Is it morally right for us to spread our religious beliefs? (abortion, quote)

[perry335654]

You can see Mormons coming from miles, they are usually in pairs, riding their bicycles(helmets on heads), wearing blue ties with white shirts and name tags pinned to their shirts.

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by Shirina

Your judgment is just as worthless.

I completely agree. My opinion of morality is irrelevant.

Until you can prove that the Bible has any authority whatsoever - and that won't happen until you prove that YHWH/Jehovah actually exists.

Until then, your opinion on morality and where it comes from is just another opinion.

OK. So you agree that you (or me for that matter) are completely incapable of inventing a system of morality that would be applicable to anyone else?

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by allosaur_E

Hello Shirina,

Thanks for your comments. Would you mind if I comment on some of your statements from your post reproduced at the end?

Hello, allosaur,

Commenting on each others' posts is what we're here for.

Originally Posted by allosaur_E

Although your statement is correct according to the atheistic worldview, are you sure it's correct according to knowledge?

If I wasn't sure that my statement is correct, a) I wouldn't have said it and b) I wouldn't be an atheist. In order to have said anything different than what I did say, I would have to believe in some kind of god.

Originally Posted by allosaur_E

Is the law of the land supreme above God of the Bible as you imply and that this same God is an erroneous figment of man's imagination?

If you want America to continue to be a free and pluralistic society then secular laws must be made for secular reasons. Otherwise, all we'll end up having is religious fascism whereby non-Christians and non-believers will be FORCED via rule of law to obey religious edicts. If you want an indication of what that would be like, do an in-depth study of Saudi Arabia. Christianity would not be any kinder or gentler than Islam if it had the power to rule.

There has never, ever been a free, pluralistic, democratic, peaceful, and benign nation ruled by religion. ALL nations that have gotten their marching orders from holy books and priests have ultimately become nightmare places for the average person. Tyranny, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and abject poverty has always been the end result of every nation who turned to God as a basis in how to govern.

Originally Posted by allosaur_E

Evidence on the contrary is like a huge forest unseen because of the presence of all of those trees. But if true that the law of the land is supreme over God, how then do we know what legislated laws are good and bad?

Three reasons:

As I tried to explain to Vizio, there is the human condition - the psychology of a human being. There are certain things that no one of sound mind and body wants to have happen to them or those they love. These things are transcendent across time, culture, and geographical place. For instance, humanity has never produced a civilization where its people want to be murdered - so it's a pretty good bet that murder is something we can say we know for certain is immoral. I'm sure you can come up with many more examples.

The second reason is that we should never have to make exceptions for the gods we worship. If our gods are truly infinitely good and infinitely moral, then we should never have to read a holy book and make 'special pleading' arguments to exonerate the actions of our gods.

For instance, we should never have to read about our gods committing genocidal mass murder - or ordering their followers to do the same - and then have to rationalize those actions later to try and make them somehow good. If our gods are demonstrating behavior that we would have put a mere mortal in jail for, then we can safely presume that our gods are NOT moral, hence, we should trust our own laws instead.

And finally, there is no possible way to judge which set of religious laws to foist onto the entire population. Which religion? Which denomination? Which god? Which holy book and what verses? The number of possibilities are too endless - and no single religion or any single denomination has such a clear majority as to be considered a mandate. Choosing one religion over another is just inviting unrest and violence. Then you won't see ANY morality - just bloodshed. Proof? Look at the constant strife between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims.

Originally Posted by allosaur_E

World history gives us a very sorry view of life based on laws made by man without God.

And what planet's history have you been reading about - because it certainly isn't earth's. Religion and the worship of deities is the second single most destructive force humanity has ever devised. The only force worse than religion is economics - and not by much. I really don't understand where you come up with this stuff, claiming that it is a lack of god that has made history so bloody. You need to actually study history, then, because if you fail to see deity-worship's part in our violent past, your knowledge of history is far too remedial to address here.

There is one immutable fact that I will share with you, though. The more secular a society becomes the more peaceful, free, and happier it gets. Notice how we no longer have inquisitions, cruel punishments for petty crimes, public executions in the town square, slavery has been abolished, no one can be put on trial for heresy or apostasy, women are no longer treated as chattel and property, and we are free to believe in our gods how we wish to - and we are free not to believe at all. Just 200 years ago, I would be arrested for writing this. Arrested, tortured, and ultimately put to death because I don't believe.

If you REALLY think that world history gives us a "sorry view" of life "based on laws made by man without God," then you don't know history.

At all.

Originally Posted by allosaur_E

Why did Dr. King that I mentioned in my last post find it necessary to break segregation laws prevalent in the South during his day? Didn't he inform us that any law that's not based on God's law is no law at all?

Dr. King was simply wrong. Yeah, believe it or not, a person of Dr. King's status CAN, in fact, be wrong. Laws based on God's law is simply religious fascism - it is NOT freedom. As a non-believer, I have NO reason whatsoever to obey YOUR god's edicts. If I were a Hindu, I would STILL have no reason to obey any law handed down by the Christian god.

Originally Posted by allosaur_E

Why is the US Constitution that's the baseline of US law such a well respected document? By what standard was this Constitution based on?

The U.S. Constitution is not a perfect document - hence why it has so many amendments. No doubt there will be more as time goes by. It has needed adjustment as new problems arise and new rights must be granted. Remember that the Constitution once supported the institution of slavery.

BUT ... it is still far and away better than laws coming out of the Bible, laws that command people to kill and murder their own families if they are caught worshiping other gods or have premarital sex or work on Sunday. What kind of immoral nonsense is that?

Oh, I know - those laws were abolished with the birth of Jesus. Well, hate to tell you this, but there are an awful lot of Christians who claim that Jesus came to fulfill those laws, not abolish them. What if THOSE kinds of Christians start writing our laws, hmmm? Are you willing to bean your own child in the head with a rock if he misbehaves? Are you going to give your future daughter-in-law a virginity test to make sure you don't have to murder her with your own hands? Please ... enlighten me.

Originally Posted by allosaur_E

May I say that the system of US law was originally intended to protect man's right to live by conscience that's based on the laws of God written on the heart?

The U.S. Constitution does no such thing. In fact, the Constitution protects our individual religious beliefs by not forcing anyone holding a public office or trust to face a religious test. In other words, you can believe in the blind monkey-god of Jubee Ju-Ju if you want and no one can legally hold it against you. This prevents the same kind of religious fascism that God-based laws would create.

Moreover, very few of the rights accorded to us have anything whatsoever to do with God. Do you REALLY think that your God wants freedom of religion? C'mon, now ... be honest here and remember the 1st Commandment. How can there be freedom of speech when your God proclaims blasphemy as the only unforgivable sin? Where in the Bible does God grant us the right to own guns? Do you think God gives a rat's patootie about the army quartering soldiers in private residences? Where in religion does any god grant us protection from illegal search and seizures? Where does God intimate there should be jury trials, the right to face our accusers, or that the trial should occur in a timely fashion? Where does any god champion democracy and the right to vote? At what point, 3,000 years ago, did those desert gods get involved in determining how many terms a president can serve?

Need I go on?

And WHERE in the Bible, or anywhere else in religion, does it ban slavery? Pedophilia? Child abuse? Torture? (etc.)

Are you going to say it comes from the Golden Rule? Well if that rule was so all-encompassing, why have any of the others?

Originally Posted by allosaur_E

It would take pages for me to fully explain this. Although true that our nation foolishly made bad history for itself by violating many Biblical precepts, should that necessitate forgetting the good history?

What good history our nation created, it did so in spite of religion, not because of it.

Originally Posted by allosaur_E

When you speak of "my religion," what religion or form or religion did you intend to speak of? The word, "religion" is very, very broad!

Truth be told, I speak of ALL religions. They all have at least one thing in common: their absolutism. Couple that with a desire to rule the world (Christianity and Islam both desire global dominance) and you have a recipe for tyranny and oppression. Every society, every nation that put religion and gods above the people spiraled into brutal cesspools.

Originally Posted by allosaur_E

Is there not good and bad religion?

The only time religion is ever good is when its followers ignore most of the edicts, decrees, commands, and punishments that everyone is supposed to be subjected to. In addition, religion is only good when it keeps to itself and doesn't try to force non-believers to convert or adhere to its tenets. The moment religion becomes law and not an individual choice, religion crosses the line between good and tyranny.

Originally Posted by allosaur_E

I must daily forsake my personal religion of self in order to keep myself a servant of God of the Bible as I carry out my daily deeds. Every one of us whether atheist or not is influenced by some form of religion. Please narrow the subject.

Of course we're all "influenced" by religion. The fact that I'm sitting here writing a post about religion shows that I'm being "influenced" by it even as we speak.

However, religion of all stripes tries to take credit for things it has no business claiming - such as morality.

Originally Posted by allosaur_E

May I also express that the U. S. Constitution and the US law are so well respected because they were meant to guarantee freedom to abide by conscience based on the laws of the Bible (Psalms 33:12; Psalms 111:10)

No, it wasn't. That's why God, Jesus, Christianity, the Bible, Psalms, Jehovah, YHWH, or any other proper noun referring to the Christian (or any other) religion is absent from the main body of the Constitution. Our nation was founded on many principles - but one of the big ones was freedom of religion. Not just the freedom to abide by a conscience based on the Bible. No. It gives us the freedom to abide by any conscience we deign to possess. That includes the conscience of the non-believer as well as the consciences of Hindus, Muslims, Taoists, Buddhists, Satanists, Shintoists, and even Jedis and the Flying Spaghetti Monster should someone choose to worship it.

Your statement above is a classic example of how religion attempts to take credit for that which it does not deserve.

As for your statement,

Originally Posted by allosaur_E

It is written that the world hates God. So when there's an effort to rescue people from the influence of the world by a believer in God, conflict will result (See John 15:8-9).

Christianity is predicated on persecution so it stands to reason that its members would convince themselves that everyone is out to get them - even when they hold an overwhelming majority and ALL of the power cards like they do here in the States.

As for needing rescue - that's one of the beliefs that really chafes the skin of a non-believer. You see, we don't need rescuing. That's the pick-up line of a cult. "We'll rescue you from the world ...." (cue harp music). Commercials for Calgon bath pearls pretty much say the same thing.

The reason why there is conflict isn't because "the world hates God." That's an unsubstantiated rationalization - a preconceived conclusion drilled into your head before anyone else even opens their mouths to explain. Thus if I refuse to convert, I hate God. Anything I say to the contrary is dismissed.

No, the conflict comes because I have a different way of looking at the world - and I don't find my views faulty enough to start clinging to magic, the supernatural, or a 3,000 year-old messianic doomsday cult (which is what Christianity truly is).

Now, if someone actually approached me with evidence that a god exists - and this god is REALLY good, loving, compassionate, fair, and just, I would be more than happy to convert.

But I'm just not seeing any of that with today's religion - or religions of the past, either. I'm just not seeing anything different about the God of the Bible that isn't the same as every other god. I know you've been very polite, so I hate even saying this, but the God of the Bible is just another petulant god that demands love and worship - and threatens to do unspeakable evil to those who don't give it to him. The God of the Bible offers a cold love, a love without respect. He wants blind obedience and eternal servitude; our own wants and desires don't matter at all. Imagine yourself with a spouse like that and ask yourself if you would want to stay married.

Show me a God who actually acts like one - along with some evidence - and my eyes would be as wide as saucers with curiosity and hope. But if all I'm going to get is "worship me or else," then I know the god isn't real.

Originally Posted by allosaur_E

Doesn't the same also take place when attempts are made to reject Biblical precepts? Isn't there always conflict between warring parties?

By and large, the warring parties are almost always two religions or two denominations of the same religion duking it out. One party thinks it has a monopoly on Biblical truth while the other party believes the same. Look at how long Catholics and Protestants went at it.

Originally Posted by allosaur_E

As for preaching, Scripture commands the preacher to preach to all of the world. The hearer is given the choice whether to hear or reject. No, it is not the job of the preacher to force it on him that rejects.

Unfortunately there are plenty of Christians out there who do everything in their power to make sure people are forced to hear their preaching. I can't help but remember a gaggle of Christians who frequently camped all day at a major intersection with a really really really long red light - and people had to sit there, a prisoner of traffic, and listen to these people give sermons. Well, unless you have a good car stereo and music by Ozzy Osbourne. Then you have all of the proponents of putting prayer back into public schools - so kids will be FORCED, as a captive audience, to listen to prayers and see deity-worship. Just one example I can give.

Take care,
S. Shirina C.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by perry335654

You can see Mormons coming from miles, they are usually in pairs, riding their bicycles(helmets on heads), wearing blue ties with white shirts and name tags pinned to their shirts.

Unless they are women, in which case they are not wearing blue ties with white shirts.

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by Vizio

OK. So you agree that you (or me for that matter) are completely incapable of inventing a system of morality that would be applicable to anyone else?

No, I wouldn't agree. Because we DO have a system - a system based on consensus. This is why morality changes through the years.

We have plenty of laws based on morality that apply to both of us and everyone else in this country.

[TroutDude]

Originally Posted by Shirina

No, I wouldn't agree. Because we DO have a system - a system based on consensus. This is why morality changes through the years.

We have plenty of laws based on morality that apply to both of us and everyone else in this country.

As do most other free, democratic countries.

Thank...um...goodness....

[Woodrow LI]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Not what you said to me on other forums. You strongly suggested that many things are discouraged simply because he did not do them. Yet you call yourself diverse. I believe one of the examples at the time was use of musical instruments for example.

True,
There is some disagreement as to if anything was ever said forbidding Music or if the forbidding of Music is mu'akkada or mustahabba. It is pretty much an evenly split opinion.
I doubt many think they will go to hell if they play or listen to Instruemental music. The 2 extremes are the Salafi, who believe it will lead to severe punishment in hell and the Sufi who even have instrument music in the Mosque.

But it is true the restrictions on music are because Muhammad(saws) did not listen to it.



My comment in the post was:

To do things Muhammad(saws) did not do are not forbidden, as long as they are not sins. We are not clones of Muhammad(saws) and are very diverse. There is plenty of room for individuality and we are very individualistic.

Some in fact quite a few scholars do believe instruement music is a sin. But, I do not know their basis for stating so.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Woodrow LI

But it is true the restrictions on music are because Muhammad(saws) did not listen to it.

Then my point stands unassailed. The fact you model yourself on a single person, and many feel compelled to do or not do exactly what he did do or did not do..... this is the very opposite of calling yourself an "individualistic bunch". Aspects of your practices and compulsions stifle human individuality in this manner.

[Mr. In-Between]

Originally Posted by Shirina

.
What "good-sized chunk of constitutional freedom" would we have to trade away so that the religious among us have an even greater toolbox with which to convert people?

And why are the things that are important to them MORE important than that which is important to me or other atheists and non-believers?

Do we, for instance, throw the LGBT community under the bus so conservative Christians can sleep a bit easier tonight? Do we throw open the doors of our public schools so that Intelligent Design and creationism can be taught in our science classrooms? Do we teach Biblical history as actual history?

I have really big issues with giving up our constitutional rights merely to cater to Christianity. Because of religion's absolutism, it would exploit any crack in our secular armor in the same way a flood gradually erodes our dikes.

I hope you understand that when I referred to my "Constitutional right to not be bothered," I was speaking facetiously, seeing as how there is no such right. I think you're reading a lot more into my post than was there. I'm simply saying that in a free society, if a god-shouter wants to wave a piece of paper at me as I walk down the sidewalk, I'm not going to blow a blood vessel and dial 911.

It's an inconvenience and an annoyance, yes - but one that I am not only able to live with, but quite happy to live with if my neighbor and community member really feels it's that important to him. I intensely dislike Christianity, and am utterly repelled by it, but I don't feel an urgent need to stamp on every single trace of it like a cockroach every time I spot one scurrying by - part of the cost of living in a free society is coexisting with beliefs that I find abhorrent, and making allowances to those who wish to express those beliefs.

As a society, I think we can draw a reasonable distinction between allowing sidewalk bible barkers and teaching creationism to our kindergartners. Trying to eliminate every single trace of Christianity is a far greater threat to our freedoms than being tolerant of proselytizing under reasonable circumstances. They have the right to say, "excuse me, sir, have you got a moment to talk about our lord Jesus Christ" just as I have the right to say, "no, thank you" and keep walking.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Vizio

yet...your judgement is worthless in regards to actually being something anybody but you would view as "correct" or "right". Who defines those goals and parameters you speak of? What happens when someone disagrees regarding them?

I am not sure why you insist on asking questions you have asked me many times before and I have answered many times before.

When two people come together in a relationship THEY define the goals and boundaries of that relationship. They lay out where they want it to go, and then work out the best and worst ways to get there.

Human society is just a complex relationship. There are millions of us in it but essentially the idea is the same. We come together and WE define TOGETHER through tools like Democracy where we want to go and what the goals and ideals of society are.

"Ethics" and "Morality" is just the fancy terminology used to describe then the best and worst ways we believe on how to get there.

And there is no requirement in this to imagine a god or an objective morality. We have science. We have experience. We have a data set to draw on. There is a landscape and a continuum of right and wrong moves that will move us towards, or away from, the ideals and goals we have espoused.

I understand this scares you. That it might all be subjective opinion and it might go off the rails at any time. And indeed in history it has done, numerous times. Likely not just in history, but today in todays world from ISIS to North Korea. It is not perfect, but it is what we have. And I share your fear 100%, I just cope with it better.

And your abject terror that we might be fending for ourselves in this compels you to simply invent, with no substantiation whatsoever, this idea of a god and an objective morality, in which you can ground what you want to be true. A father figure to look to, much like my child does, when she is not sure yet if the action she is performing is good or bad. She looks to me for guidance. As I did my parents. But I grew out of it. You clearly did not and you still need that structure.

But making nonsense up does not help us in this shared journey, it only clouds and hampers us on it.