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.
Funny, everyone says they are guilty, hell, ya'll all guilty except me, I am never arrogant or judging, or biased, and never unkind, I may just be the perfect person, and O yeah, I DO KNOW IT ALL, lol.
Meh, we all guilty
That's because they are playing old "I accept fault" game. Say, you offended someone.
Then you say - I am guilty. I accept fault.
Situation develops as follows:
1. offended forgives you. You win.
2. Offended does not forgive you. You win. As you "admitted the fault/guilt" and NOW it is on HIM that he didn't forgive you.
That's because they are playing old "I accept fault" game. Say, you offended someone.
Then you say - I am guilty. I accept fault.
Situation develops as follows:
1. offended forgives you. You win.
2. Offended does not forgive you. You win. As you "admitted the fault/guilt" and NOW it is on HIM that he didn't forgive you.
and that is why so many people reject atheism. That is a huge problem. Exactly what you said in bold above. You hit the nail on the head.
Personal behavior is however a core element of religion and spirituality. It is pretty much THE key element. Not what is your god called. No. It is do unto others.
That's what youre not seeing. That is a large part of what people value in religion and spirituality. Ethics and moral compass and how we treat others. Those are very key and core and treasured and important and valued. You totally are not seeing how wisdom traditions provide people with this nourishment.
Atheism dismisses how we treat others.
Therefore many people dismiss atheism.
Do you see the direct connection?
I agree. Many people reject atheism because they think that Religion is necessary for morals and religion can claim the moral high ground.
Moral behaviour isn't the rationale of atheism, but one could say that moral behaviour isn't the rationale of Christianity- the resurrection of Jesus is.
The raionale of atheism is a lack of good reason to believe the god claims, and should that viewbe shown the better one (and in a thousand discussions here, it is shown to be), it automatically debunks the claims of Christianity, as debunking he Bible unseats Judais, and the other religions of the book go down the chute with hem.
What you are missing is that he moral aspect is really irrelevant, even if moral behaviour could be pu to the credit of religion. In fact it can't, either theoretically or in practice.
And on top of that, a knock on of atheism, like tending o lead to acceptance of liberal thought tends to lead o a rational morality, not he fake morality of he Bible. In fact the religious generally use humanist morality rather than Biblical. Heck, they even see the need for divorce and women preachers even though their religion teaches against it.
If morality is one of the reasons people reject atheism, hey have been misled, and that's why we do what we do- o show them that hey have been misled.
That does raise an interesting question as to how metaphysical issues should be approached. Are they scientific questions? Partly, yes, but certainly not entirely. Are they purely philosophical in nature? No, not really. Is the advocacy method by which we arrive at "legal truths" appropriate, even though everyone knows the legal truth that O.J. didn't murder Nicole is false? It is true that once anyone reaches a point of conviction, winning at all costs can be justified. If my conviction is that your eternal soul is at stake, almost any way I can bludgeon you, literally or figuratively, into Christianity can be justified. If your conviction is that humanity will never achieve peace until the magical thinking of religion is eradicated, almost any way you can accomplish that can be justified. I do think the advocacy method is an avenue to real truth if everyone plays fair and the evidence and arguments are judged strictly on their merits - but that, of course, never happens in the courtroom or out of it. There is probably food for an entire thread here, but I'll let someone else start it.
In many ways the courtroom and the field of science work the same. Even if some scientists are advocates for their belief, the others contest it and the 'Jury' of scientists consider the evidence. Of course they are more qualified to do so, and do their own research, so the results are better. But even then hey sometimes have to revise a verdict.
The similarity is that, if a claim is made and it is not validated by evidence, it is not taken to be proven. That is why O.J Simpson was let go, even though many people believe he did it. It's not what you believe, it's what you can prove.
It's the same with the god-claim. If it can' be proven, the conclusion should be that the claim is not proven rue. It doesn't alter that conclusion that millions believe otherwise.
Now you may say 'But we all know the decisions in both cases were wrong. Simpson was guilty; God exists". Well, that's another thread, as you say.
In many ways the courtroom and the field of science work the same. Even if some scientists are advocates for their belief, the others contest it and the 'Jury' of scientists consider the evidence. Of course they are more qualified to do so, and do their own research, so the results are better. But even then hey sometimes have to revise a verdict.
The similarity is that, if a claim is made and it is not validated by evidence, it is not taken to be proven. That is why O.J Simpson was let go, even though many people believe he did it. It's not what you believe, it's what you can prove.
It's the same with the god-claim. If it can' be proven, the conclusion should be that the claim is not proven rue. It doesn't alter that conclusion that millions believe otherwise.
No, the field of religion and spirituality do not work the same as that. That you do not grasp this shows that you grossly underestimate people and simply can't grasp the role and value of nourishing our spirit.
You posts have served the purpose of demonstrating in your own words that you invent "characters" online to goad others, and those deceptions become very tangled. I concur.
its funny, an internet atheists name teeknow informed me that it is an accepted practice to make up life stories to drive a point home.
I didn't/don't agree. That was when I first realized some sects of atheists are pushing a belief statement over reality.
religious personal need = atheists personal need.
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.
I'm my own kind of nut.
