Originally posted by Eronakis I know him, but I don't know him well enough yet. So you're one of those immature atheists who feel the need to rant about Christianity because it makes your self esteem increase. I could say the exactly same thing about you, because more than likely you're an evolutionists. Darwinism, is just theory, belief, same as mine. You have faith yours is correct and I have mine.
What he doesn't quite understand is atheism is a rejection of religion, not a disproval of religion. By the devotion he shows to disprove religion, he is simply creating a branch of religious atheism that he, himself, follows.
First off, not trying to start a debate or argument just asking a question.
I don't see how one creates a religion by the rejection of religion.
Saying "I don't believe you." isn't a religion, it would be like saying "not collecting rocks is a hobby." Clearly this isn't true. It's not a belief system, it's a single position on one issue, there is no dogma, no tenants, and nothing that says an atheist will agree with another atheist on anything else other then the exsistence of god. Everything else is up for debate. If i've gone wrong somewhere, which I probably am since im in the dark about most things having to do with religion...please explain.
You were talking morals with regards to vices -- which are relatively unimportant --I was speaking about morals with regards to good and evil, the big stuff, the stuff the ten commandments are about. Drinking age is not a moral at all -- it's a law. It had nothing to do with morals. IT had everything to do with highway deaths. I was there. I read the newspapers. The debate had zippo to do with morality. It had to do with highway deaths and highway money, period. Now back to this thing you call "Christianity" and make claims about what it teaches. All Christianity teaches about sex is that it is one of our most sacred acts, since it is a true sharing between people. Therefore it ought to be treated with respect and love of the other person you are with, and love for yourself, and love for God of course. It teaches that it shouldn't be done under false pretenses, and you shouldn't cheat on your spouse. Sounds pretty good to me. Other than that there really are no universal teachings on sex. Read the song of songs sometime for a general idea on the Christian view of sex. It should rock his or her world. You are responsible to make your partner well, you know. You gotta make them want to come back for more. This is just what is written in the few places it is mentioned or hinted at. Again you seem to want to pick a particular group of Christians you dislike, decide for whatever reason that they represent TRUE Christianity, and then make the claim that what they say is what Christianity says. That's bull. Ask two Christians about sex, you'll get two different answers. You seem to have issues with the somewhat narrow minded views shared by SOME evangelicals, Catholics, and fundamentalists, which views that the vast majority of Christians would tell you they disagree with. Again you are looking at a certain segment of a very big club. Why you and others choose to do so here is beyond me. The problem with your last statement is you said "properly taught." According to your own relativistic view, nothing can be no way to properly teach people these things. You are assuming a great deal of things there that can't be assumed if their are no absolutes in morals -- if there is no logic and they are all emotional, they can't be taught at all. In fact we can't even be having the discussion we are having if what you have said is true.
A few notes to your post and then I am concluding, as I feel this conversation is coming to a close.
1. Drinking
2. Christianity and sex
3. Proper teaching
The drinking age may have come into being because of statistics, but that doesn't negate most people's views on it. And those views are akin to ethics. I was never saying it was very important, merely giving an example. If you ask many people if it is wrong or right to drink under the age of 21 in the US, you will get varied views, because people have different beliefs in it. These beliefs constitute a small portion of their morals. That is all
I admit, I should have been more clear in my earlier post, as I mispresented the idea that I meant all of Christianity. I recognize that the religion has many different sects and beyond that, many different beliefs involved in terms of morals and views, which is why I should have specified that it is the Catholic church that has its views of sex that I dislike. You restated a few of those, and while you and any one like you are entitled to believe that about sex, as long as you do no infringe on others' rights to do with sex as they please, there are no problems I see. The thing is, many people do infringe, or try to.
As for true Christianity, can you really say you know what that is? Other than the belief in God and Jesus as the savior, I don't think any Christian can lay claim to the very essence of the religion, nor should they. But, again, no real big deal.
Finally, I should have been more clear on proper teaching, as I was not referring to morals, but the ability to adapt in this world. Another way to put it would be to teach someone all the practical aspects of how to live, rather than the opinion-based ideas. You are right, morals can not be taught. They merely can be an influence that someone takes upon themselves. I remember the other day a girl telling me she was against abortion because of pictures she saw. Some part of her revolted at the pics, and hence led her to have a stance.
At any rate, this conversation for my part is over. I was never arguing to change you, if you thought that, I guess you can think otherwise. I argue on here merely for the point of practice. Discussions of these kinds are always a good way of keeping the brain in good working order, and I can see you are a reasonable person to argue with. I do hope you realize that although I do not have concrete views on morals, I still live in a way that promotes the happiness of others, and always try to help people when I can. As an agnostic, I do not do this for some greater good, but mainly because helping makes me feel good, something that was programmed into me from an early age, and one of the few parts of myself I kept when I reworked my entire personality, as I saw it as a benefit to living.
Could it be an instinct? A higher purpose? Something else? I don't worry about these things, I just do, and live.
I also hope you got a bit out of this as well, and I look forward to other discussions of things with you on this forum, as I am rather enjoying this forum quite a bit. There are some neat people here! Have a good day, and you can feel free to respond to this post if you want, but my involvement with this thread is over!
In that I am a firm believer that God has given each of us a unique measure of Truth to share with others, I come here to hear what people have to say. When I disagree, I test those disagree with, and always look forward to being changed.
That bears quite a alot of truth as far as I am concerned. If we each didn't have some sort of unique truth in us then why would God even be allowing us to exist right now? If we don't then this is all just an entertainment and a playhouse , which is perfectly fine but still doesn't quite add up in making entire sense of this earth. Like why would he only create the one planet and smush everyone together on it and have the rest of a truely massive universe empty? What would really be stopping God from creating other planets with life that is more blissfull / unique to ours? That's not to say they don't exist but if this is a drama and God created differences out of boredom I don't see how one earth can entertain him for hundreds of thousand sof years.
It's just beginning. I think everyone is trying to keep it civil in here and discuss and learn things from each other , that was really the purpose of my thread was to invoke enlightening discussions , although it may not have appeared that way from the beggining of the thread ^__^
religion is created by human, human are flawed so the religions are flawed as well.
I agree, also...
Science is created by humans, humans are flawed and so their science is flawed as well.
The difference is that science does 'by definition', evolve, improving at each step; religions are typically rooted in tradition and doctrine and therefore find it much harder to do so, and when they do many of them are simply undermining their primary claims of being the word of god. With each evolution they move away from that word, or at least focus on an aspect of that word and place greater importance upon it as it suits the socio-political climate of the day (and the position of its 'creators').
Why cant we just have a list of "nice goals" and "possible explainations for things that we dont (or cant) know", lists and explainations can be modified and dont need to hold us back or start arguements about the validity of conflicting views. I dont mind arguements, its just that religion has a tendancy to result in arguements that people feel so strongly about (and typically cant prove to one another) that blood is spilt. Sure I've had many a heated debate about conflicting scientific theories, but I'm not aware of any wars having broken out over it, we tend to simply accept that time will tell. Most religious arguements cannot be resolved by proof they are articles of faith, and from faith comes zealotry (no not always, but often enough to be an issue).
religion is created by human, human are flawed so the religions are flawed as well.
I agree, also...
Science is created by humans, humans are flawed and so their science is flawed as well.
The difference is that science does 'by definition', evolve, improving at each step; religions are typically rooted in tradition and doctrine and therefore find it much harder to do so, and when they do many of them are simply undermining their primary claims of being the word of god. With each evolution they move away from that word, or at least focus on an aspect of that word and place greater importance upon it as it suits the socio-political climate of the day (and the position of its 'creators').
Why cant we just have a list of "nice goals" and "possible explainations for things that we dont (or cant) know", lists and explainations can be modified and dont need to hold us back or start arguements about the validity of conflicting views. I dont mind arguements, its just that religion has a tendancy to result in arguements that people feel so strongly about (and typically cant prove to one another) that blood is spilt. Sure I've had many a heated debate about conflicting scientific theories, but I'm not aware of any wars having broken out over it, we tend to simply accept that time will tell. Most religious arguements cannot be resolved by proof they are articles of faith, and from faith comes zealotry (no not always, but often enough to be an issue).
I think religion should be allowed to evolve with us and not be rooted in the past but alas people are against change and always have been. No one can die for us nor can anyone eat for us , although there is certain things that go beyond that rule , I mean we didn't give birth to ourselves and we didn't choose our births and I also strongly believe that if your spiritual enough and get to that point of sensitivity you process other peoples energy which results in many different things but I still think that the belief that Christ died for us and that his death has allowed every man into heaven if he wants to seems like such a fantasy to me lol.
religion is created by human, human are flawed so the religions are flawed as well.
I agree, also...
Science is created by humans, humans are flawed and so their science is flawed as well.
The difference is that science does 'by definition', evolve, improving at each step; religions are typically rooted in tradition and doctrine and therefore find it much harder to do so, and when they do many of them are simply undermining their primary claims of being the word of god. With each evolution they move away from that word, or at least focus on an aspect of that word and place greater importance upon it as it suits the socio-political climate of the day (and the position of its 'creators').
Why cant we just have a list of "nice goals" and "possible explainations for things that we dont (or cant) know", lists and explainations can be modified and dont need to hold us back or start arguements about the validity of conflicting views. I dont mind arguements, its just that religion has a tendancy to result in arguements that people feel so strongly about (and typically cant prove to one another) that blood is spilt. Sure I've had many a heated debate about conflicting scientific theories, but I'm not aware of any wars having broken out over it, we tend to simply accept that time will tell. Most religious arguements cannot be resolved by proof they are articles of faith, and from faith comes zealotry (no not always, but often enough to be an issue).
Like said above, at least science evolves with us and allows change. The main religions of the world that I have researched thus far lead back to "Stories" and "Myths", so I would rather believe in something with logical explanations than something that makes you rely on things that can not be physically sensed.
Comments
What he doesn't quite understand is atheism is a rejection of religion, not a disproval of religion. By the devotion he shows to disprove religion, he is simply creating a branch of religious atheism that he, himself, follows.
First off, not trying to start a debate or argument just asking a question.
I don't see how one creates a religion by the rejection of religion.
Saying "I don't believe you." isn't a religion, it would be like saying "not collecting rocks is a hobby." Clearly this isn't true. It's not a belief system, it's a single position on one issue, there is no dogma, no tenants, and nothing that says an atheist will agree with another atheist on anything else other then the exsistence of god. Everything else is up for debate. If i've gone wrong somewhere, which I probably am since im in the dark about most things having to do with religion...please explain.
On Time? On Target? Never Quit?
A few notes to your post and then I am concluding, as I feel this conversation is coming to a close.
1. Drinking
2. Christianity and sex
3. Proper teaching
The drinking age may have come into being because of statistics, but that doesn't negate most people's views on it. And those views are akin to ethics. I was never saying it was very important, merely giving an example. If you ask many people if it is wrong or right to drink under the age of 21 in the US, you will get varied views, because people have different beliefs in it. These beliefs constitute a small portion of their morals. That is all
I admit, I should have been more clear in my earlier post, as I mispresented the idea that I meant all of Christianity. I recognize that the religion has many different sects and beyond that, many different beliefs involved in terms of morals and views, which is why I should have specified that it is the Catholic church that has its views of sex that I dislike. You restated a few of those, and while you and any one like you are entitled to believe that about sex, as long as you do no infringe on others' rights to do with sex as they please, there are no problems I see. The thing is, many people do infringe, or try to.
As for true Christianity, can you really say you know what that is? Other than the belief in God and Jesus as the savior, I don't think any Christian can lay claim to the very essence of the religion, nor should they. But, again, no real big deal.
Finally, I should have been more clear on proper teaching, as I was not referring to morals, but the ability to adapt in this world. Another way to put it would be to teach someone all the practical aspects of how to live, rather than the opinion-based ideas. You are right, morals can not be taught. They merely can be an influence that someone takes upon themselves. I remember the other day a girl telling me she was against abortion because of pictures she saw. Some part of her revolted at the pics, and hence led her to have a stance.
At any rate, this conversation for my part is over. I was never arguing to change you, if you thought that, I guess you can think otherwise. I argue on here merely for the point of practice. Discussions of these kinds are always a good way of keeping the brain in good working order, and I can see you are a reasonable person to argue with. I do hope you realize that although I do not have concrete views on morals, I still live in a way that promotes the happiness of others, and always try to help people when I can. As an agnostic, I do not do this for some greater good, but mainly because helping makes me feel good, something that was programmed into me from an early age, and one of the few parts of myself I kept when I reworked my entire personality, as I saw it as a benefit to living.
Could it be an instinct? A higher purpose? Something else? I don't worry about these things, I just do, and live.
I also hope you got a bit out of this as well, and I look forward to other discussions of things with you on this forum, as I am rather enjoying this forum quite a bit. There are some neat people here! Have a good day, and you can feel free to respond to this post if you want, but my involvement with this thread is over!
In that I am a firm believer that God has given each of us a unique measure of Truth to share with others, I come here to hear what people have to say. When I disagree, I test those disagree with, and always look forward to being changed.
That bears quite a alot of truth as far as I am concerned. If we each didn't have some sort of unique truth in us then why would God even be allowing us to exist right now? If we don't then this is all just an entertainment and a playhouse , which is perfectly fine but still doesn't quite add up in making entire sense of this earth. Like why would he only create the one planet and smush everyone together on it and have the rest of a truely massive universe empty? What would really be stopping God from creating other planets with life that is more blissfull / unique to ours? That's not to say they don't exist but if this is a drama and God created differences out of boredom I don't see how one earth can entertain him for hundreds of thousand sof years.
all things on this earth are flawed. due to this point, we always demand
Oh my gosh, this has gone far enough people.
It's just beginning. I think everyone is trying to keep it civil in here and discuss and learn things from each other , that was really the purpose of my thread was to invoke enlightening discussions , although it may not have appeared that way from the beggining of the thread ^__^
religion is created by human, human are flawed so the religions are flawed as well.
I agree, also...
Science is created by humans, humans are flawed and so their science is flawed as well.
The difference is that science does 'by definition', evolve, improving at each step; religions are typically rooted in tradition and doctrine and therefore find it much harder to do so, and when they do many of them are simply undermining their primary claims of being the word of god. With each evolution they move away from that word, or at least focus on an aspect of that word and place greater importance upon it as it suits the socio-political climate of the day (and the position of its 'creators').
Why cant we just have a list of "nice goals" and "possible explainations for things that we dont (or cant) know", lists and explainations can be modified and dont need to hold us back or start arguements about the validity of conflicting views. I dont mind arguements, its just that religion has a tendancy to result in arguements that people feel so strongly about (and typically cant prove to one another) that blood is spilt. Sure I've had many a heated debate about conflicting scientific theories, but I'm not aware of any wars having broken out over it, we tend to simply accept that time will tell. Most religious arguements cannot be resolved by proof they are articles of faith, and from faith comes zealotry (no not always, but often enough to be an issue).
I agree, also...
Science is created by humans, humans are flawed and so their science is flawed as well.
The difference is that science does 'by definition', evolve, improving at each step; religions are typically rooted in tradition and doctrine and therefore find it much harder to do so, and when they do many of them are simply undermining their primary claims of being the word of god. With each evolution they move away from that word, or at least focus on an aspect of that word and place greater importance upon it as it suits the socio-political climate of the day (and the position of its 'creators').
Why cant we just have a list of "nice goals" and "possible explainations for things that we dont (or cant) know", lists and explainations can be modified and dont need to hold us back or start arguements about the validity of conflicting views. I dont mind arguements, its just that religion has a tendancy to result in arguements that people feel so strongly about (and typically cant prove to one another) that blood is spilt. Sure I've had many a heated debate about conflicting scientific theories, but I'm not aware of any wars having broken out over it, we tend to simply accept that time will tell. Most religious arguements cannot be resolved by proof they are articles of faith, and from faith comes zealotry (no not always, but often enough to be an issue).
I think religion should be allowed to evolve with us and not be rooted in the past but alas people are against change and always have been. No one can die for us nor can anyone eat for us , although there is certain things that go beyond that rule , I mean we didn't give birth to ourselves and we didn't choose our births and I also strongly believe that if your spiritual enough and get to that point of sensitivity you process other peoples energy which results in many different things but I still think that the belief that Christ died for us and that his death has allowed every man into heaven if he wants to seems like such a fantasy to me lol.
I agree, also...
Science is created by humans, humans are flawed and so their science is flawed as well.
The difference is that science does 'by definition', evolve, improving at each step; religions are typically rooted in tradition and doctrine and therefore find it much harder to do so, and when they do many of them are simply undermining their primary claims of being the word of god. With each evolution they move away from that word, or at least focus on an aspect of that word and place greater importance upon it as it suits the socio-political climate of the day (and the position of its 'creators').
Why cant we just have a list of "nice goals" and "possible explainations for things that we dont (or cant) know", lists and explainations can be modified and dont need to hold us back or start arguements about the validity of conflicting views. I dont mind arguements, its just that religion has a tendancy to result in arguements that people feel so strongly about (and typically cant prove to one another) that blood is spilt. Sure I've had many a heated debate about conflicting scientific theories, but I'm not aware of any wars having broken out over it, we tend to simply accept that time will tell. Most religious arguements cannot be resolved by proof they are articles of faith, and from faith comes zealotry (no not always, but often enough to be an issue).
Like said above, at least science evolves with us and allows change. The main religions of the world that I have researched thus far lead back to "Stories" and "Myths", so I would rather believe in something with logical explanations than something that makes you rely on things that can not be physically sensed.