Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can read about the atrocities and genocide in the bible and still claim that it is based on love and mercy? I sure can't do that.
I chose reality over myth instead of thinking within the box of Christianity which can be a very small box indeed if one is a bible literalist. If you are you must ignore the fact that the earth is billions of years old, that evolution is a fact and man is a species of ape. You must either deny new discoveries or somehow fit them into the confines of your biblical box.
Yes, in all honesty there are many people who are down right scary in their desire to hold on to an archaic, literalist view point. It is not religion in and of it's self that is bad for society, but the absurdity of people who think that to follow a religion one must take the Myth literally!
I mean, if the author of the book of Genesis had spoken modern English and used modern English idioms, Noah might of said "it's raining cats and dogs!" So, if it was written as such ages ago then today there would be fundamentalist whack jobs slamming their fists into the pulpit and shouting "IT RAINED TABBIES AND PUGS FOR FORTY DAYS AND FORTY NIGHTS AND IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAN YOU'LL BURN IN HELL!"
You know, my favorite atheist scholar, Micheal Shermer, has a great book out called "Why Darwin Matters: the case Against Intelligent Design" where he states correctly that there is no reason why Christians cannot stay Christian and still believe in evolution. As a Christian myself, I agree with him 100%.
In the end, a balance must be struck between science and religion, Myth and metaphor, and it is the lack of the said balance, not religious belief in and of it's self, that is bad for society. The lack of balance is also the origins of all tyranny, either from religions or from non-religious institutions.
How does being an RN make you any less dull or dumb? How would you withholding pain medication make you less dull or dumb? I really don't get your point.
How many other books do you quote? If the bible (or other Christian books) is the only book you read and care about, how does that NOT make you dull?
Tell me this isn't dull...any question asked by a curious child is answered by bible thumpers like this:
"Why is the sky blue?" "Because the bible says so"
"Where do I come from?" "According to the bible..."
"What happens when we die?" "Well, the bible says..."
"How old is planet earth?" "Since the bible has no scientific research, I'd say it is about 6000 years old."
"Where did the dinosaurs go?" "Well, God made them vanish, but since the Earth is only 6000 years old, man and dinosaurs were on the earth together."
Come on, how is that not dumb and dull? Anyone who believes that the Earth is only 6000 years old because some 1700+ year old book says so is clearly dumb. Anyone who uses the bible to explain everything is clearly dull.
as was already explained, not everyone that believes in the bible believes what you posted above. you are purposefully lumping all of them together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6
No, I won't back down from that. I've seen the other things this person (and most others who claim Bible in any argument) will say and believe, and I stand by my statement. The bible is no different than Aesop's Fables, Where the Sidewalk Ends, The Things They Carried or any other literary anthology. Anyone can "read" the bible...believing in it is a whole other thing...PREACHING it and using it in all your political arguments, that's where that character comes in. I'd rather read the Tao Te Ching or any book geared towards toddlers for my morality than a book filled with violence, rape, jealousy ("you have to have only one god cause i'll get jealous if you worship others"), and all sorts of horrific images. "Believing" in the bible is exactly what I wrote about...if you don't believe in the bible, that wouldn't describe you, but that woman clearly does. I did not put words in her mouth...those are the same "arguments" we get from bible thumpers here on CD in every thread, whether it's about immigration, alcohol, drugs, prostitution, anything gay related ("god is opposed to what he created in the first place"), the conflict with Israel, anything dealing with Muslims, etc. One book that was written 1700+ years ago and then translated, re-translated and re-written countless times, is NOT the only source in an argument; in fact, it's completely irrelevant to today's society and has no place in a political discussion.
so you are openly admitting to intentional use of the same irrational mindset that irks you so much in the theists?
if you cannot separate a christian from a fundamentalist christian, and then you base your judgments of those people off of your concepts of fundamental christianity, then you are guilty of the logical fallacies that atheists are always accusing the theists of.
sounds kind of defeatist to me in the if-you-can't-beat-them-join-them sense. if your argument was that fundamentalists of any religion had missed the boat, i'd agree with you. if your argument is that any kind of believer missed the boat, then i'd say that you missed the boat, and maybe some reading would be good for you.
i'd ask again if you want to clarify, and back away from your earlier fallacy, but you already clarified that you are happy in that narrow viewpoint.
Dense? I believe you have been told many times that atheism is not a system of beliefs. It is simply a person who does not believe in God.
That appears to be contradictory. A system of belief is a way of approaching the world. This can be a religion, a philosophy, or a political ideology. Belief system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanism is a belief system, and it is usually atheistic in nature.
Quote:
My morals are based off of natural morality which is a product of evolution.
Ohh really? So you kill your neighbor if they could compete with you for food or a mate? Do you drive to exinction any animal you can? Do you allow a sickly child to die because he/she is unfit to pass on his or her genes?
Quote:
Morality predates religion.
Morality does most likely predate religion. Humans were always social animals and certain behaviors towards other within the small bands of hunter-gatherers who made up our ancestors were probably the origins of morality, as these were necessary for the survival of the band as a whole.
Quote:
We do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, not because we want reward in heaven or fear hell. Get it through your thick skull.
There are many religions that teach that one should do the right thing not for fear of heaven or hell as well.
Ohh, by the way, calling your opponent "dense" does not usually increase your own standing in a debate, FYI.
so you are openly admitting to intentional use of the same irrational mindset that irks you so much in the theists?
if you cannot separate a christian from a fundamentalist christian, and then you base your judgments of those people off of your concepts of fundamental christianity, then you are guilty of the logical fallacies that atheists are always accusing the theists of.
sounds kind of defeatist to me in the if-you-can't-beat-them-join-them sense. if your argument was that fundamentalists of any religion had missed the boat, i'd agree with you. if your argument is that any kind of believer missed the boat, then i'd say that you missed the boat, and maybe some reading would be good for you.
AMEN! If I hear one more anti-theists stand up and say something along the lines of " THOSE STUPID THEISTS! THEY ALL HATE EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT AGREE WITH THEM AND ARE INTOLERANT AND EVIL AND THEY ALL SUCK! THEY SHOULD ALL BE BURNED TO DEATH AND YOU KNOW WHY? BECAUSE THEY'RE INTOLERANT!!!!" I think I'll pull my hair out!
My theory is that if you say that you are against a group as opposed to a tendency one absolves themself of all guilt as they are not a part of the group in question.
Example: someone says "Christians suck!" he feels that those people over their (the Christians) suck, but not his self, because he isn't a Christian, and their is no doubt that he is not a Christian and therefore no doubt he sucks. If, however, that same person said "intolerant people suck" than there IS some doubt in his mind that perhaps he himself is intolerant and therefore, perhaps he does suck.
I take a page from Christ on this one and try to turn the other cheek. When some anti-theists goes nuts on all religious people, I just shrug and mention some atheists I admire, like Steven Hawking or Micheal Shermer, and talk about how atheism, in and of it's self, is not a bad system, it is simply the intolerance of a small but vocal minority of anti-theists that's the problem (isn't the lunatic fringe the "bad apples" that spoil the bunch in every religion?)
That way, not only do I follow the teachings of Christ, but I also usually win the debate by keeping the moral high ground.
Ohh really? So you kill your neighbor if they could compete with you for food or a mate? Do you drive to exinction any animal you can? Do you allow a sickly child to die because he/she is unfit to pass on his or her genes?
Obviously basing your morals on natural selection is problematic. But BornOKThe1stTime said "natural morality which is a product of evolution". I think he's referring to the theory that (part of) our desire to be moral actually evolved, just like our sexual desire. There is evidence that "moral" behaviors can provide an evolutionary advantage. Not all animals kill their neighbor for food. Some help each other or give to the "poor", and it makes their tribe more efficient.
Obviously basing your morals on natural selection is problematic. But BornOKThe1stTime said "natural morality which is a product of evolution". I think he's referring to the theory that (part of) our desire to be moral actually evolved, just like our sexual desire. There is evidence that "moral" behaviors can provide an evolutionary advantage. Not all animals kill their neighbor for food. Some help each other or give to the "poor", and it makes their tribe more efficient.
Well, when stated like that, I agree. If it was stated that "morality was a product of human evolution" than I would agree, but to say "evolution" as a whole is to include all evolution and not just the life span of the species homosapiens.
The Old Testament also teaches the same thing, through allegory. The Garden of Eden was the time before we were human as we are now, when we were just ignorant animals and lived in the blissful ignorance in our animal natures. Once we evolved away from apes and towards humanity and became fully sentient, it was like eating from the tree of knowledge. Sure, we gained knowledge, but we also had to deal with the burden of sentience.
So, when looked at it from the stand point of Myth and allegory, we can see that the Old Testament was indeed saying the same thing some atheists are saying.
Well, when stated like that, I agree. If it was stated that "morality was a product of human evolution" than I would agree, but to say "evolution" as a whole is to include all evolution and not just the life span of the species homosapiens.
Actually it isn't just human evolution. Other animals exhibit "morals" that enhance the social group and benefit survival and reproduction. The "drive to be nice" is a product of evolution, as is basically every aspect of life.
---
Anyway, after reading through these posts, it seems you might have a misconception of what the thread is about. I could be wrong, but it seems that it's not saying "all religion is bad for society," but more like "religion doesn't help society."
The study in the OP didn't mention causation, only statistics, which showed that the most religious societies weren't better off. The point is that some people claim that a society is better off with religion, and well, obviously that's not true.
Dense? I believe you have been told many times that atheism is not a system of beliefs. It is simply a person who does not believe in God. My morals are based off of natural morality which is a product of evolution. Morality predates religion. We do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, not because we want reward in heaven or fear hell. Get it through your thick skull.
Oh, so your demanding we know what an Atheist doesn't believe, yet there is no way of finding out.
Each person defining their own morality. That's a recipe for disaster. Someone might think its moral to kill an unruly child.
Michael Shermer's book, 'The Science of good and evil,' describes why people are moral rather well. Morality(for all humans) comes from evolution and the moral zeitgeist. Evolution produced someone's moral sense(feeling good when someone does something good and feeling bad when they do something bad). The other is the moral zeitgeist(spirit of the times), which are the norms and morals of the given culture. For example, American society used to consider slavery an acceptable act, although now it is considered immoral and despicable. Morals also tend to be handed down by parents to their offspring and gradually change over time. Atheism in and of itself is inherently amoral, in the sense that it doesn't give a prescribed moral code that humans are supposed to abide by, whereas religion does. Although, that doesn't mean that atheists are amoral or immoral. Most atheists tend to adopt some form of secular ethic such as humanism or utilitarianism.
Thankyou for the information. I hope "bornokthefirstime" gets the information you have provided.
How about this: Religion is not detrimental to society - not in the least
I think that it can be very detrimental when it's carried to the extreme. Religious extremism is the muslim world is a perfect example and Christians can also go off the deep end. However, we do agree on one thing, I'm also rooting for the Arizona Cardinals.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
