaching your children about your beliefs some day?

Why can't religion meddle with science? Science has certainly meddled with religion over the years.

What it all boils down to is that one should never close their minds to new information. In fact, the more one is open to hearing opposing opinions, the more they will know what is their truth.

Your truth, for now, is that God does not exist. Especially not the God talked about in the various religions of the world. However, you may find that some day you will not be able to explain something using the world of science and you may then wonder about the possibilities of a higher power than science.

And, I'm sorry that religion has interferred in your life. Hopefully you have the ability to not let it interfer any more.

I'm not cramming beliefs down anyones throats. All i will teach my children of is the golden rule, not with gods, virgin births, hellfire and 77 virgins, but just the golden rule by itself, if they chose to follow a religion in their later life that is their choice, but i will certainly not have them brainwashed into one religion or another, as religious people would like.

Because religion and science are corrosive to each-other. Religion believes it has all the answers, science knows that it does not, and is constantly being refined and asking more and more questions of itself. Religion has no right to be teaching laws of physics or biology that are counter to those discovered by science.

Religion teaches you to close your mind, for it requires unquestioned faith, i.e. Belief without evidence, and no matter what evidence science gives, some stubborn aspects of religion will never accept such evidence,

Religion will forever interfere with my life, as it will with yours, that is a fact, only i am not willing to accept or 'respect' their right to interfere with mine.

darin

03-16-2010, 07:08 PM

Noir

03-16-2010, 07:14 PM

Funny to me an Athiets and Anti-thiest lives according to a line in Scripture.

:D

Why would you support the 'good gene' but not the 'evil gene'?

As a follow-up, what about Religion WITH evidence? What evidence do you consider valid? Do you assume Science and Faith cannot co-exist?

Do you mean the golden rule? It is not a line of scripture, but a man made philosophy, its just so damn good that relgions like to steal it and claim it for themselves.

I do not support one or the other as such, as i said i do not understand what motivates evil, in the same way that i do understand what motivates good.

I consider evidence that is both testable and difficult to alter to be valid. At the end of the day all of science is theory, but when some parts support other parts, and then more parts still, science itself grows in both complexity and strength.
Ofcourse they can co-exist, because they do, however, that is not to say they ought to co-exist.

SassyLady

03-16-2010, 08:06 PM

Religion will forever interfere with my life, as it will with yours, that is a fact, only i am not willing to accept or 'respect' their right to interfere with mine.

How so? I walked away from religion 35 years ago Noir and it has as much impact on my life as I allow.

darin

03-17-2010, 03:23 AM

Do you mean the golden rule? It is not a line of scripture, but a man made philosophy, its just so damn good that relgions like to steal it and claim it for themselves.

I do not support one or the other as such, as i said i do not understand what motivates evil, in the same way that i do understand what motivates good.

I consider evidence that is both testable and difficult to alter to be valid. At the end of the day all of science is theory, but when some parts support other parts, and then more parts still, science itself grows in both complexity and strength.
Ofcourse they can co-exist, because they do, however, that is not to say they ought to co-exist.

What you're saying is - where Religion does things you like, it's just fine. When crazy people use it to do crazy things it's bad. Yet, since ppl have a GOOD gene but no EVIL gene it must be the 'fault' of the religion. Gotcha. You don't make sense.

Your thoughts on evidence are understandable; yet would preclude you from buying into macro evolution.

Noir

03-17-2010, 03:33 AM

How so? I walked away from religion 35 years ago Noir and it has as much impact on my life as I allow.

...religion does not have an impact on your life? 9/11 was of no impact? Fair enough.

I get it easier than most, living in as secular a society as i do, i would have real problems living in america though, given i want to go into politics, and have no faith in any gods, which somewhat diminishes your chances of being elected to any sort of office over there.

Noir

03-17-2010, 03:40 AM

What you're saying is - where Religion does things you like, it's just fine. When crazy people use it to do crazy things it's bad. Yet, since ppl have a GOOD gene but no EVIL gene it must be the 'fault' of the religion. Gotcha. You don't make sense.

Your thoughts on evidence are understandable; yet would preclude you from buying into macro evolution.

The good bits of religion, like the golden rule, come from humans (its good to see you have not challenged that) the bad bits of religion are manipulations of the mind, which make it acceptable to stone women, blow yourself up, murder abortion doctors ect, because you are brainwashed into a way of thinking.

Now as i have said before this can happen without gods, but with god like figures, such as Stalin ect, they used the same method of manipulation.

Lemme put it like this, how do you convince a Muslim he should fly into a building because they are a Muslim? Tales of honour, heaven, virgins, martyrdom, pleasing Allah ect ect. How would you convince an atheist that they should fly into a building because they are an atheist?

Please explain why micro evolution is not both testable and difficult to alter?

bullypulpit

03-17-2010, 04:00 AM

Are you saying that atheists are never immoral? Just people of religion?

Not at all. I merely stated that morality can, and does, exist independent of religion.

PostmodernProphet

03-17-2010, 07:51 AM

Nope, ofcourse i am not, what i am saying is that you do not need religion or gods to be good and moral. Many religious people don't like that however, and religions try and hold the moral card, when they have no right to.

Morality does not come from holy books, gods or revelled truths, but from humans.

first of all we need to clear up some misunderstandings about morality......every human being in the world has morals......they are simply the standards that each individual accepts or chooses to guide their right/wrong choices......there are some people who don't seem to hesitate in making those choices.....sometimes we refer to them as a-moral......in short it's just that their moral code is 'whatever I want to do is good'......

now there is a core of standards that most people hold in common.....those generally find their way into the legal system of nations.....things like murder and theft.....as fewer and fewer hold them in common the less likely they are to be part of the law.....consider Prohibition and the Blue laws......

now, back to the question....what are we saying when we say "morality comes from holy books" or "morality comes from humans"....are we talking about those standards we hold in common or are we talking about our individual standards for "right/wrong"?......

Charles Manson had "morals"....Hitler had "morals"....it's just that most of us think that their morals really sucked.....they didn't coincide with those most of us hold in common.....

so, when you say morality comes from humans are you simply saying that each human being makes his own choices about what he considers right and wrong?.......yes, that's true....

when you say that morality comes from holy books are you saying that, for example, the laws in the United States reflect the commonly held moral standards described in the Bible because those were the standards shared by the majority of the people writing the laws?....yes, that's true as well.....

now, back to your original point.....is it necessary to have moral standards set forth by God in order to have good morals.....no.....if you put ten million monkeys in a sealed room banging on their libidos, odds are one of them will come out with moral standards as good as the one God gave us......it's just more efficient to use the one we already have......

Noir

03-17-2010, 08:03 AM

first of all we need to clear up some misunderstandings about morality......every human being in the world has morals......they are simply the standards that each individual accepts or chooses to guide their right/wrong choices......there are some people who don't seem to hesitate in making those choices.....sometimes we refer to them as a-moral......in short it's just that their moral code is 'whatever I want to do is good'......

now there is a core of standards that most people hold in common.....those generally find their way into the legal system of nations.....things like murder and theft.....as fewer and fewer hold them in common the less likely they are to be part of the law.....consider Prohibition and the Blue laws......

now, back to the question....what are we saying when we say "morality comes from holy books" or "morality comes from humans"....are we talking about those standards we hold in common or are we talking about our individual standards for "right/wrong"?......

Charles Manson had "morals"....Hitler had "morals"....it's just that most of us think that their morals really sucked.....they didn't coincide with those most of us hold in common.....

so, when you say morality comes from humans are you simply saying that each human being makes his own choices about what he considers right and wrong?.......yes, that's true....

when you say that morality comes from holy books are you saying that, for example, the laws in the United States reflect the commonly held moral standards described in the Bible because those were the standards shared by the majority of the people writing the laws?....yes, that's true as well.....

now, back to your original point.....is it necessary to have moral standards set forth by God in order to have good morals.....no.....if you put ten million monkeys in a sealed room banging on their libidos, odds are one of them will come out with moral standards as good as the one God gave us......it's just more efficient to use the one we already have......

So before God gave us morals we had none?

glockmail

03-17-2010, 08:37 AM

Morality exists independent of religion.Actually, for the most part, it doesn't. A perfect example of this is ancient Rome prior to its acceptance of Christianity.

Noir

03-17-2010, 08:52 AM

Actually, for the most part, it doesn't. A perfect example of this is ancient Rome prior to its acceptance of Christianity.

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

So do tell me, when did the world become moral? Was it with Christ? Or Moses? or who exactly?

revelarts

03-17-2010, 09:59 AM

Okie dokes, by the way just to clarify, the phrase is not mine, i heard someone quote someone else as saying it (or something like it) in a debate, though both the author of the quote and debate it was used in have slipped my mind.

1 - Massive question of the block; I believe that goodness is innate within all humans, and has evolved within us (and other animals) to ensure the survival of our species. Some evolutionary biologists like to call this the 'Selfish Gene' or the 'Co-operative Gene' ect.

OK "I believe" is a statement of faith in a sense

"Some evolutionary biologists" is your source of authority, "Some" implies that there are others who don't buy the idea.
"'Selfish Gene' or the 'Co-operative Gene'" Has the Gnone project actually map this or is it just a hypothesis?

Evil is a different kettle of fish all together, there is a phrase suck in my head at the minute 'Is evil something we are, or something we do?' And while it is clear that there are people that are evil out there, why they are evil is lost on me.

"Evil is a different kettle of fish all together," That's a belief as well I assume. You don't site any reason to make a distinction between the 2 so if we can theorize a co-operative gene why not theorize an evil gene

only your belief is standing in the way of the idea. since, at least here, you don't site any real scientific proof.

4 - I am against religion, being both an Atheist and an Anti-theist. I'm tired of religious people believing that have the say one what is moral and what is not. I am tired of seeing innocent men and women shot, stoned and blown up in the name of some god or another, and i am tired of being told to 'respect' and not to cause 'offense' over religion.
You've got every right to that opinion

I live by the golden rule, and that is all any human need do.
That sounds like a authoritative point of view.
um sooo
If you were an unborn child would you want people to kill you in the womb?
Do you think that on the internet gov't's and corps are following the golden rule by spying on it's citizens and customers?
I could go on but the golden rule in general is great but at different points along the line people differ on what "good treatment" is. that line is defined differently by culture, religion and philosophy.

PostmodernProphet

03-17-2010, 11:36 AM

So before God gave us morals we had none?

exactly the opposite of what I said.....everyone would have had their own morals whenever they existed.....a biblically defined set of moral standards provided a focal point around which common standards could coalesce.....at this point it would be virtually impossible to distinguish between biblical moral standards and others, because the bible has been influencing the common standard in the Western world for thousands of years.....

the tension between those standards and what is commonly acceptable is obvious....take for example abortion......in the US the law has become more acceptable of killing unborn children than a large population adhering to the biblical standard is willing to tolerate......thus we have strife.....

glockmail

03-17-2010, 11:51 AM

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

So do tell me, when did the world become moral? Was it with Christ? Or Moses? or who exactly? Since Moses only had influence over a small tribe it is no doubt that Christ had the greater influence.

Noir

03-17-2010, 11:53 AM

OK "I believe" is a statement of faith in a sense

It is a statement of humility, because i have no real advanced knowledge in this field.

"Some evolutionary biologists" is your source of authority, "Some" implies that there are others who don't buy the idea.
"'Selfish Gene' or the 'Co-operative Gene'" Has the Gnone project actually map this or is it just a hypothesis?

I say 'some' because while i have read books and watched talks on the 'selfish gene' i am not aware of the strength of its rival theories, however, given the theory of the Selfish Gene is over 30 years old and still being championed it is clearly a serious scientific theory. I merely put the word 'some' in again in order to cover my own back, because i only know personally of 'some' though there may well be many more.

"Evil is a different kettle of fish all together," That's a belief as well I assume. You don't site any reason to make a distinction between the 2 so if we can theorize a co-operative gene why not theorize an evil gene

Yes, everything in my post is a personal beielf. I can understand the role of good, and how it is useful in a darwinian sense, i am not so sure about evil.

only your belief is standing in the way of the idea. since, at least here, you don't site any real scientific proof.

If you want 'proof' or reasoning behind the theory i can only direct you towards some books, the best of which is 'The Selfish Gene' By Richard Dawkins.

You've got every right to that opinion

That sounds like a authoritative point of view.
um sooo
If you were an unborn child would you want people to kill you in the womb?
Do you think that on the internet gov't's and corps are following the golden rule by spying on it's citizens and customers?
I could go on but the golden rule in general is great but at different points along the line people differ on what "good treatment" is. that line is defined differently by culture, religion and philosophy.

I would certainly not want to die in the womb.
No, however, this is only an interim phase, once we move to 'the one' that question will become needless.
The line is always decided by people, religion trys to control it (and depending on how coercive they are will affect their strength) and philosophy asks questions of why humans have decided the lines they have. But at the end of the day, the lines are made by humans.

darin

03-17-2010, 11:59 AM

The good bits of religion, like the golden rule, come from humans (its good to see you have not challenged that)

Didn't a human write that in the Bible?

the bad bits of religion are manipulations of the mind, which make it acceptable to stone women, blow yourself up, murder abortion doctors ect, because you are brainwashed into a way of thinking.

...which are also not a part of Christianity...those are bad bits that come from people; regardless of what they believe or don't believe.

Now as i have said before this can happen without gods, but with god like figures, such as Stalin ect, they used the same method of manipulation.

Must be an evil gene within people for them to make up horrible policies and subject those who follow them (another genetic flaw - folks following people with evil genes?) or who are subject to their control.

Lemme put it like this, how do you convince a Muslim he should fly into a building because they are a Muslim? Tales of honour, heaven, virgins, martyrdom, pleasing Allah ect ect. How would you convince an atheist that they should fly into a building because they are an atheist?

It's because people are not inherently GOOD those things happen.

Please explain why micro evolution is not both testable and difficult to alter?

Because it cannot be tested or observed. It's a hoax, junk science, and honestly flies in the face of reason or ration. It stems from people's desire to make shit up when they don't have an answer to a problem. It takes a whopping amount of FAITH to buy into life magically happening against all odds. It takes mountains of faith to believe "time passage" changed non-life into life....then that life eventually changed itself into something more complex.

I brought that up - about evolution - to illustrate a point to you. You say things like you want to see to believe - science and all that good stuff...yet you follow Biblical principles, AND display HUGE AMOUNTS of blind faith in the 'religion' of macro evolution.

You aren't an atheist. You have your God.

Abbey Marie

03-17-2010, 12:06 PM

I wish we had an avi to point to the above post in a good way. Great post, D.

Noir

03-17-2010, 12:13 PM

exactly the opposite of what I said.....everyone would have had their own morals whenever they existed.....a biblically defined set of moral standards provided a focal point around which common standards could coalesce.....at this point it would be virtually impossible to distinguish between biblical moral standards and others, because the bible has been influencing the common standard in the Western world for thousands of years.....

the tension between those standards and what is commonly acceptable is obvious....take for example abortion......in the US the law has become more acceptable of killing unborn children than a large population adhering to the biblical standard is willing to tolerate......thus we have strife.....

True, everyone has their own morals, in the past the best way to pass morals and beliefs on were through religions, stories of heaven and hell, everlasting live and more virgins that you could ever hope to have.

However, we do not need that anymore, and as we gain more and more knowledge of the universe around us the less we need these gods, least of all to try and set moral guidelines for us. Morality does not come from gods or religions, try as they may to claim it so.

Noir

03-17-2010, 12:27 PM

Didn't a human write that in the Bible?

Yep, many humans.

...which are also not a part of Christianity...those are bad bits that come from people; regardless of what they believe or don't believe.

Yes, the bad and the good come from humans, not gods,

Must be an evil gene within people for them to make up horrible policies and subject those who follow them (another genetic flaw - folks following people with evil genes?) or who are subject to their control.

Again as i have said what causes evil, and why it prevails i do not know. However, i think you are right about people following 'evil genes' its not so much that we chose to follow them, as we have an inbuilt desire to be submissive to authority, and religion/gods are the ultimate authority, which is why they can generate such devoted followers, who are willing to murder in the name of their god. and again, this is not only possible with gods, but god like figures.

It's because people are not inherently GOOD those things happen.

You didn't answer the question, How would you convince an atheist that they should fly into a building because they are an atheist?
To put it another way, do you think you could of convinced any of the 9/11 hijackers to fly into a building if they were atheists in the name of atheism?
I'm sure those men would of laughed at such a prospect, however, given that they were brainwashed by their religious elders, they were 'taught' to do something illogical and horrid, because they believed that within their hearts what the were doing was right.

Because it cannot be tested or observed. It's a hoax, junk science, and honestly flies in the face of reason or ration. It stems from people's desire to make shit up when they don't have an answer to a problem. It takes a whopping amount of FAITH to buy into life magically happening against all odds. It takes mountains of faith to believe "time passage" changed non-life into life....then that life eventually changed itself into something more complex.

I brought that up - about evolution - to illustrate a point to you. You say things like you want to see to believe - science and all that good stuff...yet you follow Biblical principles, AND display HUGE AMOUNTS of blind faith in the 'religion' of macro evolution.

You need to look up some information on how we can read genetic coding, for example comparing humans and chimp if you think it is a hoax. You'll be amazed.

You aren't an atheist. You have your God.

I am an atheist.

HogTrash

03-17-2010, 12:51 PM

I believe everyone is aware of what Noir's number one pet-peeve seems to be in life.

Originally Posted by Noir
Religion will forever interfere with my life, as it will with yours, that is a fact, only i am not willing to accept or 'respect' their right to interfere with mine.The number of Noir's posts and threads concerning relgious matters are equal to if not greater than the number of my posts and threads concerning racial matters.

But oddly enough, Noir is never accused of relgionism while I am constantly being accused of racism?

Does anyone have any thoughts, beliefs, ideas or obsevations concerning this strange phenomena? :huddle:

PostmodernProphet

03-17-2010, 01:44 PM

However, we do not need that anymore, and as we gain more and more knowledge of the universe around us the less we need these gods, least of all to try and set moral guidelines for us.

and does expanded knowledge of the universe guarantee higher moral standards......I can point to a number of things.....killing the unborn, atomic weapon proliferation, internet porn, biological weapons.....that show that a higher degree of technological advancement does NOT promote higher moral behavior......

PostmodernProphet

03-17-2010, 01:47 PM

Again as i have said what causes evil, and why it prevails i do not know. .

???...it isn't that complicated.....people choose to do bad things....voila'

darin

03-17-2010, 02:21 PM

Yep, many humans.

..over hundreds?thousands? of years, and who never set out to write a Bible...and who all pretty much said the same thing. Coincidence?

Its a religious principle you're following. You know it. I know it. And everyone who reads this thread knows it. You, however, just won't admit it.

Yes, the bad and the good come from humans, not gods,

Evil gene exists then?

Again as i have said what causes evil, and why it prevails i do not know. However, i think you are right about people following 'evil genes' its not so much that we chose to follow them, as we have an inbuilt desire to be submissive to authority, and religion/gods are the ultimate authority, which is why they can generate such devoted followers, who are willing to murder in the name of their god. and again, this is not only possible with gods, but god like figures.

And you submit to your faith the same way - your faith in the lack of a God. Your faith in evolution. Your faith in the inherent goodness of people.

You didn't answer the question, How would you convince an atheist that they should fly into a building because they are an atheist?
To put it another way, do you think you could of convinced any of the 9/11 hijackers to fly into a building if they were atheists in the name of atheism?
I'm sure those men would of laughed at such a prospect, however, given that they were brainwashed by their religious elders, they were 'taught' to do something illogical and horrid, because they believed that within their hearts what the were doing was right.

I didn't answer your specific question because I answered what the topic was. I think I could convince an atheist to fly a plane into a building by telling him or her they could 'cure' the world of religion by destroying churches full of people. Their "goodness gene" would have NO choice but, for the sake of stopping the EVIL religious people, fly a plane into their buildings.

You need to look up some information on how we can read genetic coding, for example comparing humans and chimp if you think it is a hoax. You'll be amazed.

By Magic, two species very closely related genetically are vastly different in who they are and how they behave. Hrm...If I were making bread and bagels, as a baker, I'd use ingredients that worked.

I am an atheist.

You have enough faith to believe in your religion. Good. Faith is the start. Faith starts people walking. When they aren't corrupted by people with evil genes, they find GOD.

Noir

03-17-2010, 03:02 PM

and does expanded knowledge of the universe guarantee higher moral standards......I can point to a number of things.....killing the unborn, atomic weapon proliferation, internet porn, biological weapons.....that show that a higher degree of technological advancement does NOT promote higher moral behavior......

No it does not, but nothing guarantees higher moral standards. However, we can teach morality without religion and lose nothing from morality, and lose much in the way of superstition and non-answers to questions.

Noir

03-17-2010, 03:02 PM

???...it isn't that complicated.....people choose to do bad things....voila'

Indeedy, but its what makes someone want to chose to do bad which is the key, and one i certainly don't have the answer for.

Noir

03-17-2010, 03:10 PM

..over hundreds?thousands? of years, and who never set out to write a Bible...and who all pretty much said the same thing. Coincidence?

What on earth is this to do with morality?

Its a religious principle you're following. You know it. I know it. And everyone who reads this thread knows it. You, however, just won't admit it.

No i am not, i will happily say that science does not have all the answers, because it doesn't, but that does not mean that then there must be gods until science does have all the answers.

Evil gene exists then?

I don't know, there is certainly something within humans that makes us do evil, what it is or why it does i have no idea.

And you submit to your faith the same way - your faith in the lack of a God. Your faith in evolution. Your faith in the inherent goodness of people.

I put my 'faith' if you will in science, evoluion is a fact, like it or not. I did make a thread on this, if you do not think evolution is a fact i would say you should look at it http://debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=415874#post415874

I didn't answer your specific question because I answered what the topic was. I think I could convince an atheist to fly a plane into a building by telling him or her they could 'cure' the world of religion by destroying churches full of people. Their "goodness gene" would have NO choice but, for the sake of stopping the EVIL religious people, fly a plane into their buildings.

That is a load of tosh and you know it.

By Magic, two species very closely related genetically are vastly different in who they are and how they behave. Hrm...If I were making bread and bagels, as a baker, I'd use ingredients that worked.

Not just very closely, just you watch the two videos i posted, i can only assume the general comment you made above is out of ignorance of the complexity of the biology involved and how we can interconnect a dozen different felids of science and they all give exactly the same answer.

You have enough faith to believe in your religion. Good. Faith is the start. Faith starts people walking. When they aren't corrupted by people with evil genes, they find GOD.

I believe in science, and so do you, given that you are relying on science allot at the minute i would think that you would be more respectful towards it.

HogTrash

03-17-2010, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by Noir
Religion will forever interfere with my life, as it will with yours, that is a fact, only i am not willing to accept or 'respect' their right to interfere with mine.Exactly how does "religion" interfere with your personal life?

I am non-religious and can think of no way religion interferes with mine?

Liberalsim brings much more intrusion and interference into our lives than religion.

Abbey Marie

03-17-2010, 03:28 PM

Exactly how does "religion" interfere with your personal life?

I am non-religious and can think of no way religion interferes with mine?

Liberalsim brings much more intrusion and interference into our lives than religion.

He will answer this, I am sure, but I believe that Noir is looking for somebody to blame for the, as they say, God-sized hole in his heart.

Noir

03-17-2010, 03:32 PM

Exactly how does "religion" interfere with your personal life?

I am non-religious and can think of no way religion interferes with mine?

Liberalsim brings much more intrusion and interference into our lives than religion.

Religion chose what schools i went to, what friends i socialised with, what parts of my capital city i could walk through, to name but a few.

Noir

03-17-2010, 03:37 PM

He will answer this, I am sure, but I believe that Noir is looking for somebody to blame for the, as they say, God-sized hole in his heart.

I have no hole in my heart, much as you may and patronisingly suggest so,

PostmodernProphet

03-17-2010, 03:46 PM

No it does not, but nothing guarantees higher moral standards. However, we can teach morality without religion and lose nothing from morality, and lose much in the way of superstition and non-answers to questions.

can you give me an example of how "superstition" detracts from a moral teaching? or how a teaching apart from a religious standard somehow makes it a better teaching?

PostmodernProphet

03-17-2010, 03:49 PM

Indeedy, but its what makes someone want to chose to do bad which is the key, and one i certainly don't have the answer for.

I suspect is depends on circumstances, but I would expect the most common situation is where a person would materially benefit from the "wrong" conduct......you have something I want, I take what you have......why did I choose to do what is bad?, because I wanted what you had.........

PostmodernProphet

03-17-2010, 03:52 PM

Religion chose what schools i went to .

were your parents pissed?......

Noir

03-17-2010, 03:53 PM

can you give me an example of how "superstition" detracts from a moral teaching? or how a teaching apart from a religious standard somehow makes it a better teaching?

It does not detract from morality, but it does from science.
But if you teach morality without religion you do not detract from morality and you leave science alone.

PostmodernProphet

03-17-2010, 03:53 PM

It does not detract from morality, but it does from science.
But if you teach morality without religion you do not detract from morality and you leave science alone.

I will let you try to explain that on a "science" thread....this one is about ethics....

so, you would teach morality but you would not teach against murder?....that is, after all a religious standard....

Noir

03-17-2010, 03:56 PM

I suspect is depends on circumstances, but I would expect the most common situation is where a person would materially benefit from the "wrong" conduct......you have something I want, I take what you have......why did I choose to do what is bad?, because I wanted what you had.........

Indeedy, i would guess so, and no doubt there is a darwinian explanation of a similar idea, though i have yet to read that far yet, though i can't wait til i do, i find the whole discussion fascinating.

Noir

03-17-2010, 03:57 PM

were your parents pissed?......

Erm, no, why?

Noir

03-17-2010, 03:58 PM

I will let you try to explain that on a "science" thread....this one is about ethics....

so, you would teach morality but you would not teach against murder?....that is, after all a religious standard....

I would teach the golden rule, you'll find that covers murder.

PostmodernProphet

03-17-2010, 04:02 PM

no doubt there is a darwinian explanation of a similar idea .

you mean like, the guy who killed his neighbor first lived the longest?.....

PostmodernProphet

03-17-2010, 04:03 PM

Erm, no, why?

because religion picked your school instead of them....

PostmodernProphet

03-17-2010, 04:04 PM

I would teach the golden rule, you'll find that covers murder.
wait a minute.....if we have to ignore MY religious standard for morality we also have to ignore YOURS......what's good for the goose is also good for the goosed.....

HogTrash

03-17-2010, 04:18 PM

Religion chose what schools i went to, what friends i socialised with, what parts of my capital city i could walk through, to name but a few.You should re-examine each of your examples individually with honesty and an open mind and you will find those who are truely responsible.

Noir

03-17-2010, 05:51 PM

You should re-examine each of your examples individually with honesty and an open mind and you will find those who are truely responsible.

They were, in my country you are protestant or Catholic, and thus you go to protestant schools, meet protestant friends, stay to protestant areas of the city. (in my case)

Its not as bad now adays as it was in the 70's, but it still goes on.

Noir

03-17-2010, 05:52 PM

you mean like, the guy who killed his neighbor first lived the longest?.....

I wouldn't like to speculate, however the statement you gave would run counter to the selfish gene theory, i.e. the longer your neighbour lives the longer you will live, and your family.

Noir

03-17-2010, 05:54 PM

because religion picked your school instead of them....

No, they picked the school, but with religous undercurrents, there was no way i would of gone to St. Pats or St. Mats, in the same way that people from the other side of the relgious spectrum would never of gone to Rathmore or Ballyholm.

Noir

03-17-2010, 05:55 PM

wait a minute.....if we have to ignore MY religious standard for morality we also have to ignore YOURS......what's good for the goose is also good for the goosed.....

Religion is irrelevant, it is only morality that is necessary. Teach the golden rule, and let someone decide for themselves when they are an adult if they want to believe in any gods.

HogTrash

03-17-2010, 06:04 PM

They were, in my country you are protestant or Catholic, and thus you go to protestant schools, meet protestant friends, stay to protestant areas of the city. (in my case)

Its not as bad now adays as it was in the 70's, but it still goes on.Do you hold the Muslim Faith and the Nation of Islam responsible for the actions of Jihad terrorist who murder men women and children indiscrimanently?

Noir

03-17-2010, 06:16 PM

Do you hold the Muslim Faith and the Nation of Islam responsible for the actions of Jihad terrorist who murder men women and children indiscrimanently?

I hold those who give the orders responsible. Religion is their tool, they use it to devastating effect, remove their tool, their weapon, and they are nothing.

PostmodernProphet

03-17-2010, 06:41 PM

Religion is irrelevant, it is only morality that is necessary. Teach the golden rule, and let someone decide for themselves when they are an adult if they want to believe in any gods.

I'm sorry, but you are ignoring my point....if we cannot impose the standards that one religion imposes we cannot impose the standards that any religion imposes....."Thou shall not murder" doesn't impose the belief of any god upon anyone any more than the Golden Rule does.....for that matter, the golden rule is simply a rewording of biblical teachings from both the old and new testaments....

PostmodernProphet

03-17-2010, 06:47 PM

it is only morality that is necessary

morality is unavoidable....the issue is whether it will be good or bad.....

HogTrash

03-17-2010, 06:50 PM

I hold those who give the orders responsible. Religion is their tool, they use it to devastating effect, remove their tool, their weapon, and they are nothing.You sound like a politician...Why are you avoiding my question?

Now, would you like to try again?

Do you hold the Muslim Faith and the Nation of Islam responsible for the actions of Jihad terrorist who murder men women and children indiscrimanently???

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????

SassyLady

03-17-2010, 07:34 PM

Noir

03-17-2010, 07:43 PM

I'm sorry, but you are ignoring my point....if we cannot impose the standards that one religion imposes we cannot impose the standards that any religion imposes....."Thou shall not murder" doesn't impose the belief of any god upon anyone any more than the Golden Rule does.....for that matter, the golden rule is simply a rewording of biblical teachings from both the old and new testaments....

The golden rule vastly predates the bible by thousands of years.

Thou shalt not murder is a good moral standard, and one which you do not need religion for, like all morality.

Noir

03-17-2010, 07:46 PM

You sound like a politician...Why are you avoiding my question?

Now, would you like to try again?

Do you hold the Muslim Faith and the Nation of Islam responsible for the actions of Jihad terrorist who murder men women and children indiscrimanently???

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????

I don't know enough about the inner workings of the Islamic system to know who to blame for what. So i can not build upon my previous answer.

HogTrash

03-17-2010, 08:03 PM

I don't know enough about the inner workings of the Islamic system to know who to blame for what. So i can not build upon my previous answer.So does that mean you don't blame Islam?

PostmodernProphet

03-17-2010, 09:40 PM

The golden rule vastly predates the bible by thousands of years.

are you sure?.........(hint: no, it doesn't) and no, you may not use Bruce as an authority....

PostmodernProphet

03-17-2010, 09:40 PM

Thou shalt not murder is a good moral standard, and one which you do not need religion for, like all morality.
you can't ignore the fact it IS a religious moral standard....are you going to pretend that it developed in complete isolation from the influence of religion.....

Noir

03-17-2010, 09:45 PM

are you sure?.....as it is currently phrased it is a quote....

The earliest form i know of is "Do to the doer to cause that he do" So yes i am sure.

Noir

03-17-2010, 09:45 PM

you can't ignore the fact it IS a religious moral standard....

And without religion it is still a moral standard. It does not need religion to be a moral standard.

Noir

03-17-2010, 09:47 PM

So does that mean you don't blame Islam?

Islam is a tool that is used, to control & manipulate, same with all religions and quasi-religions like Nazism & Stalinism.

PostmodernProphet

03-17-2010, 10:01 PM

The earliest form i know of is "Do to the doer to cause that he do" So yes i am sure.

that is the opposite of the golden rule.....and it isn't a moral instruction.....if you're looking for an Egyptian parallel, try ""That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another".....considerably post Moses, however....try again....

PostmodernProphet

03-17-2010, 10:02 PM

And without religion it is still a moral standard. It does not need religion to be a moral standard.
it's impossible to prove that it would even BE a moral standard if not for religion, because it's always BEEN a part of religion

HogTrash

03-17-2010, 10:08 PM

I don't know enough about the inner workings of the Islamic system to know who to blame for what. So i can not build upon my previous answer.Noir, it seems the workings of your liberal mind has painted you into a corner and you panicked.

You are trapped between two of your programmed liberal opinions that are in direct conflict with each other.

You have been indoctrnated to hate and critisize religion but muslims now fall under the protection of political correctness.

The marxist enfluence has made you an atheist and taught you to attack religion, especially those Christians that scewed your life up so bad.

Originally Posted by Noir
Religion chose what schools i went to, what friends i socialised with, what parts of my capital city i could walk through, to name but a few.
When I asked you if the religion of Islam is responsible for terrorism, you could not blame them as you did Christianity for being responsible for your terrorism.

Why, because the leftist ideology teaches that western civilization is the enemy and the enemy of their enemy is their friend which makes the nation of Islam, uncritisizible.

Not only does your ideology teach you to defend gays and minorities but also muslims...The only religion you actually have a problem with are those murderous oppressive Christians.

I'm sorry Noir but you can't have it both ways...Either they are both guilty or neither is guilty...Surely you can see this, you are an intelligent young man and I'm no dummy.

I'm not playing "Gotcha" with you, Noir...You are young and have been enfluenced by the wrong people and ideology...I just want you to see the truth and think for yourself.

HogTrash

03-17-2010, 10:13 PM

Islam is a tool that is used, to control & manipulate, same with all religions and quasi-religions like Nazism & Stalinism.You have no problem blaming Christianity but cannot bring yourself to blame Islam.

And you can't even see the problem...The only person you are fooling is yourself.

glockmail

03-18-2010, 07:16 AM

GAwo-F9CpVE

Noir

03-18-2010, 07:43 AM

Noir, it seems the workings of your liberal mind has painted you into a corner and you panicked.

You are trapped between two of your programmed liberal opinions that are in direct conflict with each other.

You have been indoctrnated to hate and critisize religion but muslims now fall under the protection of political correctness.

The marxist enfluence has made you an atheist and taught you to attack religion, especially those Christians that scewed your life up so bad.

Look its pretty damn simple, religion is a tool, used to control, I want rid of religion, i'm not going to start blaming 'Nation of Islam' because i have no clue what that is, my apologies for my ignorance regards Islam, but i don't make comments in ignorance.

When I asked you if the religion of Islam is responsible for terrorism, you could not blame them as you did Christianity for being responsible for your terrorism.

Why, because the leftist ideology teaches that western civilization is the enemy and the enemy of their enemy is their friend which makes the nation of Islam, uncritisizible.

Not only does your ideology teach you to defend gays and minorities but also muslims...The only religion you actually have a problem with are those murderous oppressive Christians.

I'm sorry Noir but you can't have it both ways...Either they are both guilty or neither is guilty...Surely you can see this, you are an intelligent young man and I'm no dummy.

I'm not playing "Gotcha" with you, Noir...You are young and have been enfluenced by the wrong people and ideology...I just want you to see the truth and think for yourself.

That's easy, both are guilty.
I do not blame the gun for someone getting shot, the gun is just a tool, but remove the gun and no one can be shot.
Same with religion, and quasi-religious ideologies.

glockmail

03-18-2010, 08:38 AM

Religion = bad, Islam you don't want to know about. :lol:

HogTrash

03-18-2010, 10:41 AM

Look its pretty damn simple, religion is a tool, used to control, I want rid of religion, i'm not going to start blaming 'Nation of Islam' because i have no clue what that is, my apologies for my ignorance regards Islam, but i don't make comments in ignorance.
Nice moves! :dance:

Could you teach me some of those steps?

You really should consider a career in politics.

That's easy, both are guilty.
I do not blame the gun for someone getting shot, the gun is just a tool, but remove the gun and no one can be shot.
Same with religion, and quasi-religious ideologies.If there were no guns, bad people would simply find other ways to kill and good people would find other ways to defend themselves.

Noir's plan for a better world:

Here we have 1 billion good charitable Christians who help others all over the world.

Here we have 1 thousand evil people who do bad things in the name of Christianity.

The marxist/atheist solution: Do away with Christianity.

ie...Cut off your nose to spite your face.

bullypulpit

03-21-2010, 06:04 PM

Actually, for the most part, it doesn't. A perfect example of this is ancient Rome prior to its acceptance of Christianity.

Morality does not require the force of religious doctrine to support it. It can, and does, exist independent of religion. What part of that do you have trouble understanding.

glockmail

03-21-2010, 06:45 PM

Morality does not require the force of religious doctrine to support it. It can, and does, exist independent of religion. What part of that do you have trouble understanding. It is you who fails to understand, Chimpy. Ancient Rome had Greece had cultures that were immoral, even by your standards. Christianity changed all that.

revelarts

03-22-2010, 08:12 AM

TED TALKS -- Dr. Philip Zimbardo: Why ordinary people do evil ... or do good

A psychologist that's done empirical studies on how easy it is to get "good' people directed ,lured or nudged toward evil acts. In general he found it wasn't hard at all.

20 minute talk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OsFEV35tWsg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OsFEV35tWsg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

It's interesting he suggest cultivating a heroes mind set, as a remedy.
Something that Christianity promotes but often is watered downed by pragmatism or other agendas.
“Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it.” Psalm 34:14

Abbey Marie

03-22-2010, 01:42 PM

Religion chose what schools i went to, what friends i socialised with, what parts of my capital city i could walk through, to name but a few.

What city was it? If it is in Northern Ireland, I see why you have such a warped view of the effects of religion on life.

I will tell you that you can walk through almost any Christian neighborhood anywhere else, and not be in danger of persecution for your religion. Can't say the same for Muslim neighborhoods.

Noir

03-22-2010, 01:52 PM

What city was it? If it is in Northern Ireland, I see why you have such a warped view of the effects of religion on life.

I will tell you that you can walk through almost any Christian neighborhood anywhere else, and not be in danger of persecution for your religion. Can't say the same for Muslim neighborhoods.

Yes it was in Northern Ireland, I do not have a warped view of religion, i have a view of religion, one which has been shared by many over history and still is today

HogTrash

03-22-2010, 02:13 PM

Yes it was in Northern Ireland, I do not have a warped view of religion, i have a view of religion, one which has been shared by many over history and still is todayI agree and with the spread of marxism so does the hatred for it's sworn enemy, religion.

Even though I am not religious I support religion, because the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Noir

03-22-2010, 03:16 PM

I agree and with the spread of marxism so does the hatred for it's sworn enemy, religion.

Even though I am not religious I support religion, because the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

And what about Capitalist Atheists?

bullypulpit

03-23-2010, 03:44 AM

It is you who fails to understand, Chimpy. Ancient Rome had Greece had cultures that were immoral, even by your standards. Christianity changed all that.

One non-sequitur after another Glock. You're out of you depth here. You reliance on religious dogma is no different from you reliance on right wing-nut talking points. Go audit a college course on ethics and come back.

revelarts

03-23-2010, 05:01 AM

This sorta started with a crtique of Noirs tag line.

"A good man will do good deeds.
An evil man will do evil deeds.
If you want a good man to do evil deeds, give him religion."

Now on a purely logical level lets assume that there are some people that are "good" and some that are "evil" ok we'll let the 1st to lines slide the way they are. (but we really shouldn't should we?)

But the last line just from just a factual point of view you would have to add the word BAD to the word religion. That's if you want to be factual and not just anti-religious. I don't think you would argue that all religious people do evil things. Or religion necessarily forces good people to do evil. At least i hope you wouldn't.

But the again the last line doesn't logically exclude a good man from doing evil deeds if you where to say "give him" something other than religion. Like a bad philosophy or a bad burger or bad information, bad authority figure as you've mentioned. And is demonstrated by Dr Zimbardo.
So i think you tag line is basically false and provably so .

you should change it.:D

HogTrash

03-23-2010, 05:45 AM

And what about Capitalist Atheists?LOL!...Whataboutum?...Their not promoting an oppressive, socialist ideology.

In fact, I have never heard a "capitalist atheist" whining and bitching about religion.

That is pretty much the genre of the marxist atheist who has been indoctrinated to hate and attack religion.

glockmail

03-23-2010, 07:37 AM

One non-sequitur after another Glock. You're out of you depth here. You reliance on religious dogma is no different from you reliance on right wing-nut talking points. Go audit a college course on ethics and come back.Not at all Chimpy. If I wasn't dead-on you'd dispute my position instead of trying to argue logical fallacies that don't apply. :lol:

bullypulpit

03-24-2010, 10:06 AM

Not at all Chimpy. If I wasn't dead-on you'd dispute my position instead of trying to argue logical fallacies that don't apply. :lol:

Indeed, you position is "dead-on"...arrival. Never mind that pointing out the errors in your logic does constitute my disputing your position.

Morality does not require the support of religious doctrine to stand. Based on the objective standards of the consequences to this life, in this world, morality can stand free and clear of the rank metaphysical speculation which always grows up around religious doctrine like rank weeds in a garden long neglected.

Morality can take direction from religious doctrine so long as said doctrine is not regarded as an absolute. Once this occurs, however, morality devolves in to a mass of "thou-shalts" and "thou-shalt-nots" which are divorced from their consequences to very real lives in the here and now.

Morality arose, not from the mouth of one's favorite deity, but from the perceived need for it in fostering the growth of a peaceful, harmonious community and, ultimately, society.

glockmail

03-24-2010, 03:25 PM

Indeed, you position is "dead-on"...arrival. Never mind that pointing out the errors in your logic does constitute my disputing your position.

Morality does not require the support of religious doctrine to stand. Based on the objective standards of the consequences to this life, in this world, morality can stand free and clear of the rank metaphysical speculation which always grows up around religious doctrine like rank weeds in a garden long neglected.

Morality can take direction from religious doctrine so long as said doctrine is not regarded as an absolute. Once this occurs, however, morality devolves in to a mass of "thou-shalts" and "thou-shalt-nots" which are divorced from their consequences to very real lives in the here and now.

Morality arose, not from the mouth of one's favorite deity, but from the perceived need for it in fostering the growth of a peaceful, harmonious community and, ultimately, society.

That's your theory, unsupported by facts, and destroyed by my example of the turn-around of ancient Rome by Christianity. :laugh2:

bullypulpit

03-24-2010, 04:02 PM

That's your theory, unsupported by facts, and destroyed by my example of the turn-around of ancient Rome by Christianity. :laugh2:

No, not at all. You haven't even touched the basis of my position...That being that morality does not depend upon religion.

You offer some woolly, vague claim about Christianity and Rome as an argument. The reality is that your statement is just that...a statement...unsupported and undefended by you. Do yourself, and us, a favor, go retake your college rhetoric and argument class. But pay attention this time.

Noir

03-24-2010, 04:19 PM

LOL!...Whataboutum?...Their not promoting an oppressive, socialist ideology.

In fact, I have never heard a "capitalist atheist" whining and bitching about religion.

That is pretty much the genre of the marxist atheist who has been indoctrinated to hate and attack religion.

So you think it is not possible to be both in favour of one certain economic model and anti-theist? Well here I must the surprise you, as I am both, I guess you learn something new every day.

glockmail

03-25-2010, 02:01 PM

No, not at all. You haven't even touched the basis of my position...That being that morality does not depend upon religion.

You offer some woolly, vague claim about Christianity and Rome as an argument. The reality is that your statement is just that...a statement...unsupported and undefended by you. Do yourself, and us, a favor, go retake your college rhetoric and argument class. But pay attention this time. I offer a theory supported by a historical fact: a proof. You offer a theory supported by your insistence that I should re-take a course from college. Its obvious who's blowing smoke here, Chimpy. :laugh2:

bullypulpit

03-25-2010, 04:05 PM

I offer a theory supported by a historical fact: a proof. You offer a theory supported by your insistence that I should re-take a course from college. Its obvious who's blowing smoke here, Chimpy. :laugh2:

Yer in over yer head here Glock. You offered an opinion rooted in your own religious beliefs. That is not a theory, nor even an argument. merely a restatement of dogma.

Gaffer

03-25-2010, 04:26 PM

Yer in over yer head here Glock. You offered an opinion rooted in your own religious beliefs. That is not a theory, nor even an argument. merely a restatement of dogma.

And your communist dogma is different?

HogTrash

03-25-2010, 04:52 PM

So you think it is not possible to be both in favour of one certain economic model and anti-theist? Well here I must the surprise you, as I am both, I guess you learn something new every day.Anyone of any political ideology or "economic model" can be an atheist, but non-marxist atheist rarely make an issue of it.

As a rule, only the atheists who have been enfluenced by marxism, preach hatred for religion and are activist for it's abolishment.

After all, they have been idoctrinated by an ideology that thinks of religion as "the opium of the people" and consider it a mortal enemy.

What I'm saying is, you're a liberal atheist and though you may not be aware of it your political and religious views have been influenced by marxism.

glockmail

03-25-2010, 05:50 PM

Yer in over yer head here Glock. You offered an opinion rooted in your own religious beliefs. That is not a theory, nor even an argument. merely a restatement of dogma. It is obviously you, Chimpy, in over your head. Again, if I wasn't dead-on you'd dispute my argument instead of pretending it wasn't there and bringing in logical fallacies.:lol:

Noir

03-25-2010, 06:42 PM

Anyone of any political ideology or "economic model" can be an atheist, but non-marxist atheist rarely make an issue of it.

As a rule, only the atheists who have been enfluenced by marxism, preach hatred for religion and are activist for it's abolishment.

After all, they have been idoctrinated by an ideology that thinks of religion as "the opium of the people" and consider it a mortal enemy.

What I'm saying is, you're a liberal atheist and though you may not be aware of it your political and religious views have been influenced by marxism.

So what? I'm still a capitalist and I'm still an athiest.

I would also like to know what you would think of a marxist who has has 'capatilist influence'

Just admit you have made a stupid remark, take it on the chin and leave it.

As a side note, the full quote is "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." - I doubt you will find anyone who disagrees with that, infact it is one of the few general redeeming traits of religion.