Kirk Cameron to give away 50,000 copies of edited ver of Darwin's OoS to universities

[Gargantou]

Reading about stuff like this makes me so bloody happy I'm living in one of the nations with the most atheists(when looking at percent of population) in the world.

Please note, I myself am agnostic and have lately been getting some Christian leanings, but I believe in my own personalized beliefs, not something a book tells me to.

 

[jverne]

You're not born a human being with an inherent sense of right and wrong and overall morality, you're taught to be a human being by those around you. To imply that we are somehow magically born good little children and not iD driven monsters flies in the face of what can easily be observed. One of the first words a child learns from its parents is 'No!!' after all.

Nowadays we in the West live in a situation where in there exists a separation between Church and state, back 3000 years ago there was no such separation. The old Testament was a survival guide, social conduct guide, legal reference (as to what is right & proper), & allegorical 'history' book (I use that term loosely) all rolled into one. Certainly irrelevant in these more enlightened times, but its naive to assume the world in which we've arrived would have come about of its own accord without the structure and order early peoples subscription to religious belief allowed to flourish.

People all to often promote this ideal of religion being unnecessary as an absolute. That if it had never existed we'd be better off, but the reality is the development of religion was an essential aspect of human development and despite all the wars etc, we wouldn't remotely be where we are without it today.

you heard of Roman law or The Code of Hammurabi?

i do agree with some o your points but i think they are not that powerful as you wanted them to be.

alot of the prominent philosophers in the greek golden ages expressed doubt about divine entities. one even got put to death because of rejecting the gods. and as far as i know, the greek/roman gods weren't the evil dictators of the desert dogmas. they were far more down to earth.

 

[Tyguy]

Atheism is as much of a religion as Christianity. Christians believe in a benevolent God and Atheist believe that there is no god. Bot positions are neither confirmed or disproved by scientific evidence. Therefor they are both matters of faith.

I am sick and tired of this argument. Atheism is not a matter of faith, it is the direct opposite. You can bullshit your way through misunderstood rhetoric all you'd like but the fact remains that you are completely unjustified in this assessment. I don't need faith to argue that religion is bullshit just as you don't need faith to assume the tooth fairy doesn't exist. I hope this is perfectly clear because having to defend against idiotic statements like that is tiresome.

Religion is powerful. The idea of a higher power, greater truth, and immortality drive people great things than they would otherwise.... for good and bad.

People without faith do good, what's your point? What do theists do that non-theists cannot? Lame argument.

I also find it rather funny that the only the most fundamentalist Christians and the most savage Atheists insists on treating the bible as literal. Most other people read the bible with some contexts and concept of symbolism. The bible is not an accurate history. It is a collection of stories that record the experience of a people and how they understood their place in the world, and we as modern people can learn from their story. We can take the good and leave the bad.

Ya know, it's a flip of the coin as to whether theists believe the bible word for word or not. You may see them as stories with some inherent meaning but other people believe they are the word of god. Theists rarely agree on anything in the bible, this only strengthens my point. Plus, if you are so convinced they are just stories than what the hell are you basing your beliefs on in the first place?

Its people like you who give Atheists a bad name. So shut it an don't talk about things you don't want to understand.

Holy hypocrisy...don't you dare try to insinuate you have ANY idea as to what you are talking about. You regurgitate the typical theist responses to every logical argument made by non believers. You pick and choose religious teachings and bible versus to fit your ideological perceptive of religion and denounce anything else as mere speculation.

Take your own damn advice and don't ever try and tell a non-believer they don't know what they are talking about. By the way, this was one of the more pathetic attempts at defending religion that I have heard it quite some time...congrats.

Edit:

Where do you think Morals come from? Why are we so different from other animals? What makes us so special?

This implies that without knowing the teachings of god people would rape and pillage like crazed lunatics. Nothing makes us special. We are evolved primates with a developed brain which has the ability to decipher the good and the bad. Saying morals come from god is a slap in the face to every atheist out there. I will pose my question again: Name one decent act done by a religious person that could not be done by a non-religious person. I admit defeat if you can do it.

 

[Gargantou]

Where do you think Morals come from? Why are we so different from other animals? What makes us so special?

1. From humans, hence why different cultures have different moral values.

2. An evolutionary 'mishap' perhaps, who knows?

3. Sentience coupled with an advanced intellect that have allowed us to build the civilizations we live in today.

 

[lord_raken]

I'm not saying you don't have valid points... I'm saying is that you DON'T want to understand. You deny any value in religion when THAT is total BULL.. but you INSIST on it. Personally.. in the long run I don't think it matters what you believe. If there is no god then it won't brother us when we die, if there is a god... well then there will be a lot of Atheists who will feel very foolish.

I'm sorry if I caused offense. I am just fed up with both the Atheists AND the Fundamentalist Christians. Both need to get their head out of their own, self glorified, ass and try to be civil to one another... You have more in common than you are different from each other.... act like it.

The bible has faults... It was written by men, but their is truth and value in it. To deny that, is a true example of clinging to a belief in spite of the evidence.

 

[Kadayi]

You: Religion was necessary for our ancestors to adopt some type of moral code which was bestowed upon us.

What the **** is wrong with you. Unless there was some inherent sarcasm in your post there is no other way to take it. So here's a thought, re-read your ****ing posts so you don't come off as a retard.

So let me get this right? You think that reiterating your earlier miscomprehension actually constitutes a counter argument?

FAIL :dozey:

 

[CptStern]

But you don't just believe. You tell others that here is no god... that is a doctrine. If you simply said I don't think there is a god, but that's just me... you would be right. But by advocating your positions and relating to a group of like minded people you are actively encroaching on religious ground. When you stop considering the arguments for the existence of a higher power simply because its "superstitious" then you are holding to a belief.

I tell people there's no santa claus so by your warped logic that makes non belief in santa claus a religion .........right

Where do you think Morals come from? Why are we so different from other animals? What makes us so special?

special in comparison to what? just because we wear pants? and morality originating with religion? which religion? certainly not any of the western religions. are you really saying that without religion there would be no morality? this is stupid because in every single social group on the planet things like murder stealing etc are all "immoral" if morality is exclusive to religion why would that be true in every single social group on this planet? could it be that morality was already in place and religious doctrine morphed to reflect that morality? not the other way around? I mean there's certainly a ton of immoral things perpetuated by god in pretty much every religion so one could argue that it originated elsewhere

 

[Eejit]

The bible has faults... It was written by men, but their is truth and value in it. To deny that, is a true example of clinging to a belief in spite of the evidence.

To the extent it relates some historical occurances which we know happened due to corroborating sources yes, it contains some truth and value. As for its rambling about some mythical sky-fairy and his teachings there's no evidence to back up these unlikely claims.

 

[lord_raken]

This implies that without knowing the teachings of god people would rape and pillage like crazed lunatics. Nothing makes us special. We are evolved primates with a developed brain which has the ability to decipher the good and the bad. Saying morals come from god is a slap in the face to every atheist out there. I will pose my question again: Name one decent act done by a religious person that could not be done by a non-religious person. I admit defeat if you can do it.

An Atheist won't pray for someone.

No, I actually agree. You don't have to be a believer to be a good person or do good deeds. Its just that religion is more effective at proliferating those teachings. Two of my best friends are Atheists and they are good kind people. One of them is a nurse. But neither have volunteered to go to Mexico and teach people their English. Neither of them have taken their whole summer to go help the poor in Africa. These things are things that have been done by my religious friends. They feel called to help other human beings at great cost to themselves. Mother Teresa was not an Atheist, neither was Gandhi or Martin Luther King. The percentage of "do-gooders" who are religious is higher than the percentage of those who are Atheists.

Why is it a slap in the face to think that Morals come from a higher power? All that means is that we humans are attached to something that is greater than the world. That we are better that mere animals. how is that an insult?

special in comparison to what? just because we wear pants? and morality originating with religion? which religion? certainly not any of the western religions. are you really saying that without religion there would be no morality? this is stupid because in every single social group on the planet things like murder stealing etc are all "immoral" if morality is exclusive to religion why would that be true in every single social group on this planet? could it be that morality was already in place and religious doctrine morphed to reflect that morality? not the other way around? I mean there's certainly a ton of immoral things perpetuated by god in pretty much every religion so one could argue that it originated elsewhere

I never said that Religion is the source of morality. That is ridiculous. I am saying that when people started discovering truths like morality they sensed that they were higher than mere animal instincts... so they incorporated them into their religions. Through the higher authority of the divine these morals became became more than general rules of behavior... they became eternal truths.

Religion solidified these morals in the minds of humanity. That is all.

 

[CptStern]

An Atheist won't pray for someone.

No, I actually agree. You don't have to be a believer to be a good person or do good deeds. Its just that religion is more effective at proliferating those teachings. Two of my best friends are Atheists and they are good kind people. One of them is a nurse. But neither have volunteered to go to Mexico and teach people their English. Neither of them have taken their whole summer to go help the poor in Africa. These things are things that have been done by my religious friends. They feel called to help other human beings at great cost to themselves. Mother Teresa was not an Atheist, neither was Gandhi or Martin Luther King. The percentage of "do-gooders" who are religious is higher than the percentage of those who are Atheists.

Why is it a slap in the face to think that Morals come from a higher power? All that means is that we humans are attached to something that is greater than the world. That we are better that mere animals. how is that an insult?

your religious friends are just as altruistic as your non religios friends. going to heaven/not going to hell is their motive. and you make it sound like only reliugious ornaizations bring aid to poor countries when that's not even remotely true

I never said that Religion is the source of morality.

yes you did:

That is ridiculous.

but you still said it

I am saying that when people started discovering truths like morality they sensed that they were higher than mere animal instincts... so they incorporated them into their religions.

you're just mirroring what I said. a complete about face from your earlier statement:

Where do you think Morals come from?

 

[lord_raken]

yes you did:








but you still said it



you're just mirroring what I said. a complete about face from your earlier statement:

Quit twisting my words.... you can be just as bad as Beck when it comes to this. If you fail to comprehend what I am trying to say... deal with it... or ask for clarification.

your religious friends are just as altruistic as your non religios friends. going to heaven/not going to hell is their motive. and you make it sound like only reliugious ornaizations bring aid to poor countries when that's not even remotely true




because religious would make humaity's contribution meaningless as if like undisciplined children we had to "sterred right" by some heavely sky wizard with gnarly powers. it's an insult to humanity's achievements. we can put a man on the moon but we need to god to tell us why we shouldnt pummel our neighbour to death. this in one of the millions of reasons why religion is ridiculed: the hand all responsibility to some unseen all powerful thing thereby taking away any sort of choice. it's a good way of keeping people docile and without a shred of individualism.

You miss the whole point of faith and religion. Religion is NOT denial of responsibility! The idea here is that we human beings are part of the Divine, that we are gods in our own right, that we create we dream we surpass the rest of creation. God is not our master, or our puppeteer. God is our father, our friend, and our mentor. Our goal is to live a full and happy life where we treat others with respect and learn important truths. God is that spark that we call the soul, with this we can feel and know good and evil, with it we feel and love, with it we are driven to help others. Every human being who lives and serves his fellow man is a follower of God because they follow our hearts. That is all. Its like the left and right brain: both are separate but they work as one. And If I am wrong then it wont matter... I will cease existing when I die, but if you are wrong.... I imagine you will feel very foolish.

 

[CptStern]

Quit twisting my words.... you can be just as bad as Beck when it comes to this. If you fail to comprehend what I am trying to say... deal with it... or ask for clarification.

twisting your words? you clearly said:

But you don't just believe. You tell others that here is no god... that is a doctrine. If you simply said I don't think there is a god, but that's just me... you would be right. But by advocating your positions and relating to a group of like minded people you are actively encroaching on religious ground. When you stop considering the arguments for the existence of a higher power simply because its "superstitious" then you are holding to a belief.

Where do you think Morals come from? Why are we so different from other animals? What makes us so special?

you're implying in that statement that morality comes from reigion. how is that twisting your words when you wrote them? I didnt take anything out of context nor did I edit your post

You miss the whole point of faith and religion. Religion is NOT denial of responsibility!

really? you should look up "predestination". also creationism, and pretty much every doctrine that couldnt withstand even the most casual of scrutiny for logic or facts. you're just told to "believe"

The idea here is that we human beings are part of the Divine, that we are gods in our own right, that we create we dream we surpass the rest of creation. God is not our master, or our puppeteer. God is our father, our friend, and our mentor. Our goal is to live a full and happy life where we treat others with respect and learn important truths. God is that spark that we call the soul, with this we can feel and know good and evil, with it we feel and love, with it we are driven to help others. Every human being who lives and serves his fellow man is a follower of God because they follow our hearts. That is all. Its like the left and right brain: both are separate but they work as one. And If I am wrong then it wont matter... I will cease existing when I die, but if you are wrong.... I imagine you will feel very foolish.

I'd rather look foolish for a brief instant than live a life steeped in foolishness. also everything you say about god is from a christian standpoint despite having earlier said that morality comes from

and I see nothing regarding seeing god as equal to man or even morality in this passage:


"At the customary time for offering the evening sacrifice, Elijah the
prophet walked up to the altar and prayed, "O LORD, God of Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob, prove today that you are God in Israel and that I am your
servant. Prove that I have done all this at your command. O LORD, answer
me! Answer me so these people will know that you, O LORD, are God and that
you have brought them back to yourself." Immediately the fire of the LORD
flashed down from heaven and burned up the young bull, the wood, the stones,
and the dust. It even licked up all the water in the ditch! And when the
people saw it, they fell on their faces and cried out, "The LORD is God!
The LORD is God!" Then Elijah commanded, "Seize all the prophets of Baal.
Don't let a single one escape!" So the people seized them all, and Elijah
took them down to the Kishon Valley and killed them there."


in fact god seems like an asshole who kills people out of jealousy

 

[lord_raken]

twisting your words? you clearly said:




you're implying in that statement that morality comes from reigion. how is that twisting your words when you wrote them? I didnt take anything out of context nor did I edit your post

That's just it. I wasn't implying anything. I was asking a direct question.

 

[Tyguy]

Response to Kadayi:

Spoiler

Our goal is to live a full and happy life where we treat others with respect and learn important truths.

This cannot be accomplished without god?

God is that spark that we call the soul, with this we can feel and know good and evil, with it we feel and love, with it we are driven to help others. Every human being who lives and serves his fellow man is a follower of God because they follow our hearts. That is all. Its like the left and right brain: both are separate but they work as one.

This sounds very touchy as well as preachy except it's absolute rubbish. You can play with words and make shit up all you want, but if you are expecting anything but harsh rebuttal with this statement than think again. What you are doing is equivalent to what everyone else does when faced with evidence and rational thinking.

And If I am wrong then it wont matter... I will cease existing when I die, but if you are wrong.... I imagine you will feel very foolish.

An admittance that you might be wrong...that's a start. Does this imply that you are basing your entire existence and morality on the chance that god exists? I'm pretty sure the bible denounces this type of "just in case" belief.

 

[Stigmata]

No I'm not saying that at all. Instead here's a thought, why not actually READ what I said and comprehend its full meaning instead of jumping to bizarre conclusions and end up making yourself come across like an utter twat.

So let me get this right? You think that reiterating your earlier miscomprehension actually constitutes a counter argument?

FAIL :dozey:

Stop being a dick. Of your four posts in this thread:

Two are you outright attacking people.
One is you making a point.
One is you adding nothing to the discussion.

How about you try reiterating your point in a way that responds to people's criticisms, instead of literally calling other people twats and then acting all indignant when people fail to understand your oh-so-cogent-and-respectable views?

In regards to the point you've made so far:

Religiosity by itself is not a bad thing. Institutionalised religion, on the other hand, is. Institutionalised religion (one could say anything that is institutionalised) demands conformity from its members, in order to preserve its static set of rules and views. The demand of conformity forces members to discard opinions and views that do not match those of the institution. This, in turn, gives the institution an unprecedented power to control the views of its members. The institution, if popular, is seen as a central pillar of culture, and to be a member of a society in which that pillar exists, you are all but required to subscribe to its demands. If you do not, you are ostracised from the community, and nobody wants to be ostracised, especially when you would have no other community to go to (see: pretty much any period of history before the 20th century). Institutionalised religion has, not necessarily by the hands of people who overtly wanted to control a society, ended up controlling society in very powerful ways all throughout history. I think we can all agree that religions and their churches purport some fairly terrible ideas, and these are forcibly thrust upon and carried out by its members as per the above. This is all but undeniable.

Kadayi, I formally challenge you to refute this point using nothing but logic and empirical evidence. If I see so much as a veiled ad-hominem attack I'll have no choice but to ignore everything you say from this point forward. I'll have no choice but to view it not only as contempt for my views, but as contempt for logic and free discussion itself, which deserves no response or time from anyone who values it.

 

[Absinthe]

We can allow that religion probably played a very significant and important role in our social development and history. But we are long past the point where it is required to sustain and bind our moral fabric. There are far better and meaningful reasons to be moral than because God commandeth it.

And lord_raken, I imagine you'll feel pretty foolish when you die and find out that there is actually a Magical Sky Cock running our earthly affairs instead of Jesus waiting for you at the end of the tunnel. Myself having no religious inclinations, I imagine I might find it shockingly funny.

 

[Kadayi]

How about you try reiterating your point in a way that responds to people's criticisms, instead of literally calling other people twats and then acting all indignant when people fail to understand your oh-so-cogent-and-respectable views?

Because I have a zero tolerance policy for people who repeatedly demonstrate an inability to do more than propagate their ill formed prejudices, rather than engage their brains in the intellectual process of actually thinking things through as a default action.

Regardless of how much I personally might subscribe to the notion that there is no God (or Gods if you're so inclined), and that I can happily argue that much of what might constitute religious instruction is both irrelevant and is dangerously regressive in terms of its impact upon the world today, I find I can't subscribe to this lazy armchair atheist 'fantasy' that somehow the very world we know today would of miraculously sprung into existence without the social/political and financial impact of institutionalized religion through out the ages.

No amount of appeals to the 'sins' of organised religion invalidates that fact that from these very same 'despicable' institutions the foundations of public education, law making, the first Universities & Hospitals all emerged. Without these institutions the world as we know it (for better or worse) in terms of the Arts & Sciences wouldn't remotely exist. My original point.

From a moral perspective, as I said previously you aren't born a human being (aka a functioning member of human society) your taught to be one, by your parents & those around you in society including via institutions past & present either directly or indirectly through cultural inheritance (and the codified moral teachings they have promoted for millennia). You might not have ever stepped into a church in your life, but undoubtedly if you've been raised in a western culture your moral thinking on issues of fairness, the value of truth, guilt etc will invariably possess a Christian bent to it, because all those 'No!!' 'Don't Fib!!!' 'Play nice now!!!'s that you've been subjected since you were first able to crawl are coloured with those values. You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake morally I'm afraid. You are the product of all that has come before you. To argue otherwise would be akin to denying the impact of the gravity upon you right now.

Do I think Institionalized religion still has a role in modern society? Not really (it served its purpose in the tale of human development), however at the same time I think that there is a need for secular moral instruction (certainly at school level) Because one cannot rely upon an increasingly fractured and separated society to reinforce those important moral messages that make for productive rather than destructive human beings in the long term. As a species we require constant reiteration, as to what's right and what's wrong, as our overflowing prisons will testify to.

Incidentally whilst all of the alleged 'men of science' here continue to needlessly batter poor old Lord Raken with hysterical misinterpretations and rabid quote mining, might I suggest you put your computers to some good scientific use and join the halflife2.net folding@home team: -

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=136203

We are presently lying just outside the top 550 folding teams in the world, but with the support of a few more dedicated folders we could rise much higher, which would be a tremendous achievement especially for a site & community of our modest size.

 

[lord_raken]

We can allow that religion probably played a very significant and important role in our social development and history. But we are long past the point where it is required to sustain and bind our moral fabric. There are far better and meaningful reasons to be moral than because God commandeth it.

And lord_raken, I imagine you'll feel pretty foolish when you die and find out that there is actually a Magical Sky Cock running our earthly affairs instead of Jesus waiting for you at the end of the tunnel. Myself having no religious inclinations, I imagine I might find it shockingly funny.

HAHA! If that's what awaits us after this life then so be it. I don't pretend to know I just state what I believe. I am fully expecting to be wrong about a few things. So I try not to judge others' beliefs too harshly.

Oh and I'm not one of those "Jesus is the only way" types... For me he is ONE of the worlds great spiritual teachers.

@ TyGuy: Of course there would be violence! Even if there was no religion people wold find some other cause to kill each other over. That is part of our legacy. We fight at kill each other for land, power, money, hate, jealousy, greed, belief and for looking at each other the wrong way. Is just like if they take our guns we will just start murdering each other with knives instead.
Islamic terrorists aren't the only ones who have employed suicide bombings. There have been secular bombers as well. Its just popular with the Islamic terrorists right now because they get their 70 virgins.
Yes. I might be wrong... and you could be wrong as well. So you have no room to call my position "rubbish"... otherwise you are just a hypocrite

@ Kadayi: I find your position very enlightened and reasonable. Religion, specifically Christianity, has played a powerful role in the development of western culture and morality. Today even the Atheists follow many of the moral values derived from our collective Judeo-Christan past. I do happen to disagree on weather or not religion still has a role to play... but I say fair enough its a valid position and you could be right. (what about individual spirituality?)

 

[Eejit]

Yes. I might be wrong... and you could be wrong as well. So you have no room to call my position "rubbish"... otherwise you are just a hypocrite

Sure he does, burden on proof is on those who say something does exist or did happen.

Quit twisting my words.... you can be just as bad as Beck when it comes to this. If you fail to comprehend what I am trying to say... deal with it... or ask for clarification.

Stop contradicting yourself.

Today even the Atheists follow many of the moral values derived from our collective Judeo-Christan past.

 

[Viperidae]

Because I have a zero tolerance policy for people who repeatedly demonstrate an inability to do more than propagate their ill formed prejudices, rather than engage their brains in the intellectual process of actually thinking things through as a default action.

Regardless of how much I personally might subscribe to the notion that there is no God (or Gods if you're so inclined), and that I can happily argue that much of what might constitute religious instruction is both irrelevant and is dangerously regressive in terms of its impact upon the world today, I find I can't subscribe to this lazy armchair atheist 'fantasy' that somehow the very world we know today would of miraculously sprung into existence without the social/political and financial impact of institutionalized religion through out the ages.

No amount of appeals to the 'sins' of organised religion invalidates that fact that from these very same 'despicable' institutions the foundations of public education, law making, the first Universities & Hospitals all emerged. Without these institutions the world as we know it (for better or worse) in terms of the Arts & Sciences wouldn't remotely exist. My original point.

From a moral perspective, as I said previously you aren't born a human being (aka a functioning member of human society) your taught to be one, by your parents & those around you in society including via institutions past & present either directly or indirectly through cultural inheritance (and the codified moral teachings they have promoted for millennia). You might not have ever stepped into a church in your life, but undoubtedly if you've been raised in a western culture your moral thinking on issues of fairness, the value of truth, guilt etc will invariably possess a Christian bent to it, because all those 'No!!' 'Don't Fib!!!' 'Play nice now!!!'s that you've been subjected since you were first able to crawl are coloured with those values. You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake morally I'm afraid. You are the product of all that has come before you. To argue otherwise would be akin to denying the impact of the gravity upon you right now.

Do I think Institionalized religion still has a role in modern society? Not really (it served its purpose in the tale of human development), however at the same time I think that there is a need for secular moral instruction (certainly at school level) Because one cannot rely upon an increasingly fractured and separated society to reinforce those important moral messages that make for productive rather than destructive human beings in the long term. As a species we require constant reiteration, as to what's right and what's wrong, as our overflowing prisons will testify to.

Basically my view point, especially emboldened part.

Contender for politics post of the year imo.

 

[Sheepo]

Our goal is to live a full and happy life where we treat others with respect and learn important truths.

I would like to know when this became established fact.

 

[Kadayi]

Basically my view point, especially emboldened part.

Contender for politics post of the year imo.

That's very kind of you to say, and good to hear that someone else appreciates my viewpoint. Its become abundantly clear to me that a system of morality needs to be taught in schools, because people just aren't remotely naturally equipped with a sense of right and wrong and you just can't rely upon parents, esp in a society where by and large parents are increasingly either absent or working to provide a comprehensive moral safety net. Too many people are falling though the gaps, and its rather tragic to see people damn themselves simply through a lack of moral comprehension.

I would like to know when this became established fact.

I'd say its a policy that is worth aspiring to, I'm not seeing what's so objectionable about it. However perhaps you'd care to explain why you find it so?

@Lord_Raken

While people find it a source of moral comfort then I guess it has its role on a personal level, however I think the uncompromising nature of certain institutional religions and those who operate them is irrevocably at odds with the progression of society. Where people are attempting to usurp the freedoms of others, over say abortion because of their religious convictions that is not to my mind a good thing. Personally I'm not a fan of late term abortion (though I'm a big fan of birth control), but there are instances where it's necessary. I'd rather it wasn't necessary, but again that comes down to people knowing what they are doing and where they are heading in life, rather than just staggering from one melodrama to the next.

 

[lord_raken]

@Lord_Raken

While people find it a source of moral comfort then I guess it has its role on a personal level, however I think the uncompromising nature of certain institutional religions and those who operate them is irrevocably at odds with the progression of society. Where people are attempting to usurp the freedoms of others, over say abortion because of their religious convictions that is not to my mind a good thing. Personally I'm not a fan of late term abortion (though I'm a big fan of birth control), but there are instances where it's necessary. I'd rather it wasn't necessary, but again that comes down to people knowing what they are doing and where they are heading in life, rather than just staggering from one melodrama to the next.

I'm with you on that. Too many religious fundamentalists consider it to be their duty to turn their personal beliefs into political policy or law. I'm with you on the abortion too. I don't like the idea of it... but then, who does? But asserting that an unborn fetus is a full human being without any medical support is irrational. Show me proof and then I will listen... but not until then. I do think there should be regulations for late term abortions as the fetus gets closer and closer to viability. I follow the idea of Safe, Legal and Rare. Rare being the emphasis, because even to destroy a "Potential" human being is still a terrible thing. I do not doubt that it is sometimes necessary but I would like it if they were to become unnecessary. The best thing we can do is offer options. But standing out in front of clinics yell "murder" at the people entering the building is only causing a hard decision to be even harder. That is not loving, that is not kind... its barely human. I could write for an hours and not finish my explanation of my position on Abortion. There is a lot of gray in this debate and its hard to draw a definite line.

Gandhi said something to the effect of: your mission in life is to find your mission in life. I know my place in the world and I have a pretty good idea of what I'm supposed to do. And I think its a good mission with or without a divine aspect. Personally I think that there is a divine source that is somehow united with my personality and skills and together they create my mission... but that's just me. It brings me comfort.

I could write a book on my social/religious,philosophical theories and beliefs.

It all really boils down to: Are you a good person? Truly good. not just a well adjusted member of society but are you deep down GOOD? if they answer to this question is yes.... your golden.

 

[Sheepo]

@Kadayi

I took the quote out of context and misunderstood its meaning. Carry on.

 

[Polaris]

No, I actually agree. You don't have to be a believer to be a good person or do good deeds. Its just that religion is more effective at proliferating those teachings. Two of my best friends are Atheists and they are good kind people. One of them is a nurse. But neither have volunteered to go to Mexico and teach people their English. Neither of them have taken their whole summer to go help the poor in Africa. These things are things that have been done by my religious friends. They feel called to help other human beings at great cost to themselves. Mother Teresa was not an Atheist, neither was Gandhi or Martin Luther King.

Are you saying that non-religious people can't help others or sacrifice themselves for someone else? That's quite unfair to all the people who do help others (like in Africa, war zones etc.) but don't need to keep telling everyone that they are motivated by their religion, faith in God or some divine special plan.

The percentage of "do-gooders" who are religious is higher than the percentage of those who are Atheists.

Bloody hell, what a crap.
The percentage of "evildoers" who are religious is higher than the percentage of those who are Atheists. Prove me wrong.

 

[Kadayi]

Are you saying that non-religious people can't help others or sacrifice themselves for someone else? That's quite unfair to all the people who do help others (like in Africa, war zones etc.) but don't need to keep telling everyone that they are motivated by their religion, faith in God or some divine special plan.

I'm not seeing a word of that in what he wrote tbh. He is merely making an observation based upon his experience. Plain truth of the matter is most people are fairly selfish in their day to day activities (we live in a culture of self) and it often requires either a personal tragedy or an outside influence to make them think beyond themselves.

 

[lord_raken]

I'm not seeing a word of that in what he wrote tbh. He is merely making an observation based upon his experience. Plain truth of the matter is most people are fairly selfish in their day to day activities (we live in a culture of self) and it often requires either a personal tragedy or an outside influence to make them think beyond themselves.

Exactly. Religion, by its very nature (in my experience), puts an emphasis on service to others. Of course there are wonderful secular organizations, people, and charities who do wonderful work. Religion just provides the motivation of a higher calling, and a divine purpose. The idea of "Service" is central to many christian communities.

@Polaris: Most people actually believe in some sort of God or higher power... so the numbers will be higher. The media likes to highlight on the few religiously motivated crimes, but we don't hear anything about the lack of religious motivation in the countless shootings and other crimes that happen all over the world. The difference is that that when religion, or politics for that matter, is involved there is a greater impact on the world because there is a purpose behind their actions. Those actions may be misguided and sinister but they, in their own heads, have a reason to do it and a message to deliver.... so it gets air time. No one is really interested in hearing about a drunk who beats his wife, or some guy who got shot.... unless the drunk was a priest and the man shot was a Muslim. Add religion to a crime, or racism, to a crime and its front page news... otherwise its on page 5.

 

[Eejit]

@Polaris: Most people actually believe in some sort of God or higher power... so the numbers will be higher. The media likes to highlight on the few religiously motivated crimes, but we don't hear anything about the lack of religious motivation in the countless shootings and other crimes that happen all over the world.

Oh dear zombiejesus, way to miss the point.

He's saying that there are more crimes committed because of theism than because of atheism, not that there are more crimes committed because of theism than for any other reasons.

 

[lord_raken]

Oh dear zombiejesus, way to miss the point.

He's saying that there are more crimes committed because of theism than because of atheism, not that there are more crimes committed because of theism than for any other reasons.

I don't have enough information to make that comparison. Media coverage would indicate that but the media is not exactly impartial. On the larger scale, religions beliefs are just a small portion amongst many reasons why someone would commit a crime.

It there would be a reason for why more religiously motivated crimes would be committed then it would the idea that they are fighting a battle that has repressions beyond this world. The idea that they are fighting form something that is eternal. Atheists don't worry about that because they think there is nothing greater than the world. So why fight and die for something that doesn't matter any way. So, religious people fight for something eternal (though they can be very misguided and malicious), and Atheists are more apathetic about the whole thing.

And this applies to social activism more than religiously motivated crimes.

 

[Eejit]

I don't have enough information to make that comparison. Media coverage would indicate that but the media is not exactly impartial. On the larger scale, religions beliefs are just a small portion amongst many reasons why someone would commit a crime.

Are you serious? Most of the U.S. media would be all over a crime committed because of atheism.

 

[Absinthe]

I'm personally of the belief that many of the people volunteering for community service or foreign aid, including those who claim to do so for religious reasons, are really just being good people. Most folk are more pragmatic than their religious institutions would allow them to be. I think particularly in the case of Christianity in America, there are many people who would for example identify themselves as Catholic, and probably follow a few tenets, but don't often have a whole lot of knowledge of the Bible itself or actually bend their lives around the Pope's decree. They pay the institution lip service and basically live life how they'd like. That's also why their obstinate defense of such religious bodies is so infuriating at times, but that's probably for another topic.

While church aid can promote awareness of issues to practitioners and make it easy to organize relief efforts, I think it is the altruism inherent to our species that is really on display.

 

[Kadayi]

He's saying that there are more crimes committed because of theism than because of atheism, not that there are more crimes committed because of theism than for any other reasons.

That's a lame and bent argument, because atheism is not a belief system in the same sense as Catholicism, or Judaism. There are no central tenets, agreed rules or a Bible all atheists subscribe to. Therefore to attempt to measure against it is a joke.

Yes there are religious fanatics out there who do commit horrendous crimes, but there are far more people out there who commit crimes simply out of selfish motivation as a result of a lack of social awareness everyday. I'd say that's the more pertinent issue than going all burning torches and pitchforks over a bunch of creationists.

Though if we are going all torches and pitchforks I have a radical suggestion. Why not start small and go after the minnows first rather than the big fish? I say we atheists go on the offensive against those ****ing Buddhists with their hokey ideas on reincarnation, tackle the Native Americans preposterous belief in thunder gods as well as the Aborigines foolish ideas about dream time. They'll never know what hit them.

 

[Eejit]

The point doesn't matter to me, I was just trying to help raken understand what Polaris was saying - since he evidently did not. Raken was saying that there probably are crimes committed because of atheist belief but they weren't reported.
I thought you were in favour of critical thinking, and correcting those who are wrong, and/or incurably stupid.

 

[Polaris]

I wasn't very serious about my point. It was more of a response to Raken's lame, logically and factually incorrect and atrocious claim:

The percentage of "do-gooders" who are religious is higher than the percentage of those who are Atheists.

 

[MJ12]

An Atheist won't pray for someone.

You're all defeated.

Take a good look at the pain you have caused for not telepathically sending a message to God so that he can use his powers to care for those suffering he forgot about.

We can allow that religion probably played a very significant and important role in our social development and history. But we are long past the point where it is required to sustain and bind our moral fabric. There are far better and meaningful reasons to be moral than because God commandeth it.

Absinthe speathe the truthe.

 

[Kadayi]

Raken was saying that there probably are crimes committed because of atheist belief but they weren't reported.

No he didn't, you're wildly misinterpreting. He merely highlighted (and as I also pointed out) that there are far more crimes committed that lack for any religious motivation.

I thought you were in favour of critical thinking, and correcting those who are wrong, and/or incurably stupid.

I am, and that's why I'm pointing out the error of your ways now, and why I pointed out the invalidity of your previous argument in my earlier post. The point certainly does matter I'm afraid.

I wasn't very serious about my point. It was more of a response to Raken's lame, logically and factually incorrect and atrocious claim:

I'd take it that's he's giving you an out there Eejit. Though of course I'd like to see the information Polaris is claiming he has access to.


So anyway about those dirty Buddists....

 

[Eejit]

No he didn't, you're wildly misinterpreting. He merely highlighted (and as I also pointed out) that there are far more crimes committed that lack for any religious motivation.

No, he did more than that. He may not have said it right out but he implied it.

He's saying that there are more crimes committed because of theism than because of atheism, not that there are more crimes committed because of theism than for any other reasons.

I don't have enough information to make that comparison. Media coverage would indicate that but the media is not exactly impartial.

The point certainly does matter I'm afraid.

The point doesn't matter to me

It's funny how you always give off to people for not reading your posts correctly.

And as I said, I was originally trying to help raken understand polaris' point, whether he was serious about it or not.

As for your facetious point about going after Buddhists, that's fine with me. Though I'm not sure our ahteist yankee cousins would prefer that. After all, it's the Christians in their country who label them as un-American and generally demonise them.

 

[Kadayi]

No, he did more than that. He may not have said it right out but he implied it.

Show me where, outside of your imagination.

*pulls up chair

The point doesn't matter to me

Then don't post.

Personal indifference to the validity of a point isn't the refutation of a point.

 

[Polaris]

Okay guys, stop arguing about what I've said or not. We have a serious matter to discuss, that bastard Cameron still want to hurt good old Charles and his great book.

 

[Kadayi]

Okay guys, stop arguing about what I've said or not. We have a serious matter to discuss, that bastard Cameron still want to hurt good old Charles and his great book.

Fair dues

Back OT:-

I don't think anyone's going to take him seriously at these Universities. I'd say the creationist movement is on the outs in the next 20 years. A candle always burns brightest when its about to go out. We live in such an information rich age nowadays that they are fighting against the tide of everything else that argues the opposite. Sure its wrong that they'd pull stunts like this, but as long as sane people oppose them, then their arguments are doomed to become a footnote in the history books. Just like the dinosaurs