Oops.
QUOTE (Hobbes-timus Prime @ May 20 2008, 10:36 PM) 
QUOTE (Lord Madhammer @ May 20 2008, 06:51 PM)
Why assume that God abides by Christian rules if we disregard the Christian Bible?
It's just The Lickensalt'n'peppa Effect in action again. I've only got this biography someone wrote to go on. Once I point out the inaccuracies and flat-out falsehoods in the biography, I quit worrying about Bob's existence. You continue to explore a different, hypothetical "Bob" that might still exist, but I see no point in it.
Once I am able to confidentially disregard all of the various Bob Biographies as being inaccurate to history or logically inconsistent, I've got sufficient evidence to disregard Bob entirely, IMO.
Not all arguments for God depend upon Bob biographies, though.
Of course, I'm not saying that you must do anything beyond what you wish to do...
QUOTE (Prime-Collector @ May 20 2008, 11:04 PM)
I don't see a language gap here.
You say logic is moot when the subject is unprovable. I say that that is a deliberate theist obfuscation of the truth.
Do you believe in Zues, Mermaids, fairies? Have they been DISPROVEN? No, your reason tells you that the probability of these things is ridiculously low.
We constantly confront Non-disprovable nonsense with rational thought.
To say that logic "cannot" be applied to the as yet un-proven and foreseeably unprovable is nothing but an excuse not to apply honest critical thought to the theist fantasy.
You say logic is moot when the subject is unprovable. I say that that is a deliberate theist obfuscation of the truth.
Do you believe in Zues, Mermaids, fairies? Have they been DISPROVEN? No, your reason tells you that the probability of these things is ridiculously low.
We constantly confront Non-disprovable nonsense with rational thought.
To say that logic "cannot" be applied to the as yet un-proven and foreseeably unprovable is nothing but an excuse not to apply honest critical thought to the theist fantasy.
This is why I didn't say more in my last response. I didn't mean what I said in the way you're taking it.
QUOTE (Lord Madhammer @ May 21 2008, 07:24 AM)
Not all arguments for God depend upon Bob biographies, though.
Of course, I'm not saying that you must do anything beyond what you wish to do...
This is why I didn't say more in my last response. I didn't mean what I said in the way you're taking it.
Of course, I'm not saying that you must do anything beyond what you wish to do...
This is why I didn't say more in my last response. I didn't mean what I said in the way you're taking it.
Neither of these responses says anything.
QUOTE (Agent Zero @ May 20 2008, 09:28 PM)
Of course there are those in every belief structure who are not good, upstanding people.
Once again lending to the notion that good, upstanding people are not created by religion.
QUOTE (Agent Zero @ May 20 2008, 09:28 PM)
And yes, mankind would probably be able to come up with a concept of morality without religious beliefs.
Probably? We already have.
QUOTE (Agent Zero @ May 20 2008, 09:28 PM)
That goes both ways though. Mankind would still kill, oppress, and wage war on a basis of ideology, slaughtering all who did nor conform without religion. Religion is simply used as a tool to carry out these atrocities because it's available. If it were not, then the evil men of the world would find a new tool, and go back to business as usual.
No doubt, but a little beyond my argument. I think the average joe's day-to-day life would improve without religion.
QUOTE (Agent Zero @ May 20 2008, 09:28 PM)
Arguing that religion wouldn't be necessary to figure out right from wrong is a double-edged sword, because then you have to accept that religion isn't necessary for all the evils you attribute to it.
You're putting words in my mouth.
QUOTE (Agent Zero @ May 20 2008, 09:28 PM)
That's a pretty big assumption. All those Christians in the American heartland who go to church every Sunday, who accept Jesus being the son of G-d as just as much a reality as the sky being blue, all those orthodox Jews who pray three times a day at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, all of those Muslim fundamentalists willing to sacrifice their lives and the lives of their children for Allah, think about them.
If you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that G-d does not exist, what do you expect from these people?
Do you think they'll shrug, say "oh well?" and go about their lives as good, enlightened human beings? No. You'll shatter a good amount of lives. Even years after, when the worst is over, families will still be broken, lives will still remain in ruin. The belief in G-d is a powerful one.
If you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that G-d does not exist, what do you expect from these people?
Do you think they'll shrug, say "oh well?" and go about their lives as good, enlightened human beings? No. You'll shatter a good amount of lives. Even years after, when the worst is over, families will still be broken, lives will still remain in ruin. The belief in G-d is a powerful one.
See, here's where I trump you, good sir. I do know what happens to people who lose their faith. I've lost my faith and I have watched others lose theirs. I can say with an authority on the matter that I don't think you have that you are wrong about this. Human beings are more resilient than you give them credit for.
Not that I was suggesting an elimination of all faith in the first place, but since you brought the thought experiment up...
QUOTE (Prime-Collector @ May 21 2008, 08:03 AM)
QUOTE (Lord Madhammer @ May 21 2008, 07:24 AM)
Not all arguments for God depend upon Bob biographies, though.
Of course, I'm not saying that you must do anything beyond what you wish to do...
This is why I didn't say more in my last response. I didn't mean what I said in the way you're taking it.
Of course, I'm not saying that you must do anything beyond what you wish to do...
This is why I didn't say more in my last response. I didn't mean what I said in the way you're taking it.
Neither of these responses says anything.
indeed
I think there is a lot of hubris in the notion that other people couldn't possibly live their lives with out the delusions we have shed ourselves.
I haven't bothered to read every page of this thread, but wonder if you guys have explored just what some of you mean by the word "god". Are we talking creator of the universe or creator of man? And in that respect, how do we not know that we aren't some biological experiment of a greater intelligent from of life whether that means alien, metaphysical, other dimensional, etc. Because those things have a basis in fact or at least a probable statistical chance of being real.
Just curious to what extent "god" is playing a part in the creation portion of this argument.
Just curious to what extent "god" is playing a part in the creation portion of this argument.
QUOTE (Hot Rod @ May 21 2008, 07:07 AM)
I haven't bothered to read every page of this thread, but wonder if you guys have explored just what some of you mean by the word "god". Are we talking creator of the universe or creator of man? And in that respect, how do we not know that we aren't some biological experiment of a greater intelligent from of life whether that means alien, metaphysical, other dimensional, etc. Because those things have a basis in fact or at least a probable statistical chance of being real.
Just curious to what extent "god" is playing a part in the creation portion of this argument.
Just curious to what extent "god" is playing a part in the creation portion of this argument.
For the purposes of broad strokes discussion, I would say anytime I refer to "God" I'm talking about an entity that meets at least one of the following two criteria.
1) Created the universe or any part of it through supernatural means.
2) Is in charge of the Afterlife.
An alien scientist creating us through natural means is not "God" as most people speak of him, I think.
An observation:
I think what distinguishes one group of people from another on this issue is not what they believe or don't believe, but the arguments they make and the reasons why they believe as they do. It occurs to me that the "nobody agrees on what's right, so chuck it all" argument is also heard in the creationist camp when debating evolution. And certainly there is just as much emotion and vehement determination to prove the other side wrong in that group as well.
So it makes me wonder if in fact the problem isn't "belief/nonbelief" but rather what gets someone to the point of belief or nonbelief in the first place. I think that people can accept or reject faith objectively, and I also think that people accept or reject it because they have a need for it to be true or untrue.
Not to get too meta about it. It was just an observation, since I'm pretty much done with this thread for right now.
I think what distinguishes one group of people from another on this issue is not what they believe or don't believe, but the arguments they make and the reasons why they believe as they do. It occurs to me that the "nobody agrees on what's right, so chuck it all" argument is also heard in the creationist camp when debating evolution. And certainly there is just as much emotion and vehement determination to prove the other side wrong in that group as well.
So it makes me wonder if in fact the problem isn't "belief/nonbelief" but rather what gets someone to the point of belief or nonbelief in the first place. I think that people can accept or reject faith objectively, and I also think that people accept or reject it because they have a need for it to be true or untrue.
Not to get too meta about it. It was just an observation, since I'm pretty much done with this thread for right now.
QUOTE (Agent Zero @ May 20 2008, 10:28 PM)
Of course there are those in every belief structure who are not good, upstanding people. And yes, mankind would probably be able to come up with a concept of morality without religious beliefs.
That goes both ways though. Mankind would still kill, oppress, and wage war on a basis of ideology, slaughtering all who did nor conform without religion. Religion is simply used as a tool to carry out these atrocities because it's available. If it were not, then the evil men of the world would find a new tool, and go back to
That goes both ways though. Mankind would still kill, oppress, and wage war on a basis of ideology, slaughtering all who did nor conform without religion. Religion is simply used as a tool to carry out these atrocities because it's available. If it were not, then the evil men of the world would find a new tool, and go back to
I here is my biggest beef with this type of argument:
This conclusion has come up a few times in this thread, People are essentially the same with or with out religion.
There are just as many Christian Douchebags as there are Athiest Douchebags. Just as many homocidal Bhudists or Zuezists as there are homicidal Muslims.
We agree on that right? Anyone can twist the "Good Book(s)" into anything they want, and if they didn't have religion the dork heads of the world would find something else to exploit.
My problem is this -
Lets assume that G*D in the structured sense is TRUE and is really out there. (And I dont care which God - pick anyone you want for this example)
If we have one IceHole Athiest running around (who admittedly has no guide and is just figuring this all out as he goes) doing what he does - you know being an Icehole on parade and stuff.
But then we have a Devout Follower of the Great ASTERISK also running around acting like a douche.
Both are the same right? Anyone can be an ice hole of they want to right and can use any book or ideology to do harm to others.
BUT, and here is my problem, If G*D is real, Wouldn't it stand to reason that the DEVOUT guy would be more inclined to be inspired towards GOOD deeds?
It doesn't matter which book he reads or which ministry he attends - if he has G*D in his heart and in his life, he should have that continued guidance, reassurance and for lack of a better word - Inspiration to be a better person.
The ATHIEST, not so much. He's as likely to be a turd as he is a saint. Because he has no guide. But the DEVOUT should have a Trump-card he has the GUIDE. He has the SECRET answer. its 42 by the way.
And the problem here is simply that this is not the case. I don't think that if we look back through history, that the folks INSPIRED BY THE GREAT ASTERISK did any more good than the Random Nutjobs.
They however have done a GREAT DEAL OF HARM! I don't think we can say whose done MORE harm or whatever. But I do think it's reasonable to think that if the DEVOUT had that connection, if they had Jeebus on speed dial this whole time - they would be scoring much higher than the random non believers.
And they don't.
If God is out there, he hasn't given anyone here his pager number.
QUOTE (Hot Rod @ May 21 2008, 10:07 AM)
I haven't bothered to read every page of this thread, but wonder if you guys have explored just what some of you mean by the word "god". Are we talking creator of the universe or creator of man? And in that respect, how do we not know that we aren't some biological experiment of a greater intelligent from of life whether that means alien, metaphysical, other dimensional, etc. Because those things have a basis in fact or at least a probable statistical chance of being real.
Just curious to what extent "god" is playing a part in the creation portion of this argument.
Just curious to what extent "god" is playing a part in the creation portion of this argument.
This is an important point.
God can mean alot of things. I'll list a few here with clarification of my opinion of them
Originator of Universe God
Non specific, almighty creator. Not tied to any religion. Rationality says we can only be agnostic about this type of god. We can reduce its probability to near zero, however to say there is NO chance of it existing would require faith.
Religion Specific God
God as depicted by a religion. These are just laughable. Myths of this sort emerge and decline through out history. Not only do these gods exist out side of reason apparantly, but they have had time to write a few novels about themselves in their free time. Omnipotent and Omniscient they are an active part of our lives... just no one ever sees them. Ever.
Etherial God
This kind of god is a more poetic notion than a belief. This is refering to the inner workings of the cosmos as god. Got keeps the atoms together, god is gravity, god is beauty, god is truth. The only thing wrong with this term is that it implies the other meanings of the word.
Alien God
This wouldn't fit most peoples meaning of "god" even if they preformed his tasks. Also like god we still have to ask, "Well then where to the aliens come from?" Not to mention the universe question. These "gods" don't fill the same space as a creator GOD. They would mearly be one more step between us and the natural forces of the universe.
I've always liked to point out to people who say we need god for meaning that if it were discovered that we were created as food stock for aliens and that the meaning our creator gave us was to be eaten, I doubt we'd all jump happily into the meat grinder.
Addressing the notion of Religous harm to society. I am less interested in Religions past accomplishments of foibles than I am in it's present.
Religion continues it's assault on science and education.
Religion is still a source of meaningless conflict and death all over the world.
Religion unduly influences our political processes.
Religion is still used as a tool to control populations with out merit.
Religion is a colossal waste of time and capital.
There is probably more. The point is, there is no reason in the modern world to perpetuate bronze age mythology. It's just fiction. Fiction is fine, but when it's purported as truth then that is a lie.
I don't see how we can justify living in a lie and then say "well it's just better for us".
QUOTE (Hobbes-timus Prime @ May 21 2008, 08:57 AM)
Once again lending to the notion that good, upstanding people are not created by religion.
And neither are oppressive douchebags who use ideology as a means to oppress their fellow man. The USSR being the most famous example. They managed to slaughter thousands upon millions of innocents and rule their people with an iron fist in the name of ideology, all without religion.
Which is one of my major points. If religion were done away with the number of would-be tyrants and a$$hats wouldn't decline. They'd just stop acting like Fred Phelps and Osama bin Laden and start acting like Joeseph Stalin and Pol Pot.
Communism, democracy, monarchy, republicanism, globalization, patriotism, mankind's in no short of supply of ideology to pervert and twist in the name of oppression and forced conformity, even without religion and a belief in G-d.
QUOTE
Probably? We already have.
Honestly, I'm not sure about that. Our current concepts of right and wrong come from the 10 Commandments. In the Islamic world they base their concepts of right and wrong on the 5 Pillars of Islam.
In almost every (and possibly every) human society concepts of right and wrong can be traced to some sort of religious tradition from that society's past.
No doubt, mankind would be able to figure out "killing's wrong" and such if a society evolved without religious beliefs, I'm just not sure we've seen that happen in actuality due to every culture having some sort of spiritual or religious belief system.
Could you provide an example where morality was developed free from any religious influences?
QUOTE
No doubt, but a little beyond my argument. I think the average joe's day-to-day life would improve without religion.
I can see it not being worse, but I don't see how it would be remarkably better. He used to refrain from stealing because G-d says it's wrong. Now he refrains from stealing because morally it's wrong and counterproductive to his own well being. Either way he's not stealing.
QUOTE
QUOTE (Agent Zero @ May 20 2008, 09:28 PM)
Arguing that religion wouldn't be necessary to figure out right from wrong is a double-edged sword, because then you have to accept that religion isn't necessary for all the evils you attribute to it.
You're putting words in my mouth.
Pardon? That's not my intention. If I'm correct, you're saying that religion isn't necessary for morality to exist, right (I happen to agree)? If so, then religion isn't necessary for the evil we often attribute to it.
QUOTE
See, here's where I trump you, good sir. I do know what happens to people who lose their faith. I've lost my faith and I have watched others lose theirs. I can say with an authority on the matter that I don't think you have that you are wrong about this. Human beings are more resilient than you give them credit for.
Perhaps. I also think that the belief in G-d is more powerful then you give it credit for.
No, I haven't witnessed anyone go through a serious spiritual crisis, and any Atheists I know were like that when I met them.
I am, however, an observer of human nature. And I see the loss of belief in G-d on a global scale to be devastating. How's a mother in Iraq who's son sacrificed himself as a suicide bomber in the name of Allah going cope? Or an orthodox Jew who's centred his entire life around religious teaching? Or fundamental Christians who go to church every Sunday and invest their lives in the teachings of Christ? I don't see a happy future for most of these people if you could prove G-d did not exist.
Now more then likely after these "growing pains" are a dull memory mankind will settle down and enter an age of secular belief. Morality would still exist, people would go about their lives, and the douchebags of the world would still oppress, murder, and twist ideology to suite their own ends. Essentially life will be no different then it is now. And the question is raised, would it be worth it?
What benefits would a godless world have that would make shattering the faiths of billions of people worth it?
In the end, and I repeat myself here, if believing in G-d allows me to reach my potential in life, and if that belief provides a guide for me to live as an upstanding person, then I say that the belief is worth having. Even if you're right and it is misplaced.
QUOTE
Not that I was suggesting an elimination of all faith in the first place, but since you brought the thought experiment up...
So if you and P-C aren't suggesting the elimination of faith, what are you suggesting?
I know I'm not suggesting that we do away with the non-believing heathens. People should have a choice to believe whatever they want to believe. Be it Yahweh, Allah, Christ, Vishnu, Zeus, or no god at all, all without hassle or harassments from those who believe differently.
QUOTE (Prime-Collector @ May 21 2008, 11:41 AM)
Religion continues it's assault on science and education.
Religion is still a source of meaningless conflict and death all over the world.
Religion unduly influences our political processes.
Religion is still used as a tool to control populations with out merit.
Religion is a colossal waste of time and capital.
Religion is still a source of meaningless conflict and death all over the world.
Religion unduly influences our political processes.
Religion is still used as a tool to control populations with out merit.
Religion is a colossal waste of time and capital.
And all of these problems would go away if religion were removed from the equation? We would still kill, control populations, perpetuate conflict, and assault science and education in the name of conformity without religion. We would just find a new set of ideologies to use in religion's place. Again, the USSR accomplished much of what was described above working under a godless ideology.
While I'm on the subject....
I'm not saying all Atheists are evil commies, or that the USSR is what they want to recreate. I'm simply using the USSR as an example of mankind's evils being in full force, without religion.
QUOTE (Hunter Rose @ May 21 2008, 11:09 AM)
If God is out there, he hasn't given anyone here his pager number.
I never said He did. Personally I think He wants us to figure things out for ourselves. That was His point when He gave us free will, IMO.
QUOTE (Agent Zero @ May 21 2008, 11:37 AM)
And neither are oppressive douchebags who use ideology as a means to oppress their fellow man. The USSR being the most famous example. They managed to slaughter thousands upon millions of innocents and rule their people with an iron fist in the name of ideology, all without religion.
Which is one of my major points. If religion were done away with the number of would-be tyrants and a$$hats wouldn't decline. They'd just stop acting like Fred Phelps and Osama bin Laden and start acting like Joeseph Stalin and Pol Pot.
Communism, democracy, monarchy, republicanism, globalization, patriotism, mankind's in no short of supply of ideology to pervert and twist in the name of oppression and forced conformity, even without religion and a belief in G-d.
Which is one of my major points. If religion were done away with the number of would-be tyrants and a$$hats wouldn't decline. They'd just stop acting like Fred Phelps and Osama bin Laden and start acting like Joeseph Stalin and Pol Pot.
Communism, democracy, monarchy, republicanism, globalization, patriotism, mankind's in no short of supply of ideology to pervert and twist in the name of oppression and forced conformity, even without religion and a belief in G-d.
All true. The Big Evils are going to have to be dealt with. Not even part of my point.
QUOTE (Agent Zero @ May 21 2008, 11:37 AM)
Honestly, I'm not sure about that. Our current concepts of right and wrong come from the 10 Commandments. In the Islamic world they base their concepts of right and wrong on the 5 Pillars of Islam.
In almost every (and possibly every) human society concepts of right and wrong can be traced to some sort of religious tradition from that society's past.
No doubt, mankind would be able to figure out "killing's wrong" and such if a society evolved without religious beliefs, I'm just not sure we've seen that happen in actuality due to every culture having some sort of spiritual or religious belief system.
Could you provide an example where morality was developed free from any religious influences?
In almost every (and possibly every) human society concepts of right and wrong can be traced to some sort of religious tradition from that society's past.
No doubt, mankind would be able to figure out "killing's wrong" and such if a society evolved without religious beliefs, I'm just not sure we've seen that happen in actuality due to every culture having some sort of spiritual or religious belief system.
Could you provide an example where morality was developed free from any religious influences?
Any time any Atheist decides if they think something is moral or not - let's say they take a stand against abortion - they are developing morality free of religious influence.
QUOTE (Agent Zero @ May 21 2008, 11:37 AM)
I can see it not being worse, but I don't see how it would be remarkably better. He used to refrain from stealing because G-d says it's wrong. Now he refrains from stealing because morally it's wrong and counterproductive to his own well being. Either way he's not stealing.
But then, after not stealing, instead of spending hours in church, he could do something useful like read a book to a child, take his mother on a picnic, or paint a picture. When someone has financial trouble, instead of seeking the advice of someone who will tell them to ask the Lord for help, they could seek the advice of someone who will show them how some basic math could help them more reliably and probably faster.
Things like that.
QUOTE (Agent Zero @ May 21 2008, 11:37 AM)
Pardon? That's not my intention. If I'm correct, you're saying that religion isn't necessary for morality to exist, right (I happen to agree)? If so, then religion isn't necessary for the evil we often attribute to it.
You're not gonna get rid of the Big Evils. Some people are just sociopaths. But you would have less instances of things like children being denied life saving blood transfusions based on religious doctrine.
QUOTE (Agent Zero @ May 21 2008, 11:37 AM)
Perhaps. I also think that the belief in G-d is more powerful then you give it credit for.
Oh, I know it's powerful. Why do you keep talking to me like I've never belonged to a church or participated in worship or I just shed my belief in god as easily as I change t-shirts?
QUOTE (Agent Zero @ May 21 2008, 11:37 AM)
How's a mother in Iraq who's son sacrificed himself as a suicide bomber in the name of Allah going cope? Or an orthodox Jew who's centred his entire life around religious teaching? Or fundamental Christians who go to church every Sunday and invest their lives in the teachings of Christ? I don't see a happy future for most of these people if you could prove G-d did not exist.
Instead, ask yourself how a fanatic is supposed to convince that son to participate in a suicide bombing in the first place if the son does not believe in an afterlife.
And these people are not immune to losing faith. Atheists do exist that used to be Muslim, orthodox Jews, and fundamentalist Christians. They cope. Everyone does it differently, but they survive.
QUOTE (Agent Zero @ May 21 2008, 11:37 AM)
Now more then likely after these "growing pains" are a dull memory mankind will settle down and enter an age of secular belief. Morality would still exist, people would go about their lives, and the douchebags of the world would still oppress, murder, and twist ideology to suite their own ends. Essentially life will be no different then it is now.
Yes, that stuff will still happen.
Except life will be different because people will have a better understanding of their universe and more time to devote to living the only life they're going to get.
Also, I would ask you to read what this man said about a life without religion, and why it is stronger and full of more hope than a life with religion. He does so more artfully than I ever could:
QUOTE
Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.
Believing there's no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate. I don't travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith." That's just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up," or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, "How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do." So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something.
Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future.
Believing there's no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate. I don't travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith." That's just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up," or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, "How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do." So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something.
Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future.
QUOTE (Agent Zero @ May 21 2008, 11:37 AM)
And the question is raised, would it be worth it? What benefits would a godless world have that would make shattering the faiths of billions of people worth it?
Yes. And see above.
QUOTE (Agent Zero @ May 21 2008, 11:37 AM)
So if you and P-C aren't suggesting the elimination of faith, what are you suggesting?
I know I'm not suggesting that we do away with the non-believing heathens. People should have a choice to believe whatever they want to believe. Be it Yahweh, Allah, Christ, Vishnu, Zeus, or no god at all, all without hassle or harassments from those who believe differently.
I know I'm not suggesting that we do away with the non-believing heathens. People should have a choice to believe whatever they want to believe. Be it Yahweh, Allah, Christ, Vishnu, Zeus, or no god at all, all without hassle or harassments from those who believe differently.
What I'm saying is that if I had the option to wave a magic wand and make faith disappear, I would not. Because I believe in choice. But, having said that, I believe a choice is worthless unless it is an informed choice. So I spread logic and ask people to question the choices they've made - just as I have learned to enjoy when people ask me to question my choices. It helps me to know I'm making the right ones, and allows me to correct when I feel I've made the wrong ones.
QUOTE (Hobbes-timus Prime @ May 21 2008, 03:23 PM)
Any time any Atheist decides if they think something is moral or not - let's say they take a stand against abortion - they are developing morality free of religious influence.
It's only possible to act free of influence if you've never been exposed to that influence. You can't grow up in a church, learn about the Golden Rule, reject Christianity later and say "oh hay I believe in the Golden Rule and I totally didn't have any help coming up with the idea." Now, you aren't making an appeal to religious authority in order to posit that belief, but said religion is still the source of it. Not that it couldn't have been otherwise if said religion had never existed, but said religion does exist and it did influence it.
P.S. I think the divorce and abortion statistics alone should indicate that religion has no net positive effect. It's a wash IMO.
QUOTE (Lord Madhammer @ May 21 2008, 12:29 PM)
QUOTE (Hobbes-timus Prime @ May 21 2008, 03:23 PM)
Any time any Atheist decides if they think something is moral or not - let's say they take a stand against abortion - they are developing morality free of religious influence.
It's only possible to act free of influence if you've never been exposed to that influence. You can't grow up in a church, learn about the Golden Rule, reject Christianity later and say "oh hay I believe in the Golden Rule and I totally didn't have any help coming up with the idea." Now, you aren't making an appeal to religious authority in order to posit that belief, but said religion is still the source of it. Not that it couldn't have been otherwise if said religion had never existed, but said religion does exist and it did influence it.
P.S. I think the divorce and abortion statistics alone should indicate that religion has no net positive effect. It's a wash IMO.
What if you've been raised by atheists and never stepped foot in a church? These things happen.
QUOTE (Agent Zero @ May 21 2008, 12:43 PM)
QUOTE (Hunter Rose @ May 21 2008, 11:09 AM)
If God is out there, he hasn't given anyone here his pager number.
I never said He did. Personally I think He wants us to figure things out for ourselves. That was His point when He gave us free will, IMO.
Why do the Religious folks equate free will with being Ill-informed refrains from obvious joke here
Hobbes has brought this up a number of times and I have yet to see any actual answers adressing it (If i missed it the i apologize) Even Madhammer has failed to answer this question.
So what is so wrong about a GOD or a PARENT (since that analogy gets made regularly) clearly defining the boundaries of RIGHT and WRONG. You keep saying that God is vague because he wants us to have FREE WILL.
But the ability to choose isn't lost based on having accurate information. But the ability to choose well is lost when the person or deity forcing you to choose refuses to give you the proper info.
I like corn - now buy me a car.
And most of the time this is where the argument veers off into - well other poeple wrote their own confusing books and its not what GOD intended. So for the purposes of clarity lets stick with Yahweh... He clearly didn't give the Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims the same set of instructions.
IN FACT he isn't even consistent when communicating to the Jews. Nearly every book in the Torah contradicts the message in the book before it. Sometimes even with in the same chapters!!!
So why is the JudeoChristian view of FREE CHOICE = RANDOM GUESS
Because in ANY other scenario - it would be clear that those to concepts are not the same.
QUOTE (Agent Zero @ May 21 2008, 02:43 PM)
QUOTE (Prime-Collector @ May 21 2008, 11:41 AM)
Religion continues it's assault on science and education.
Religion is still a source of meaningless conflict and death all over the world.
Religion unduly influences our political processes.
Religion is still used as a tool to control populations with out merit.
Religion is a colossal waste of time and capital.
Religion is still a source of meaningless conflict and death all over the world.
Religion unduly influences our political processes.
Religion is still used as a tool to control populations with out merit.
Religion is a colossal waste of time and capital.
And all of these problems would go away if religion were removed from the equation? We would still kill, control populations, perpetuate conflict, and assault science and education in the name of conformity without religion. We would just find a new set of ideologies to use in religion's place. Again, the USSR accomplished much of what was described above working under a godless ideology.
While I'm on the subject....
I'm not saying all Atheists are evil commies, or that the USSR is what they want to recreate. I'm simply using the USSR as an example of mankind's evils being in full force, without religion.
So you concur that religion does do these things, but excuse it based on the theory that some other undefined force would just do them anyway? I think that is a pretty weak argument to keep supporting something that is untrue and harmful.
If some thing else deludes most of humanity into these problems, I'll rail aganst that too. For now the current cause of these problems is my target.
QUOTE (Agent Zero @ May 21 2008, 02:43 PM)
QUOTE (Hunter Rose @ May 21 2008, 11:09 AM)
If God is out there, he hasn't given anyone here his pager number.
I never said He did. Personally I think He wants us to figure things out for ourselves. That was His point when He gave us free will, IMO.
"Hello My Beutiful Creation!"
"Hi, God."
"I have a fun game for you."
"Great."
"From now on all food will be red or blue. If you eat the right color food, you live forever!"
"Woot."
"If you eat the wrong color food you'll BURN FOR ALL TIME!!!"
"... oh. Which color is right?"
"Here take this commandment."
THOU SHALT EAT ONLY THE FRINAG COLORED FOOD
"What does Frinag mean?"
"Ooops look at the time I gotta run, see you at the Rapture!"
"Wait, what does Frinag mean?!"
"Good luck!"
That's "free will", is it? From a "loving god"?
QUOTE (Lord Madhammer @ May 21 2008, 01:29 PM)
P.S. I think the divorce and abortion statistics alone should indicate that religion has no net positive effect. It's a wash IMO.
This is the issue that I addressed earlier (in response to one of AgentZero's posts) and that you and I have gone round and round on... but I am going to keep sticking you to it - since it's come up again and you didnt respond to my last post.
QUOTE (Hunter Rose @ May 21 2008, 03:32 PM)
Why do the Religious folks equate free will with being Ill-informed refrains from obvious joke here
Hobbes has brought this up a number of times and I have yet to see any actual answers adressing it (If i missed it the i apologize) Even Madhammer has failed to answer this question.
Hobbes has brought this up a number of times and I have yet to see any actual answers adressing it (If i missed it the i apologize) Even Madhammer has failed to answer this question.
only because I didn't understand the question
I should point out that I'm not parroting the evangelical Christian line when I talk about ...whatever it is that I talk about here. The Christian line is that God *didn't* leave it to us to figure out, he gave us the Bible, and if we read it we'll understand life, the universe and everything. It's all very nice and neat.
My only real point about "free will" stuff is that perhaps we're asking the wrong questions of God. We're making assumptions about what he wants for us. We're assuming that he wants anything from us. We're assuming tons of stuff about him, and it all comes from this Judeo-Christian conception of God. I'm much more interested in speaking in broader, less dogmatic terms myself.
QUOTE (Hobbes-timus Prime @ May 21 2008, 03:32 PM)
QUOTE (Lord Madhammer @ May 21 2008, 12:29 PM)
QUOTE (Hobbes-timus Prime @ May 21 2008, 03:23 PM)
Any time any Atheist decides if they think something is moral or not - let's say they take a stand against abortion - they are developing morality free of religious influence.
It's only possible to act free of influence if you've never been exposed to that influence. You can't grow up in a church, learn about the Golden Rule, reject Christianity later and say "oh hay I believe in the Golden Rule and I totally didn't have any help coming up with the idea." Now, you aren't making an appeal to religious authority in order to posit that belief, but said religion is still the source of it. Not that it couldn't have been otherwise if said religion had never existed, but said religion does exist and it did influence it.
P.S. I think the divorce and abortion statistics alone should indicate that religion has no net positive effect. It's a wash IMO.
What if you've been raised by atheists and never stepped foot in a church? These things happen.
Well in that case you would in fact be free from religious influence, wouldn't you? read the bolded part
QUOTE (Hunter Rose @ May 21 2008, 03:34 PM)
QUOTE (Lord Madhammer @ May 21 2008, 01:29 PM)
P.S. I think the divorce and abortion statistics alone should indicate that religion has no net positive effect. It's a wash IMO.
This is the issue that I addressed earlier (in response to one of AgentZero's posts) and that you and I have gone round and round on... but I am going to keep sticking you to it - since it's come up again and you didnt respond to my last post.
am I still not understanding the question?
QUOTE (Lord Madhammer @ May 21 2008, 12:40 PM)
QUOTE (Hobbes-timus Prime @ May 21 2008, 03:32 PM)
QUOTE (Lord Madhammer @ May 21 2008, 12:29 PM)
QUOTE (Hobbes-timus Prime @ May 21 2008, 03:23 PM)
Any time any Atheist decides if they think something is moral or not - let's say they take a stand against abortion - they are developing morality free of religious influence.
It's only possible to act free of influence if you've never been exposed to that influence. You can't grow up in a church, learn about the Golden Rule, reject Christianity later and say "oh hay I believe in the Golden Rule and I totally didn't have any help coming up with the idea." Now, you aren't making an appeal to religious authority in order to posit that belief, but said religion is still the source of it. Not that it couldn't have been otherwise if said religion had never existed, but said religion does exist and it did influence it.
P.S. I think the divorce and abortion statistics alone should indicate that religion has no net positive effect. It's a wash IMO.
What if you've been raised by atheists and never stepped foot in a church? These things happen.
Well in that case you would in fact be free from religious influence, wouldn't you? read the bolded part
Okay - the point I made to AZ, that mankind has created morality independent of religious influence, stands...it just doesn't happen for every atheist.
Same Page'D?
The question is -
If religious influence is a "wash" as you call it.
Shouldn't people inspired by GOD, and those who have his influence in their lives be more inclined to do GOOD than those of us who are making it up as we go?
It doesn't even matter what the book or the church says - If you let *insert Deity here* into your heart shouldnt you be GUIDED somehow? Towards the divine?
The point is - the answer is overwhelmingly: NO!
People's lives are not improved in anyway by letting G*D into their hearts/lives. Whether they do or not - its still a random chain of events.
If religious influence is a "wash" as you call it.
Shouldn't people inspired by GOD, and those who have his influence in their lives be more inclined to do GOOD than those of us who are making it up as we go?
It doesn't even matter what the book or the church says - If you let *insert Deity here* into your heart shouldnt you be GUIDED somehow? Towards the divine?
The point is - the answer is overwhelmingly: NO!
People's lives are not improved in anyway by letting G*D into their hearts/lives. Whether they do or not - its still a random chain of events.
QUOTE (Hobbes-timus Prime @ May 21 2008, 03:43 PM)
Okay - the point I made to AZ, that mankind has created morality independent of religious influence, stands...it just doesn't happen for every atheist.
Same Page'D?
Same Page'D?
If I disagree, I swear it's not because I'm trying to make some point about religion being super awesome and stuff. I'm only hesitant to say that anyone can really act totally independently of these huge influences like religion. I think that people either go along with it or react against it, and that's the case for any kind of influence. But something like religion... I mean, how do you escape that? You'd have to live in a bubble.
Again, I don't disagree on the substance of your argument, but I only question the practical likelihood of it. That's all.
I don't see how anyone can justify the cost of religion with the psychological band-aid faith provides.
QUOTE (Hunter Rose @ May 21 2008, 02:44 PM)
The question is -
If religious influence is a "wash" as you call it.
Shouldn't people inspired by GOD, and those who have his influence in their lives be more inclined to do GOOD than those of us who are making it up as we go?
It doesn't even matter what the book or the church says - If you let *insert Deity here* into your heart shouldnt you be GUIDED somehow? Towards the divine?
The point is - the answer is overwhelmingly: NO!
People's lives are not improved in anyway by letting G*D into their hearts/lives. Whether they do or not - its still a random chain of events.
If religious influence is a "wash" as you call it.
Shouldn't people inspired by GOD, and those who have his influence in their lives be more inclined to do GOOD than those of us who are making it up as we go?
It doesn't even matter what the book or the church says - If you let *insert Deity here* into your heart shouldnt you be GUIDED somehow? Towards the divine?
The point is - the answer is overwhelmingly: NO!
People's lives are not improved in anyway by letting G*D into their hearts/lives. Whether they do or not - its still a random chain of events.
First, I'm not religious at all. I don't go to church, I don't pray, I don't think God has any care in the world about anything that I do ever. But say for the sake of argument that God did try to guide those who "walked the path". Those people who claimed to be doing god work but were merely acting on their own ideals and theologies (even if they weren't aware) would probably not be receiving a guiding hand from God or help for that matter.
It's like I can say i'm rich all day long but if I write a 1,000,000.00 check, at the end of the day i'm going to jail. It's only when I am actually rich, that my checks are any good.
PC - you are not the helping discussion
QUOTE (Prime-Collector @ May 21 2008, 02:50 PM)
I don't see how anyone can justify the cost of religion with the psychological band-aid faith provides.
Even if extremists didn't have religion to twist and subject to their interpretations, they would still have found enough like minded and/or weak minded individuals to carry out such plots.
QUOTE (Hunter Rose @ May 21 2008, 03:44 PM)
The question is -
If religious influence is a "wash" as you call it.
Shouldn't people inspired by GOD, and those who have his influence in their lives be more inclined to do GOOD than those of us who are making it up as we go?
It doesn't even matter what the book or the church says - If you let *insert Deity here* into your heart shouldnt you be GUIDED somehow? Towards the divine?
The point is - the answer is overwhelmingly: NO!
People's lives are not improved in anyway by letting G*D into their hearts/lives. Whether they do or not - its still a random chain of events.
If religious influence is a "wash" as you call it.
Shouldn't people inspired by GOD, and those who have his influence in their lives be more inclined to do GOOD than those of us who are making it up as we go?
It doesn't even matter what the book or the church says - If you let *insert Deity here* into your heart shouldnt you be GUIDED somehow? Towards the divine?
The point is - the answer is overwhelmingly: NO!
People's lives are not improved in anyway by letting G*D into their hearts/lives. Whether they do or not - its still a random chain of events.
Okay, I get what you're saying. And I do agree. But I also think that it can provide focus and direction to people who want to have focus and direction. Which may seem silly, but I think it makes sense. I have seen a lot of adult converts whose lives were helped and/or turned around by their faith. Am I saying that that's the only thing that could have helped them? No. But it did. Sure, they could have gone to AA or a psychologist or whatever else, but they went to a church instead. And I think that's fine.
QUOTE (Hot Rod @ May 21 2008, 03:53 PM)
QUOTE (Prime-Collector @ May 21 2008, 02:50 PM)
I don't see how anyone can justify the cost of religion with the psychological band-aid faith provides.
Even if extremists didn't have religion to twist and subject to their interpretations, they would still have found enough like minded and/or weak minded individuals to carry out such plots.
...
Somebody else needs to address this notion. I can't say it with our being explicitly insulting.
He's also discounting the millions of devout Muslims who DON'T FLY PLANES INTO BUILDINGS.
QUOTE (Hot Rod @ May 21 2008, 01:51 PM)
QUOTE (Hunter Rose @ May 21 2008, 02:44 PM)
The question is -
If religious influence is a "wash" as you call it.
Shouldn't people inspired by GOD, and those who have his influence in their lives be more inclined to do GOOD than those of us who are making it up as we go?
It doesn't even matter what the book or the church says - If you let *insert Deity here* into your heart shouldnt you be GUIDED somehow? Towards the divine?
The point is - the answer is overwhelmingly: NO!
People's lives are not improved in anyway by letting G*D into their hearts/lives. Whether they do or not - its still a random chain of events.
If religious influence is a "wash" as you call it.
Shouldn't people inspired by GOD, and those who have his influence in their lives be more inclined to do GOOD than those of us who are making it up as we go?
It doesn't even matter what the book or the church says - If you let *insert Deity here* into your heart shouldnt you be GUIDED somehow? Towards the divine?
The point is - the answer is overwhelmingly: NO!
People's lives are not improved in anyway by letting G*D into their hearts/lives. Whether they do or not - its still a random chain of events.
First, I'm not religious at all. I don't go to church, I don't pray, I don't think God has any care in the world about anything that I do ever. But say for the sake of argument that God did try to guide those who "walked the path". Those people who claimed to be doing god work but were merely acting on their own ideals and theologies (even if they weren't aware) would probably not be receiving a guiding hand from God or help for that matter.
It's like I can say i'm rich all day long but if I write a 1,000,000.00 check, at the end of the day i'm going to jail. It's only when I am actually rich, that my checks are any good.
I think you are also misunderstanding... and I am not sure how else to explain it.
I don't think the question is that difficult to understand.
Lets use an analogy....
If i have a group of people with bursting appendixes and I split the group in half.
I assign a bunch of Law Students and Lawyers to operate on half the people.
and a bunch of premed and surgeons to operate on the other half.
It stands to reason that more operations will come out successfully on the side with the doctors.
Its natural that they would have a higher success rate. Right?
But in the case of religion - both sides seem to have an equal amount of successes and failures.
WHY?
QUOTE (Prime-Collector @ May 21 2008, 03:57 PM)
QUOTE (Hot Rod @ May 21 2008, 03:53 PM)
QUOTE (Prime-Collector @ May 21 2008, 02:50 PM)
I don't see how anyone can justify the cost of religion with the psychological band-aid faith provides.
Even if extremists didn't have religion to twist and subject to their interpretations, they would still have found enough like minded and/or weak minded individuals to carry out such plots.
...
Somebody else needs to address this notion. I can't say it with our being explicitly insulting.
Why stop now?
QUOTE (Prime-Collector @ May 21 2008, 02:57 PM)
QUOTE (Hot Rod @ May 21 2008, 03:53 PM)
QUOTE (Prime-Collector @ May 21 2008, 02:50 PM)
I don't see how anyone can justify the cost of religion with the psychological band-aid faith provides.
Even if extremists didn't have religion to twist and subject to their interpretations, they would still have found enough like minded and/or weak minded individuals to carry out such plots.
...
Somebody, else needs to address this notion. I can't say it with our being explicitly insulting.
if people can be benevolent without religion it only stands to reason people can be fuckwads without religion. It's two way street dude. They don't just hate us because of "american's religion" they hate us for our ideas on commerce and free trade.
QUOTE (Hunter Rose @ May 21 2008, 02:58 PM)
QUOTE (Hot Rod @ May 21 2008, 01:51 PM)
QUOTE (Hunter Rose @ May 21 2008, 02:44 PM)
The question is -
If religious influence is a "wash" as you call it.
Shouldn't people inspired by GOD, and those who have his influence in their lives be more inclined to do GOOD than those of us who are making it up as we go?
It doesn't even matter what the book or the church says - If you let *insert Deity here* into your heart shouldnt you be GUIDED somehow? Towards the divine?
The point is - the answer is overwhelmingly: NO!
People's lives are not improved in anyway by letting G*D into their hearts/lives. Whether they do or not - its still a random chain of events.
If religious influence is a "wash" as you call it.
Shouldn't people inspired by GOD, and those who have his influence in their lives be more inclined to do GOOD than those of us who are making it up as we go?
It doesn't even matter what the book or the church says - If you let *insert Deity here* into your heart shouldnt you be GUIDED somehow? Towards the divine?
The point is - the answer is overwhelmingly: NO!
People's lives are not improved in anyway by letting G*D into their hearts/lives. Whether they do or not - its still a random chain of events.
First, I'm not religious at all. I don't go to church, I don't pray, I don't think God has any care in the world about anything that I do ever. But say for the sake of argument that God did try to guide those who "walked the path". Those people who claimed to be doing god work but were merely acting on their own ideals and theologies (even if they weren't aware) would probably not be receiving a guiding hand from God or help for that matter.
It's like I can say i'm rich all day long but if I write a 1,000,000.00 check, at the end of the day i'm going to jail. It's only when I am actually rich, that my checks are any good.
I think you are also misunderstanding... and I am not sure how else to explain it.
I don't think the question is that difficult to understand.
Lets use an analogy....
If i have a group of people with bursting appendixes and I split the group in half.
I assign a bunch of Law Students and Lawyers to operate on half the people.
and a bunch of premed and surgeons to operate on the other half.
It stands to reason that more operations will come out successfully on the side with the doctors.
Its natural that they would have a higher success rate. Right?
But in the case of religion - both sides seem to have an equal amount of successes and failures.
WHY?
God's Will? BTW I need to reiterate how much of a non religious person I am. I think the bible is ghey and fake.... I'm just playing devil's (haha) advocate here.
QUOTE (Prime-Collector @ May 21 2008, 01:57 PM)
QUOTE (Hot Rod @ May 21 2008, 03:53 PM)
QUOTE (Prime-Collector @ May 21 2008, 02:50 PM)
I don't see how anyone can justify the cost of religion with the psychological band-aid faith provides.
Even if extremists didn't have religion to twist and subject to their interpretations, they would still have found enough like minded and/or weak minded individuals to carry out such plots.
...
Somebody else needs to address this notion. I can't say it with our being explicitly insulting.
911 was a political and Economic statement - not a religious one.
Catch up dude.
QUOTE (Cool Hand Lube @ May 21 2008, 03:57 PM)
He's also discounting the millions of devout Muslims who DON'T FLY PLANES INTO BUILDINGS.
I'm just saying if they'd given up misogyny and superstitions nonsense we'd still have that skyline.
QUOTE (Hunter Rose @ May 21 2008, 04:00 PM)
911 was a political and Economic statement - not a religious one.
Catch up dude.
Catch up dude.
I'm not sure how that works out when the politics of the offending party involve a desire for religious rule.
QUOTE (Prime-Collector @ May 21 2008, 04:02 PM)
QUOTE (Cool Hand Lube @ May 21 2008, 03:57 PM)
He's also discounting the millions of devout Muslims who DON'T FLY PLANES INTO BUILDINGS.
I'm just saying if they'd given up misogyny and superstitions nonsense we'd still have that skyline.
You would be mistaken. If you haven't noticed, Bin Laden's reason for 9/11 was originally Americans in Saudi Arabia, but he's changed his message to be "actually we're fighting you because of the Palestinians." Ironically, it seems that you're the one seeing everything through a religious lens.
QUOTE (Hot Rod @ May 21 2008, 04:00 PM)
if people can be benevolent without religion it only stands to reason people can be fargwads without religion. It's two way street dude. They don't just hate us because of "american's religion" they hate us for our ideas on commerce and free trade.
Thats an absurd extrapolation. Yes both the faithful and the faithless can be good and can be jerks. But Osama bin Laden (a member of a wealthy family in Saudi Arabia) did not train a terrorist army to stamp out Fast Food.
Suicide bombers do not strap bombs to their chests due to their fear of the free market.
Wal-Mart doesn't inspire people to stone their neighbors to death, or gang unsolicited interaction the cousin of a boy who looked at their sister.
QUOTE (Lord Madhammer @ May 21 2008, 04:04 PM)
QUOTE (Prime-Collector @ May 21 2008, 04:02 PM)
QUOTE (Cool Hand Lube @ May 21 2008, 03:57 PM)
He's also discounting the millions of devout Muslims who DON'T FLY PLANES INTO BUILDINGS.
I'm just saying if they'd given up misogyny and superstitions nonsense we'd still have that skyline.
You would be mistaken. If you haven't noticed, Bin Laden's reason for 9/11 was originally Americans in Saudi Arabia, but he's changed his message to be "actually we're fighting you because of the Palestinians." Ironically, it seems that you're the one seeing everything through a religious lens.
I notice you skipped the second part of my post.
Bin Laden is a religious politician his message is as malleable as any of our politicians. The point is the unifying force he uses is religion. Us Vs. Them.
QUOTE (Prime-Collector @ May 21 2008, 02:11 PM)
QUOTE (Hot Rod @ May 21 2008, 04:00 PM)
if people can be benevolent without religion it only stands to reason people can be fargwads without religion. It's two way street dude. They don't just hate us because of "american's religion" they hate us for our ideas on commerce and free trade.
Thats an absurd extrapolation. Yes both the faithful and the faithless can be good and can be jerks. But Osama bin Laden (a member of a wealthy family in Saudi Arabia) did not train a terrorist army to stamp out Fast Food.
Suicide bombers do not strap bombs to their chests due to their fear of the free market.
Wal-Mart doesn't inspire people to stone their neighbors to death, or gang unsolicited interaction the cousin of a boy who looked at their sister.
Ok dude, I'm just gonna watch how this one plays out.
QUOTE (Prime-Collector @ May 21 2008, 04:11 PM)
QUOTE (Hot Rod @ May 21 2008, 04:00 PM)
if people can be benevolent without religion it only stands to reason people can be fargwads without religion. It's two way street dude. They don't just hate us because of "american's religion" they hate us for our ideas on commerce and free trade.
Thats an absurd extrapolation. Yes both the faithful and the faithless can be good and can be jerks. But Osama bin Laden (a member of a wealthy family in Saudi Arabia) did not train a terrorist army to stamp out Fast Food.
Suicide bombers do not strap bombs to their chests due to their fear of the free market.
Wal-Mart doesn't inspire people to stone their neighbors to death, or gang unsolicited interaction the cousin of a boy who looked at their sister.
I think you would be wise to avoid using the word "absurd" if you're going to make statements like this. You should know that while all of these suicide bombings and terrorist attacks are done in the name of a religion, their real purpose is political influence. They want control of Iraq. They want freedom for the Palestinians. Etc.
And it *is* profoundly insulting to all the non-violent Muslims in the world that you should tie this extremist crap ideology to the Muslim faith itself. That's the kind of thing that Joe Sixpack in his trailer does, not Mister Smart Educated Internet Atheist Guy.
QUOTE (Prime-Collector @ May 21 2008, 04:14 PM)
I notice you skipped the second part of my post.
because it wasn't there when I quoted it the first time
or maybe I'm afraid to debate with you!!11
So you're saying that there would still be Al-Qaeda and 9/11 still would have happened with out religion?
QUOTE (Prime-Collector @ May 21 2008, 04:29 PM)
So you're saying that there would still be Al-Qaeda and 9/11 still would have happened with out religion?
I'll tell you what I'm saying.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Koran says "kill people who aren't Muslims." Now, any normal person who reads that would think, "gee, I don't really want to kill anyone," and their conscience would reject that idea. You have to already be the kind of person who is willing to kill others to find any justification for your feelings in that text. And that is exactly what it would be -- a justification.
When we're talking about suicide bombers etc., we're largely talking about desperate people with no real sense of a good future for themselves (for various reasons). People become susceptible to radicalization under such circumstances. It's exactly the same phenomenon that occurs with gangs here in America.
So what I'm saying is that religion is a pretext for what's really being expressed in these terrorist actions. People want power and control (and to hurt those who they feel have hurt them), and not because the Koran told them so -- they want it because they want it.
So the would have flown planes into the WTC, to get power, even without religion?
Given Bin Laden's obsession with the WTC? If not that, then some other attack on it.
QUOTE (Prime-Collector @ May 21 2008, 01:41 PM)
So the would have flown planes into the WTC, to get power, even without religion?
I think there's some confusion between motive and method going on.
I don't think people suicide bomb without religion.
That doesn't mean that in a religion free world some extremist would not have found another way to destroy those towers without taking their own life.
QUOTE (Hobbes-timus Prime @ May 21 2008, 04:45 PM)
QUOTE (Prime-Collector @ May 21 2008, 01:41 PM)
So the would have flown planes into the WTC, to get power, even without religion?
I think there's some confusion between motive and method going on.
I don't think people suicide bomb without religion.
That doesn't mean that in a religion free world some extremist would not have found another way to destroy those towers without taking their own life.
QUOTE (Prime-Collector @ May 21 2008, 04:41 PM)
So the would have flown planes into the WTC, to get power, even without religion?
Didn't you just ask that question?
Religion provided the justification for it (i.e. they're okay killing themselves because they'll have 75 virgins apiece in heaven), but the motivation came first. And the motivation was not religious in origin.
So I daresay they would have done something similar without religion, but it might not have involved killing *themselves* in the process. Because the issues that led them to attack us in the first place were political and economic in nature.
QUOTE (Cool Hand Lube @ May 21 2008, 04:45 PM)
How's that popcorn?
I'm asking if you think they would have done it with out that justification.
If the supreme being didn't give his stamp of approval to murder,via religion, would they have done this? In your opinion.
If the supreme being didn't give his stamp of approval to murder,via religion, would they have done this? In your opinion.
QUOTE (Prime-Collector @ May 21 2008, 04:50 PM)
I'm asking if you think they would have done it with out that justification.
If the supreme being didn't give his stamp of approval to murder,via religion, would they have done this? In your opinion.
If the supreme being didn't give his stamp of approval to murder,via religion, would they have done this? In your opinion.
Absolutely. I just don't think they would have killed themselves in the process.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.