A question to those who advocate for the elimination of religion

[Jam Stunna]

^Wow, that's quite a stretch you're making there, comparing a non-religious person to a leech. I'm non-religious, yet I've helped you with your writing. In your opinion, what motivates me to assist you?

Let's look at this from a non-moral standpoint. Take waiting in line. This is something we all learn in school while we're children: you wait your turn in line, no cutting or line-jumping, etc. There is no basis in religion whatsoever for this type of behavior, and there is no threat of eternal ****ation for cutting, yet it is taught to us and we adhere to it (for the most part) for the rest of our lives.

Now imagine a world where people weren't taught to wait patiently in line. Society would literally cease to function. Fights would break out at McDonald's, nothing could ever get done at a doctor's office, accidents would occur at gas stations. Basically, it would be utter chaos if there was ever a service that you required that could not be delivered instantaneously.

What I'm getting at is that there is a practical purpose for teaching line behavior that exists outside of the confines of religion. The same is true for morality. There are practical considerations for why we shouldn't steal from each other, or lie to each other, or kill each other. Society would cease to function if we didn't respect these rules, regardless of whether or not there's a God.

 

[Aesir]

I agree with the original post completely! There is no real reason for an Atheist to be a good person at all! Which is why it's so contradicting when they talk about having ethics. Really, if you have the ethics, why not seal the deal and come to church? I've always thought that "moral" ought to clash with "atheist", and that's exactly why I'm Christian. By becoming a leech, you encourage others to do the same (kinda like communism). Eventually, no one has the will to be a non-leech anymore, so I guess a world without religion leads to total anarchy, death, and chaos where crime and starvation run rampant. And then when you die, nothing happens. Golly that would suck.

I conduct my self in a way that's positive for society, no one wants to live in a world where there is no order this is why society has existed it offers us stability as opposed to the other option. Sure I have no incentive to conduct myself in that way, I can be a real ******* if I wanted to. But I think I get more favorable results when I'm more willing to do the right thing, Rather than whats best for me at the time.

And did you just compare Atheism to Communism? Wow.

I also would like to see where you get the idea a religious less society leads to all those things you mentioned. I don't advocate for the Elimination of religion like so many new atheist like Dawkins, Harris, and Hitches do for reasons I won't get into right now.

However the idea that Religion means I'm moral is completely false. It doesn't matter where your roots lie, good people come out of all walks of life. All religion is, is our first attempts at dealing with morality, can it still work today? sure but it no longer holds a monopoly on the morality business.

 

[Amide]

I agree with the original post completely! There is no real reason for an Atheist to be a good person at all! Which is why it's so contradicting when they talk about having ethics. Really, if you have the ethics, why not seal the deal and come to church? I've always thought that "moral" ought to clash with "atheist", and that's exactly why I'm Christian. By becoming a leech, you encourage others to do the same (kinda like communism). .

Dude, the OP didn't say that's what he meant. He just asked atheists why they have ethics. And do your research. Atheists have lower crime rates, and atheist filled countries are among the most peaceful. RDK posted a lot of these statistics in the fallacies thread, I'll get them if you want.

And then when you die, nothing happens. Golly that would suck.

Well then you need to get used to things sucking. You can't ignore logic because it "would suck."



Finally, since when do good people need to believe in fairy tales?

 

[BFDD]

The idea of heaven and hell don't actually make much logical sense. You really can't claim that believing in an afterlife makes you a better person. In fact it makes you less of a moral person because by claiming you need a physical punishment or reward to be a good person you are saying that you don't actually agree with the morals of your religion you just want the prize for following.

Now lets take a look at heaven and hell from a logical perspective:

1. It interferes with free will. Basically god is using duress. God is saying sure you can do whatever you want but if you don't listen to me you are screwed for all eternity. In U.S. law if someone threatens to kill your family if you don't rob a bank you can legally rob that bank. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress

2. If someone enjoys doing immoral things, but they don't do it so they can get into heaven. What happens when they get there? For instance if a guy really enjoys ****** women. Does he get to **** women in heaven? Or god could change him so that he no longer enjoys ****, which would again remove free will.

3. An eternity in hell is to great a punishment for anyone. Even looking at Hitler if he is given 200 years for every person that was killed in the holocaust (between 9 and 11 million) that ends up to be 2200 years, no where close to eternity. God is being completely unreasonable about this punishment. It is to much for Hitler and yet good people will be given the same thing for not believing in god.

4. God is supposed to be perfect, so we should follow his example if we also wish to be perfect. This means it is perfectly acceptable to torture people. God sends people to be tortured for all eternity, so if we wish to be perfect we should also torture people.

5. People can be happy or sad in any situation. There have been people who have everything, a great life, be miserable and sometimes kill themselves. There are also people who remain happy even in the worst situations. There are people that would be miserable in heaven and happy in hell.

True heaven and hell lies within you. Your feeling towards yourself. If I do something good I feel good about myself. If I do something bad then I feel like crap. This is what heaven and hell really is. You claim to be morally superior because of your religion but in reality atheists are morally superior. Atheists can decide on their own set of morals, morals that are often similar to those that require a book to get them. They also don't act expecting to get some sort of prize at the end of their life.

 

[marthanoob]

Devil's advocate time. This should make things interesting.

The idea of heaven and hell don't actually make much logical sense. You really can't claim that believing in an afterlife makes you a better person. In fact it makes you less of a moral person because by claiming you need a physical punishment or reward to be a good person you are saying that you don't actually agree with the morals of your religion you just want the prize for following.

I agree with your first claim, but the certainly does not apply to all theists.

I haven't thought free will over yet.
It begins with the close relationship of God's goodness, good-evil, and free will.
God creates free will. Good and evil have to exist for free will to be applicable to the concept of a judgmental God.
Did God create evil? How can the perfect good (accepted definition) create evil?
Good and evil cannot have existed before God, because (according to accepted definition) nothing can supersede God.
If some things can supersede God, why doesn't he remove the unfavorable things?
Would he really be removing free will if he did remove unfavorable things? Why were we given humanly limits (a clear disruption of free will)?
As you can see, free will is a much broader concept than you are using it for.
The aforementioned questions should be answered before the topic of free will pertaining to Heaven or Hell comes up.

2. If someone enjoys doing immoral things, but they don't do it so they can get into heaven. What happens when they get there? For instance if a guy really enjoys ****** women. Does he get to **** women in heaven? Or god could change him so that he no longer enjoys ****, which would again remove free will.

This is hardly relevant. I assume the counter is that God, knowing the future, will send him to Hell so that action does not take place and because He knows his true intentions.

3. An eternity in hell is to great a punishment for anyone. Even looking at Hitler if he is given 200 years for every person that was killed in the holocaust (between 9 and 11 million) that ends up to be 2200 years, no where close to eternity. God is being completely unreasonable about this punishment. It is to much for Hitler and yet good people will be given the same thing for not believing in god.

This is open to interpretation. Some believe in different degrees of punishment in Hell, such as Limbo.

4. God is supposed to be perfect, so we should follow his example if we also wish to be perfect. This means it is perfectly acceptable to torture people. God sends people to be tortured for all eternity, so if we wish to be perfect we should also torture people.

God is all-powerful. We cannot claim ourselves to be equal or emulate God. For example, He decides your judgment. We, being equal to other human beings, cannot ultimately judge them. We only do temporarily (in court) so as to maintain a fundamental order.
We can only obey what He tells us to do.

5. People can be happy or sad in any situation. There have been people who have everything, a great life, be miserable and sometimes kill themselves. There are also people who remain happy even in the worst situations. There are people that would be miserable in heaven and happy in hell.

I cannot think of a reason that a person who is going to Heaven would be miserable in it.
God is the ultimate joy.

True heaven and hell lies within you. Your feeling towards yourself. If I do something good I feel good about myself. If I do something bad then I feel like crap. This is what heaven and hell really is.

Your statements apply to the material world.

You claim to be morally superior because of your religion but in reality atheists are morally superior. Atheists can decide on their own set of morals, morals that are often similar to those that require a book to get them. They also don't act expecting to get some sort of prize at the end of their life.

Atheists are morally superior? lolwut?
(TIP: If you are arguing the atheist point, you would want to avoid the subjective reasoning that you are arguing against.)
We act only out of faith in God. You may consider this a prize. We consider it an arduous journey towards salvation.
One of the reasons you obey your parents is to stay in their house, is it not?

 

[RDK]

Atheists can be way more moral than theists can ever be, especially in the case of Christians. We don't do things because a deity tells us to or else--we do things because we believe it's the right thing to do.. Atheists don't have to be threatened with fire and brimstone to act morally.

I assume the end result of getting into heaven plays a large part in why people are Christians. Isn't that selfish? Do you really need to be sure of a "reward" in order to act morally superior?

Hypothetically, let's say that that's not the case--God decides to throw everyone in Hell no matter how you act. Would you really still follow him? Probably not, because then he wouldn't be righteous and just.

But what you Christians don't get is that on some level you're making a value judgment about God's righteousness. Somehow you tote how he's such a great God who's full of grace and compassion, yet you fail to see the horrendous atrocities he "allows" to happen every single day. Where do you draw the line? What constitutes "righteous"? Is it righteous simply because he said so? How are God's morals objective when he speaks out against murdering but then allows entire kingdoms to be slaughtered by the Israelites, including women and children, just so that the dirty heathens don't potentially taint them?

Suddenly, when the benefit to you is lost in the picture, there's no reason to follow him "Because then he wouldn't be a just God!11!!" Uh, by universal standards your view of him is not a view of a just God either. If anything, he seems like a pretentious **** who does things for his own pleasure, just because he can.

Christianity is silly.

 

[marthanoob]

But what you Christians don't get is that on some level you're making a value judgment about God's righteousness. Somehow you tote how he's such a great God who's full of grace and compassion, yet you fail to see the horrendous atrocities he "allows" to happen every single day. Where do you draw the line? What constitutes "righteous"? Is it righteous simply because he said so? How are God's morals objective when he speaks out against murdering but then allows entire kingdoms to be slaughtered by the Israelites, including women and children, just so that the dirty heathens don't potentially taint them?

Suddenly, when the benefit to you is lost in the picture, there's no reason to follow him "Because then he wouldn't be a just God!11!!" Uh, by universal standards your view of him is not a view of a just God either. If anything, he seems like a pretentious **** who does things for his own pleasure, just because he can.

Christianity is silly.

Humans were at some point doomed to suffer. With faith, we can obtain freedom from earthly suffering.
God orders people not to murder. He will punish people for murdering. He never said He would stop the murders. It is our duty as human beings to not murder and to spread the word of God to those murderers.
I am sorrowful that you perceive Christianity in such a way.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

^Wow, that's quite a stretch you're making there, comparing a non-religious person to a leech. I'm non-religious, yet I've helped you with your writing. In your opinion, what motivates me to assist you?

Dude, the OP didn't say that's what he meant. He just asked atheists why they have ethics. And do your research. Atheists have lower crime rates, and atheist filled countries are among the most peaceful. RDK posted a lot of these statistics in the fallacies thread, I'll get them if you want.

Apparently I allowed myself to be royally misunderstood. You guys took me waaaay to personally. I know what the OP meant, apparently my sarcasm wasn't sharp enough.
I wish to make this very clear. I did not say: Atheists have no real morals and are leeches on society.
I did say: Following the logic of Atheism, one has no real reason to be moral. I said that people devoid of morals are leeches. I said that if you become a leech, you will encourage others to do the same. Eventually everyone will be a leech because honest work will just get robbed blind anyway. (And yes that is similar to why communism fails.)

Jam I don't think you're a leech. I said if you wanted to be one, there'd be no reason why you shouldn't.

The idea of heaven and hell don't actually make much logical sense. You really can't claim that believing in an afterlife makes you a better person. In fact it makes you less of a moral person because by claiming you need a physical punishment or reward to be a good person you are saying that you don't actually agree with the morals of your religion you just want the prize for following.

Please don't tell me whether or not I need punishment for my immoral actions. Because if you were me, then I'd be you, and if I were you I'd bang myself on the head for thinking that I know what's in other people's heads. I don't give to charity thinking about my place in heaven.

Atheists can be way more moral than theists can ever be, especially in the case of Christians. We don't do things because a deity tells us to or else--we do things because we believe it's the right thing to do.. Atheists don't have to be threatened with fire and brimstone to act morally.

SO!?? I don't care. What's the point of being a moral Atheist may I ask? If you find a wallet with 400$ in it on the ground, why not keep it? No one will ever know.

I also would like to see where you get the idea a religious less society leads to all those things you mentioned.

If we lived in a world were the only consequence of immoral actions is the law, which is fallible, deceive-able, and bribe-able, there is no real reason for anyone to respect the work, property, and life of others. Eventually, people would realize that it's sometimes easier to cheat. People catch on and cheat because they know that their honest work can be stolen away or outdone by cheating. It becomes harder and harder for the honest person to succeed. And so the honest person would die off because it can't compete with said parasites. But then since there is no more production, the leeches all die off as well. Which sounds a bit like this:

So. I ask all who apply: why be "good" when there's so many naive, forgiving suckers? Aside from laws that attempt to protect society (which are easily avoided), what's stopping you from living the perfectly lived "unjust" life?

Obviously many Atheists do have morals, which is illogical and inconsistent with their stance.

If you asked me I'd tell you that your good morals are inspired in you by God whether or not you're Christian and whether or not you know it.

 

[RDK]

Obviously many Atheists do have morals, which is illogical and inconsistent with their stance.

What?

Why do we need to have some sort of god figure to act morally? You still haven't established why atheists are required to be selfish cheats to get ahead in life. What if that's not their goal? What if that's not what makes someone happy? What if doing charitable things simply makes someone happy? Shouldn't that then become the aim of one's actions?

Having no god =/= no morals. The only difference is I establish what my morals are, not an imaginary friend.

You're making bull**** points and you know it.

 

[arrowhead]

I don't give to charity thinking about my place in heaven.

SO!?? I don't care. What's the point of being a moral Atheist may I ask? If you find a wallet with 400$ in it on the ground, why not keep it? No one will ever know.

the first statement is false is you actually believe in your second statement. if you can't see that people will do "good" things because they think it's "right", then you obviously DO think about your place in heaven when giving to charity.

Obviously many Atheists do have morals, which is illogical and inconsistent with their stance.

morality has nothing to do with deity

If you asked me I'd tell you that your good morals are inspired in you by God whether or not you're Christian and whether or not you know it.

i doubt my good morals were inspired by a jealous d!ck

 

[BFDD]

Please don't tell me whether or not I need punishment for my immoral actions. Because if you were me, then I'd be you, and if I were you I'd bang myself on the head for thinking that I know what's in other people's heads. I don't give to charity thinking about my place in heaven.

Right after telling me I'm wrong you showed me further evidence that I was correct.

What's the point of being a moral Atheist may I ask? If you find a wallet with 400$ in it on the ground, why not keep it? No one will ever know.

See that bold part, you are suggesting that if no one ever notices its ok to do bad things. In other words you would do bad things if you aren't punished for it.

My conclusion about your thoughts was very legitimate based on what I have seen from your posts. If I have misunderstood then please correct me. If you don't care about heaven and hell then what is your reason for being good?

Quote:
3. An eternity in hell is to great a punishment for anyone. Even looking at Hitler if he is given 200 years for every person that was killed in the holocaust (between 9 and 11 million) that ends up to be 2200 years, no where close to eternity. God is being completely unreasonable about this punishment. It is to much for Hitler and yet good people will be given the same thing for not believing in god.

This is open to interpretation. Some believe in different degrees of punishment in Hell, such as Limbo.

The main point was that an eternity in hell is to great a punishment for anyone no matter what they have done. Unless some believe that people can leave hell after they serve their time, then my bad.

This is hardly relevant. I assume the counter is that God, knowing the future, will send him to Hell so that action does not take place and because He knows his true intentions.

Then why be good in the first place if you are just going to wind up in hell anyways.

God is all-powerful. We cannot claim ourselves to be equal or emulate God. For example, He decides your judgment. We, being equal to other human beings, cannot ultimately judge them. We only do temporarily (in court) so as to maintain a fundamental order.
We can only obey what He tells us to do.

Oops, I forget that we aren't allowed to use our god given logic and reason. Because the logical thing to do would be as close to perfection as possible.

I cannot think of a reason that a person who is going to Heaven would be miserable in it.
God is the ultimate joy.

What about emo kids?

Atheists are morally superior? lolwut?

I suppose morally advanced might have been better than morally superior. It really means the same thing, but superior can come off as arrogant. But my logic is still sound. A student who does his homework for the sake of learning is a better student than one that requires a parent to stand over them and hand them candy upon completion. The student that does his own work and figures out the answers on his own is a better student than the one that has to copy out of the book.

Atheists follow many of the same basic morals as the religious. No killing, no stealing, etc. But atheists come up with it on there own and follow them without fear of punishment.

 

[manhunter098]

LordoftheMorning, there is a very good reason to not be a leech. Working with people to accomplish a goal is more satisfying to most people than just taking what they want to obtain their goals. When we work together we are more effective, we are not so different from other social animals like wolves for instance, there is no real reason for a wolf to attack another wolf that will not attack it, and if they want the best chances of survival than they will work together to be more effective at catching prey.

 

[Ryusuta]

I like how I very specifically explained the most logical atheistic reason for morality in the very first page, and people still aren't following it, though it's been repeated several times by several different people. Way to go, dudes.

 

[Aesir]

Apparently I allowed myself to be royally misunderstood. You guys took me waaaay to personally. I know what the OP meant, apparently my sarcasm wasn't sharp enough.
I wish to make this very clear. I did not say: Atheists have no real morals and are leeches on society.
I did say: Following the logic of Atheism, one has no real reason to be moral. I said that people devoid of morals are leeches. I said that if you become a leech, you will encourage others to do the same. Eventually everyone will be a leech because honest work will just get robbed blind anyway. (And yes that is similar to why communism fails.)

Gee I wish I could insult people in the DH and claim it to be sarcasm.

First off exactly what evidence do you have that morality requires the incentive of god or everlasting ****ation?

Now second, communism fails because it fails to take into account that people like to own things. It makes the assumption that people generally want to help people so it created a system where everyone helps each other. Communism fails to understand human nature, that is why it fails.

Not because it "lacked" morals, economic systems are morally neutral.

SO!?? I don't care. What's the point of being a moral Atheist may I ask? If you find a wallet with 400$ in it on the ground, why not keep it? No one will ever know.

To be a decent person? to conduct yourself in a way that benefits society?

If we lived in a world were the only consequence of immoral actions is the law, which is fallible, deceive-able, and bribe-able, there is no real reason for anyone to respect the work, property, and life of others. Eventually, people would realize that it's sometimes easier to cheat. People catch on and cheat because they know that their honest work can be stolen away or outdone by cheating. It becomes harder and harder for the honest person to succeed. And so the honest person would die off because it can't compete with said parasites. But then since there is no more production, the leeches all die off as well. Which sounds a bit like this:

Tell that to Nixon..oh wait.

You seem to think that this is inevitable, I would challenge that only a minority would act this way. There are some people who can't be bought, deceived or persuaded. To say that everyone would quickly follow suit makes very little sense.

Obviously many Atheists do have morals, which is illogical and inconsistent with their stance.

Incorrect, Atheism =/= Anti-theism. Seems like your argument is more a less pointed at the anti-theists rather than the atheists.

If you asked me I'd tell you that your good morals are inspired in you by God whether or not you're Christian and whether or not you know it.

You may be right, but the fact that so many atheists conduct themselves in that way without the need of god shows you don't need god to be moral.

 

[Dash_Fox]

Religion usually leads to bigotry, ignorance, and elitism.

Almost every major religion seems to hate gays. That's all 3 of my claims right there.

Ignorance: They think it's a choice to be gay. Science points the other direction (that it's natural)
Bigotry: They slander and de-humanize gays. (banning gay marriage for one)
Elitism: They think being straight is better than gay and preach that gays should turn straight to be better. (ex-gay organizations)

That's just one ****ing thing from that big *** book of ****ty fairy tales called the bible.

If you nit-pick the bible for your morals, then that isn't religion that's philosophy and there is a huge difference. You can nit-pick many books like that and take out morals that you like. If you're really "Religious" and you worship the bible, then you would gladly and willingly sell your daughter for prostitution to make money or stone a child to death for being misbehaved. (Not that prostitution is bad, but the daughter isn't making the choice here since it would be forced on her).

If you do what's "right" to you in fear of a bad afterlife (Probably bull****, but I hope there is an afterlife), then why does that make you better than the man who does the "right" thing because of his own free will?

Also, when did someone kill over atheism? I can recall thousands of times people where slaughtered in the name of "god".

 

[Deleted member]

So apparently Dash_Fox was molested by a priest as a kid.

I'm not going to get into what is and what isn't religion or philosophy, because that doesn't matter. Both the priests and Platos potentially fear God. By the way, no one said the man who fears God is better than the man who doesn't. Additionally, I'd like you to explain why recalling sacrifices is relevant to this debate.

 

[Ryusuta]

So apparently Dash_Fox was molested by a priest as a kid.

TOTALLY unnecessary, man. Dash made some extremely good points, that naturally, you didn't address at all.

 

[Deleted member]

Maybe it was unnecessary, but I've never seen someone (Dash_Fox) write such inflammatory posts towards religion. I read his posts and they just seem positively livid. I don't understand the hatred. Maybe it's just me.

Are you suggesting it's rare for me to respond to legitimate points? 'Cause Dash's post was largely unimportant, and I explained why.

 

[Amide]

I liked that post Dash Fox. It explains things very well.

@LordoftheMorning

Yeah, I know you used sarcasm. It'd be silly to use exclamation points otherwise. First off sarcasm on the internet, while I use it sometimes, is usually dumb. Especially in the Debate Hall, with sarcasm a theme of an entire post.

(Disregard this^ part of this post please)

At the question, "What's the point of being a moral atheist?" well, you'd get more friends that way, which would lead to more happiness. Having good morals can boost your self esteem. And many people want to treat others like they'd want to be treated, these people would feel guilty if they didn't. But it doesn't really matter does it? Because atheists have been proven ethical.

 

[Dash_Fox]

Maybe it was unnecessary, but I've never seen someone (Dash_Fox) write such inflammatory posts towards religion. I read his posts and they just seem positively livid. I don't understand the hatred. Maybe it's just me.

Are you suggesting it's rare for me to respond to legitimate points? 'Cause Dash's post was largely unimportant, and I explained why.

BORING, you can do better than that come on. That's not a debate, I made valid points and you just shrug them off like they're nothing. Your posts are largely unimportant because they lack substance and you try to ridicule me with a cruel joke (which isn't true). Killing in religion is relevant, in fact that's one reason why it's so dangerous. So you're just going to shrug off things like suicide bombers? Holy warriors? Crusades? They come up in a religious discussion because they're completely relevant to religion (I.E. this discussion).

Bye. :/

 

[LordoftheMorning]

@TLink

At the question, "What's the point of being a moral atheist?" well, you'd get more friends that way, which would lead to more happiness. Having good morals can boost your self esteem. And many people want to treat others like they'd want to be treated, these people would feel guilty if they didn't. But it doesn't really matter does it? Because atheists have been proven ethical.

That doesn't explain why you wouldn't take a wallet with 400$ in it that you found on the ground. Would you return it? If so, why? You have absolutely nothing to gain from that. Why would you be moral when no one's watching?

@ Dash_Fox

Religion usually leads to bigotry, ignorance, and elitism.

O rly? I know plenty of Atheist elitist bigots. What makes them behave that way? Obviously it's not their belief in God. This is such a terribly wrong blanket statement, and you are suggesting the YOU are the three those three things by making it.

Almost every major religion seems to hate gays. That's all 3 of my claims right there.

Ignorance: They think it's a choice to be gay. Science points the other direction (that it's natural)

And you display your ignorance and bias... I am well aware that homosexuality in males is a psychological condition. But the things is... it's a disorder. It can't be hereditary, because a homosexual gene isn't likely to get passed on is it? A disorder is the only biological explanation. Thank you for realizing this. I was under the impression that it was the Atheists didn't think it was biological. I'm glad this is not so.

Bigotry: They slander and de-humanize gays. (banning gay marriage for one)

And bigotry and elitism on Atheist's part because they're attacking our beliefs and trying to get them married in OUR churches.

Elitism: They think being straight is better than gay and preach that gays should turn straight to be better. (ex-gay organizations)

Honestly just because we preach doesn't make us elitist.

^ All of this should be shipped to the prop 8 thread. If you want to argue back do it in that thread and I'll pick it up from there.


@ arrowhead

the first statement is false is you actually believe in your second statement. if you can't see that people will do "good" things because they think it's "right", then you obviously DO think about your place in heaven when giving to charity.

Strawman.

morality has nothing to do with deity

Unsupported claim. I disagree. And since you have nothing to support that claim, I won't listen to you.

i doubt my good morals were inspired by a jealous d!ck

Aaaand Ad Hominem.
Nice combo -.- arrowhead, if you ever want to actually debate let me know.

 

[arrowhead]

if i ever want to actually debate, i wouldn't be posting to you

ouch

 

[cman]

And you display your ignorance and bias... I am well aware that homosexuality in males is a psychological condition. But the things is... it's a disorder. It can't be hereditary, because a homosexual gene isn't likely to get passed on is it? A disorder is the only biological explanation. Thank you for realizing this. I was under the impression that it was the Atheists didn't think it was biological. I'm glad this is not so.

*Slap*

Stop repeating stuff that you don't know just because it sounds good. Take the time to look stuff up. I say this because several studies have pointed to male homosexuality being linked to straight female relatives, particularly mothers and grandmothers. Here is a decent article on it.

http://www.livescience.com/health/080617-hereditary-homosexuality.html

 

[LordoftheMorning]

That's a type of fallacy that I forget the name of. Something Latin and it's not Ad Hominem. I think it starts with a "P".

Basically, this is not necessarily true. It's a possibility I'll admit, but there's too many gray areas for comfort. It's just like that article a while back that tried to explain how an eye evolves naturally. Interesting article either way. Not slap-worthy though. I'll find my own articles that have statistics showing a huge percentage of mothers that were pregnant while they're husbands were MIA in WW2 had gay children. This suggests that it's a disorder that can be caused by abnormal stress during pregnancy. Don't pay any attention to this until I find the actual article, though.

if i ever want to actually debate, i wouldn't be posting to you

ouch

I can't believe you wasted an entire post on that.

 

[cman]

That's a type of fallacy that I forget the name of. Something Latin and it's not Ad Hominem. I think it starts with a "P".

Basically, this is not necessarily true. It's a possibility I'll admit, but there's too many gray areas for comfort. Interesting article either way.

Well sure, but the possibility that you could be wrong is part of the nature of science. My point was that you had nothing backing up your statement, and that I could provide some evidence that mine might be true. Since mine has some evidence, and yours does not, then mine should be considered more valid, should it not? You also made an absolute statement (it can't be anything other than a disorder).

Edit- Apparently you say you have evidence. Lesson that should be learned: show the evidence when making an arguement.

 

[marthanoob]

Because atheists have been proven ethical.

Esplain.

If I am reading this correctly, you are saying atheists are proven to act ethically?

 

[arrowhead]

Esplain.

If I am reading this correctly, you are saying atheists are proven to act ethically?

what he may have meant to say is that they have been proven to be able to act ethically. otherwise it wouldn't make sense

I can't believe you wasted an entire post on that.

because it takes so much effort to post

you continue to demonstrate your lack of brain

 

[Deleted member]

BORING, you can do better than that come on. That's not a debate, I made valid points and you just shrug them off like they're nothing. Your posts are largely unimportant because they lack substance and you try to ridicule me with a cruel joke (which isn't true). Killing in religion is relevant, in fact that's one reason why it's so dangerous. So you're just going to shrug off things like suicide bombers? Holy warriors? Crusades? They come up in a religious discussion because they're completely relevant to religion (I.E. this discussion).

Bye. :/

Sorry, but did you read this post?

Your points may be valid, but that doesn't mean you posted them in the right place. Maybe you made a valid point for the Prop 8 thread. Yeah, it's arguable that homosexuality is frowned upon in most religions. So what?

You said it's philosophy and not religion if you pick and choose to follow parts of the Bible. I already told you that both philosophers and religious men have the potential to fear God. Like I said before, I'm not gonna define what is or is not a personal philosophy, because it doesn't matter. (like most of your posts)

Then, you made the incredible generalization that everyone who doesn't follow their holy book to the letter isn't truly religious. Have you heard of Reform Judaism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_movement_in_Judaism

It doesn't matter what some belligerent kid from Sacramento thinks - you can pick and choose.

De facto atheists, agnostics, philosophers, priests, (am I missing anyone?) all can potentially fear God or repercussions from their actions.

 

[aeghrur]

De facto atheists, agnostics, philosophers, priests, (am I missing anyone?) all can potentially fear repercussions from their actions.

Why we don't steal and all that crap every chance we get.

 

[Deleted member]

Was it really necessary for me to write "in the afterlife"?

 

[marthanoob]

what he may have meant to say is that they have been proven to be able to act ethically. otherwise it wouldn't make sense

Oh, that's news to me.

 

[arrowhead]

Oh, that's news to me.

do you actually think atheists are unable to act ethically?

 

[BFDD]

For some reason people still can't seem to grasp the concept of why atheists can logically be good people. Atheists can still be good people because there has to be some rules for society to function. This has been repeated several times through several threads. It doesn't seem to make sense to some of you so I will try to explain it better.

I will use the wallet example. If I keep the wallet I feel like a jerk, but at least I made $400. If I return the wallet the person I return it to is likely to be happy to have his returned wallet returned. Happy people are more likely to be polite and can lead to other acts of kindness. Of course the flip side is he could just say ok thanks and not be any happier or feel the need to pass on the kindness.

Your actions can directly affect the lives of other people. That in turn affects how they can act towards other people. Every action you take in society can have an impact in society, good things have the potential to make society better, bad things have the potential to make it better. Or again it could have no impact at all.

If there was a device that could disconnect your opponent's controller during a video game tournament that was completely undetectable. Nobody would ever know and you could use it to win matches. If most people decided that was not sportsman like conduct and didn't do it, there would be very few cases of people using the device. If it became common place and large numbers of people began using the device you would end up having no choice but to use it if you wanted to be able to compete. It would eventually just become part of the game.

Society works the same way, doing moral things makes happy people, happy people makes for a better society. Immoral things lead to unhappy people, unhappy people makes a crappy society.

 

[Dash_Fox]

Sorry, but did you read this post?

Your points may be valid, but that doesn't mean you posted them in the right place. Maybe you made a valid point for the Prop 8 thread. Yeah, it's arguable that homosexuality is frowned upon in most religions. So what?

You said it's philosophy and not religion if you pick and choose to follow parts of the Bible. I already told you that both philosophers and religious men have the potential to fear God. Like I said before, I'm not gonna define what is or is not a personal philosophy, because it doesn't matter. (like most of your posts)

Then, you made the incredible generalization that everyone who doesn't follow their holy book to the letter isn't truly religious. Have you heard of Reform Judaism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_movement_in_Judaism

It doesn't matter what some belligerent kid from Sacramento thinks - you can pick and choose.

De facto atheists, agnostics, philosophers, priests, (am I missing anyone?) all can potentially fear God or repercussions from their actions.

It doesn't matter that I'm from Sacramento. I'm not a kid. Fearing god is invalid since there is no evidence of his existence anyways. Religions usually have holy texts, sorry if I seem to make a generalization of the general religious population. Your posts are moot.

Besides, I don't have any problem with people using religion for their PERSONAL benefit, but that's not how they use it today, they force it upon people. For instance trying to sneak in "Creationism" (Also known as Intelligent Design) into public schools. If people kept their religion to them selves then there wouldn't be such a huge problem with it, but people like to force their beliefs into the public.

 

[Ryusuta]

Esplain.

If I am reading this correctly, you are saying atheists are proven to act ethically?

While this is in no way an implication that one's faith absolutely influences your actions, I do have a few numbers for you regarding this issue:

The Federal Bureau of Prisons found that while 75% of the US population are Christian, 75% of the US prison population are also Christian.

Conversely, while atheists account for about 10% of the US population, they only account for .2% of the US prison population.

It's an interesting statistic to consider when posing questions such as this one.

 

[marthanoob]

do you actually think atheists are unable to act ethically?

No, I didn't want to ignore your post so I responded with sarcasm. :D

While this is in no way an implication that one's faith absolutely influences your actions, I do have a few numbers for you regarding this issue:

The Federal Bureau of Prisons found that while 75% of the US population are Christian, 75% of the US prison population are also Christian.

Conversely, while atheists account for about 10% of the US population, they only account for .2% of the US prison population.

It's an interesting statistic to consider when posing questions such as this one.

That's hard to believe...reliability of data?
I also would expect people to turn to religion in times of hardship.

 

[Eor]

No, I didn't want to ignore your post so I responded with sarcasm. :D


That's hard to believe...reliability of data?
I also would expect people to turn to religion in times of hardship.

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

 

[Amide]

Esplain.

If I am reading this correctly, you are saying atheists are proven to act ethically?

Well, kinda. These statistics back up the fact that atheists do have morals (stats from a post from RDK):

Atheists, being a moderate proportion of the USA population (about 8-16%) are disproportionately less numerous in the prison population (0.21%)

Japan (the most atheistic nation in the G-8) has the lowest murder rate while the United States (the most Christian nation in the G-8) has the highest. Japan used to have much stronger religious faith, and a state religion, and guess what: Japan was remarkably aggressive and militaristic when "Shinto" was at its peak, and during WW2, when its Emperor was regarded as a God.

Louisiana, with America's highest church attendance rate, has twice the national average murder rate.


And more:
Denmark:
atheist - 43 - 80%
total crimes - 92.83 per 1,000 people
murder - 0.01 per 1,000 people
**** - 0.09 per 1,000 people

Norway:
atheist - 31 - 72%
total crimes - 71.86 per 1,000 people
murder - 0.01 per 1,000 people
**** - 0.12 per 1,000 people

USA
atheist - 3 - 9%
total crimes - 80.06 per 1,000 people
murder - 0.04 per 1,000 people
**** - 0.30 per 1,000 people

 

[Deleted member]

Those statistics are laughable. Most obvious is that the USA's population is disproportionate to what you're comparing to - besides, Denmark has more crime all together. (if these are even accurate)

Secondly, I could potentially try to prove a link between Japan's average shrimp tempura consumption per person (ASTCPP) and their lack of murder.

Because clearly, the USA's ASTCPP has a much lower percentage than Japan does. See what I'm saying? '

Fearing god is invalid since there is no evidence of his existence anyways.

Then you are certain he does not exist? Oh doubt, where would we be without you.

 

[RDK]

Those statistics are laughable. Most obvious is that the USA's population is disproportionate to what you're comparing to - besides, Denmark has more crime all together. (if these are even accurate)

Secondly, I could potentially try to prove a link between Japan's average shrimp tempura consumption per person (ASTCPP) and their lack of murder.

Because clearly, the USA's ASTCPP has a much lower percentage than Japan does. See what I'm saying?

Yeah, because I'm sure every warden, computer operator, staff member, and the entire Federal Bureau of Prisons lies about their statistics.