I guess that depends on how many posters take the bait. 
Become a Patron!
The Atheists Thread...A place for Logical, Rational and Scientific thinking with facts
- Thread starter No Ash More Cash
- Start date
Well I put her straight on that one...She was really shocked that I brought it up...I guess she thought my kid wouldn't say anything about it...Well glad to say she's not in her class now
Fuck that I'd call the ACLU. Can they really get away with that??
If religion is keeping mankind back...Well I don't have to say no moreHi everyone!
What I find curious, is that some who have different faith (or no religious faith, or belief in no deity) find the expression of faith by any who have it to be objectionable. I agree that ID should not be taught in schools as a scientific principle, and that creationism should only be taught in a religious setting as as a faith-based belief. Why attack the belief structure of others?
Even the "big bang" isn't understood, and conflicting theories about the origins of everything are still proffered!
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/3...suggests-universe-has-no-beginning-no-end.htm
No need to go that far with it...I was happy I just put her in her place...Hopefully she won't do that again
Attack the belief structure? Why not just pray to have god defend it?
Hi everyone!
What I find curious, is that some who have different faith (or no religious faith, or belief in no deity) find the expression of faith by any who have it to be objectionable. I agree that ID should not be taught in schools as a scientific principle, and that creationism should only be taught in a religious setting as as a faith-based belief. Why attack the belief structure of others?
Even the "big bang" isn't understood, and conflicting theories about the origins of everything are still proffered!
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/3...suggests-universe-has-no-beginning-no-end.htm
So are you saying religion should be off limits criticism?
I didn't even see this when I posted mine...Great minds Bob
To everyone here...Doing a great job guys not turning this into a pissing match and keeping everything civilized...Keep up the good debating!
I am of the opinion that your religious rights end where mine begin. It drives me insane when people use the bible as their basis for legislature or morality. We do not all subscribe to that code, why should we be governed by it?
I don't know if you read what I posted before but just in Congress alone there are 26 who admitted they don't believe in a God and for there Identities to be kept secret so they wouldn't be voted out...That's just 26 secretly...I'm sure the actual number is higher..There has been one person who came out and said he was a atheist ...It just shows you how much religion plays a part in government and they don't even pay tax!
Interesting point, and the answer is in two parts.
Part 1 is pro atheist comments really need nothing more than "there is no prove of a deity, so we reject said deity based on science.
Part 2 is a little more nefarious. That being "religion does harm" and "religion isn't scientific, so it should be rejected".
IMHO, both of those positions actually miss the point of finding truth.
Hi everyone!
What I find curious, is that some who have different faith (or no religious faith, or belief in no deity) find the expression of faith by any who have it to be objectionable. I agree that ID should not be taught in schools as a scientific principle, and that creationism should only be taught in a religious setting as as a faith-based belief. Why attack the belief structure of others?
Even the "big bang" isn't understood, and conflicting theories about the origins of everything are still proffered!
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/3...suggests-universe-has-no-beginning-no-end.htm
Indeed you will notice a lot of debate and antagonism on this thread. Such is always the case between theists and atheists, because the other side is always saying something that implies "you have wasted your life" or worse. That's a pretty objectionable thought. Don't forget however that in this country religion is majority and atheism small minority, albeit occasionally vocal as minorities can be. So it can never be an equivalent offense.
Antagonism comes out here because this is the thread where debate is actually welcome and encouraged. You see a lot of anti-atheist blow back to anti-religious posts and vice versa, unlike in this thread, http://vapingunderground.com/threads/franciscan-prayer-intentions.42339/, where there is no debate at all. Look at it and see for yourself. When you do you will also notice there are no posts from atheists expressing their objections to religious belief and speech, and there is no atheist trolling. Now why do you suppose that is?
Last edited:
What's that expression? Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church.
BuddJohnson
Member For 4 Years
What other forces could there be?
Does a harmonic vibration exist throughout the universe? It is responsible for the creation of form?
Huh?
Adrienne
Silver Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Why do you think it's baiting? I assure you it is not.I guess that depends on how many posters take the bait.
Simple comment, the evidence of my point is in the thread.
I don't agree that religion is keeping mankind back. Sure, in the past it did. Especially the Catholic church . But now, I just don't see that it is.
Hermit
Silver Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Of course! This is debate
Nefarious, LOL! Those evil criminal atheists, how dare they criticise based on facts! Religion has done a great deal of harm - sustaining wars that last lifetimes, for example, but more perniciously by establishing 'us and them' mindsets where 'they' are second-class (at best, 'inclusive religion' is an oxymoron). For a vast number of people, casting aside their parent's religion would mean being cast out of their family. Religion is far more often inherited than chosen.
Religion isn't opposite to atheism, some are atheist (or have sections that are). Religious people can "struggle with their faith". And then there are believers that are anti-religion. What a mess! So let's say that believers and atheists are what is opposed. True belief can't be chosen, IMHO. I suppose one could choose to try and be brain-washed into it (but would that be true belief?). I don't think anything is new about this so-called 'rise of atheism' except that more people are open and confident about their lack of belief, and hence don't feel the need (from societal pressure) to say they have a religion.
Science vs belief is a non-battle, the core of belief being incapable of measure.
In science vs scripture, I'd have to say that scripture is looking more bruised. The more we learn through science, the less reason there is to invoke a deity to explain things. Of course that's not absolute, so there's still room for belief, but what use is it when the scriptures (and therefore the dogma within) are suspect? That leaves each individual believer "picking and choosing" to build their own moral codes etc - one of the main arguments made by the religious against the atheist/secularist/SBNR! It's either that or doggedly follow millenia-old writings to the letter and be fundamentalist, yet that too involves choice initially.
Logic vs belief is where it gets interesting. The possibilities are whether god is real or invented. With mankind in the dock charged with invention, it's very difficult to find 'reasonable doubt' - was at the scene, possessed the weapon, had multiple motives, was a repeat offender, etc, etc. It would require some hard evidence of god to get him acquitted. "Well how do you explain ... ?" isn't a valid argument, since a lack of explanation does not prove that god exists. In the analogous case of atheists defending their views the same proof of god would be required to find them guilty, and they'd be acquitted.
So where is the hard line separating 'us' and 'them'? There isn't one. Truth is, we're all walking on a huge mosaic made of tiny pieces. Whether we believe in god or not is but one small facet of who we truly are.
Devil's Advocate: Truth as defined by whom?
Nefarious, LOL! Those evil criminal atheists, how dare they criticise based on facts! Religion has done a great deal of harm - sustaining wars that last lifetimes, for example, but more perniciously by establishing 'us and them' mindsets where 'they' are second-class (at best, 'inclusive religion' is an oxymoron). For a vast number of people, casting aside their parent's religion would mean being cast out of their family. Religion is far more often inherited than chosen.
Religion isn't opposite to atheism, some are atheist (or have sections that are). Religious people can "struggle with their faith". And then there are believers that are anti-religion. What a mess! So let's say that believers and atheists are what is opposed. True belief can't be chosen, IMHO. I suppose one could choose to try and be brain-washed into it (but would that be true belief?). I don't think anything is new about this so-called 'rise of atheism' except that more people are open and confident about their lack of belief, and hence don't feel the need (from societal pressure) to say they have a religion.
Science vs belief is a non-battle, the core of belief being incapable of measure.
In science vs scripture, I'd have to say that scripture is looking more bruised. The more we learn through science, the less reason there is to invoke a deity to explain things. Of course that's not absolute, so there's still room for belief, but what use is it when the scriptures (and therefore the dogma within) are suspect? That leaves each individual believer "picking and choosing" to build their own moral codes etc - one of the main arguments made by the religious against the atheist/secularist/SBNR! It's either that or doggedly follow millenia-old writings to the letter and be fundamentalist, yet that too involves choice initially.
Logic vs belief is where it gets interesting. The possibilities are whether god is real or invented. With mankind in the dock charged with invention, it's very difficult to find 'reasonable doubt' - was at the scene, possessed the weapon, had multiple motives, was a repeat offender, etc, etc. It would require some hard evidence of god to get him acquitted. "Well how do you explain ... ?" isn't a valid argument, since a lack of explanation does not prove that god exists. In the analogous case of atheists defending their views the same proof of god would be required to find them guilty, and they'd be acquitted.
So where is the hard line separating 'us' and 'them'? There isn't one. Truth is, we're all walking on a huge mosaic made of tiny pieces. Whether we believe in god or not is but one small facet of who we truly are.
Devil's Advocate: Truth as defined by whom?
"Science vs belief is a non-battle"
I completely agree with that statement!!! I also agree with a lot of the rest of your post, and I thank you for your opinion. I retort that the "evils" of religion currently, are a minutia of what they were in the past (current fringe cult-like terrorists aside). Therefore, to blame religion on the vast ills of modern society is not well supported IMHO.
I am glad that atheists have much more openness in society today. That is as it should be. And atheists should NEVER be vilified, nor persecuted for their position of the existence of deities. I posit that open expression of faith should be held to the same standard. And that was my point...
As for the last comment, in this case, the truth of the existence, or not of a "deity"(s).
I completely agree with that statement!!! I also agree with a lot of the rest of your post, and I thank you for your opinion. I retort that the "evils" of religion currently, are a minutia of what they were in the past (current fringe cult-like terrorists aside). Therefore, to blame religion on the vast ills of modern society is not well supported IMHO.
I am glad that atheists have much more openness in society today. That is as it should be. And atheists should NEVER be vilified, nor persecuted for their position of the existence of deities. I posit that open expression of faith should be held to the same standard. And that was my point...
As for the last comment, in this case, the truth of the existence, or not of a "deity"(s).
Of course! This is debate
Nefarious, LOL! Those evil criminal atheists, how dare they criticise based on facts! Religion has done a great deal of harm - sustaining wars that last lifetimes, for example, but more perniciously by establishing 'us and them' mindsets where 'they' are second-class (at best, 'inclusive religion' is an oxymoron). For a vast number of people, casting aside their parent's religion would mean being cast out of their family. Religion is far more often inherited than chosen.
Religion isn't opposite to atheism, some are atheist (or have sections that are). Religious people can "struggle with their faith". And then there are believers that are anti-religion. What a mess! So let's say that believers and atheists are what is opposed. True belief can't be chosen, IMHO. I suppose one could choose to try and be brain-washed into it (but would that be true belief?). I don't think anything is new about this so-called 'rise of atheism' except that more people are open and confident about their lack of belief, and hence don't feel the need (from societal pressure) to say they have a religion.
Science vs belief is a non-battle, the core of belief being incapable of measure.
In science vs scripture, I'd have to say that scripture is looking more bruised. The more we learn through science, the less reason there is to invoke a deity to explain things. Of course that's not absolute, so there's still room for belief, but what use is it when the scriptures (and therefore the dogma within) are suspect? That leaves each individual believer "picking and choosing" to build their own moral codes etc - one of the main arguments made by the religious against the atheist/secularist/SBNR! It's either that or doggedly follow millenia-old writings to the letter and be fundamentalist, yet that too involves choice initially.
Logic vs belief is where it gets interesting. The possibilities are whether god is real or invented. With mankind in the dock charged with invention, it's very difficult to find 'reasonable doubt' - was at the scene, possessed the weapon, had multiple motives, was a repeat offender, etc, etc. It would require some hard evidence of god to get him acquitted. "Well how do you explain ... ?" isn't a valid argument, since a lack of explanation does not prove that god exists. In the analogous case of atheists defending their views the same proof of god would be required to find them guilty, and they'd be acquitted.
So where is the hard line separating 'us' and 'them'? There isn't one. Truth is, we're all walking on a huge mosaic made of tiny pieces. Whether we believe in god or not is but one small facet of who we truly are.
Very well said, and many points to respond to. For now I'll pick just one.
The line "separating us and them" becomes hardened in the realm of the political, where we must act on our convictions about the society in which we live. Scientists and philosophers don't worry about religious authority when they're doing their work, and haven't for a very long time. I don't worry about it in doing my own. But we, as citizens, must worry about it and must act. When it comes down to political action, the line looks very hard indeed.
Same reason ....."You never hear in the news, 200 killed today when Atheist rebels took heavy shelling from the Agnostic stronghold in the north"
--Doug Stanhope
That bloody battle has been going on in my mind for most of my life.
Hermit
Silver Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Knowing that requires hindsight though, surely
Seems to me that churches are still struggling to catch up with which aspects of modern society to accept or reject, for example gender equality, and the bigger they are the slower they change!
Knowing that requires hindsight though, surely
Seems to me that churches are still struggling to catch up with which aspects of modern society to accept or reject, for example gender equality, and the bigger they are the slower they change!
Agreed. But, one could easily find fault in all sorts of "societies" from the past that "held humanity back" could one not? IMHO, ANY organization's culpability in something as onerous as being detrimental to humanity should be judged by their current actions as opposed to the immutable past.
I find it very interesting to watch the turmoil unfold as the current Pope attempts do just what you wrote.
Hermit
Silver Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Yes, agreed (more so in US than UK politics). That's my point - it's an imaginary line created only by labeling some as 'other', which is then used to the advantage of the 'us'. Inspect it any further than the labels (and the prejudices they bring) and the line just isn't there! You could well imagine a reporter writing "... the atheist senator from ..." whereas you wouldn't see Christian noted in the same way.
But I'm not sure the fault lies with the politicians - if they would really lose votes by declaring themselves atheist, then it says more about the voters prejudices. In actuality, the laws that an atheist might decide on would likely be no different to those a so-called Christian would!
Hermit
Silver Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Agreed. But, one could easily find fault in all sorts of "societies" from the past that "held humanity back" could one not? IMHO, ANY organization's culpability in something as onerous as being detrimental to humanity should be judged by their current actions as opposed to the immutable past.
I find it very interesting to watch the turmoil unfold as the current Pope attempts do just what you wrote.
I don't think you could, at least not easily. The only other examples I can think of would be the victims of empires, where large populations were held back, and arguably we would globally be more forward now if they hadn't been. But it's not really in the same league as the influence that some churches have had.
Is there any chance your opinion is possibly biased by disdain for religion? There are so many flavors of religion, and each one could be judged on it's own detrimental effects....
Any number of ruling parties in the old world could be blamed for some devastating hindrances to the advancement of humankind in the past. The current caste system in India certainly holds back all but the top tier elite through any number of mechanisms.
I could go on, but maybe I've made my point?
And I disagree. But that would be based on the gay marriage debates, ID in the science classroom, fetal stem cell research and a few other reasons. But I would think you'd already be familiar with those issues on that other forum. Remember? The one where those claims of baiting originated?
Bob, this is a separate forum, and the "rules" (cough, cough) from there kept the "debate" skewed. Now we can debate it here, where it should be fair and civil. You currently are trolling ME in this thread.
So fuck off bob.
For Hermit....
One could compare the "evils" of religion (and the associated detriment to society) with those of government (past and present). Such a comparison would shrink the contribution of religion down to nearly invisible by said comparison would it not? Killing, unethical laws, segregation, slavery, conquest, etc. The list just goes on and on and on.....
So fuck off bob.
For Hermit....
One could compare the "evils" of religion (and the associated detriment to society) with those of government (past and present). Such a comparison would shrink the contribution of religion down to nearly invisible by said comparison would it not? Killing, unethical laws, segregation, slavery, conquest, etc. The list just goes on and on and on.....
Well, you're already off to a good start.
Good points but religion is based on Folklore from a primitive time when man didn't have a understanding and things that was said then are taken in a whole different way now like 666 encodes the name of Nero in Hebrew but most religious people have twisted it thinking someone (The Anti Christ) will be born with them numbers on them...Science on the other hand is always in the here and now and always looking to the future in other words...Moving on while finding the facts....You go to Bethlehem and go to the so called birth place and you will not find one person who has proof that was even the spot...They even say they don't know...Someone (We don't know who) a long time ago said yeah it was on this very spot and everyone believes...I could go on about "lourdes" in france the amount of people who go there over the years (Millions) but the amount of so called "miracles" (69 in total)...It all don't add up and is really a far streach
Lot's to catch up on..BBL
Well, you're already off to a good start.
You've been trolling for that response bob.....
Now, behave civilly, and you'll get the same respect in return.
m-K?
Gay marriages, ID in the classroom, etc (with the exception of embryonic stem cells) really haven't been a "detriment to humankind". They are societal issues, and are currently in flux (and ID should NEVER be taught in public schools). Please do not discount the enormous gains made recently for the homosexual community. Just today, a gay marriage was allowed in Texas for special reasons.
http://www.ksat.com/content/pns/ksa...arried-in-texas-despite-gay-marriage-ban.html
Embryonic stem cell research research has ethical considerations that reach far further than religious objections. Would you like to discuss it further?
Well, there is certainly a difference between "biblical literalism" and science!!!
And yes, science attempts to help humans understand the "nature" of things (usually), and religion(S), attempt to define a belief structure and behavioral model. You have a good point about the age of most religions. Each has a "book" with "rules" intended for the generation at first writing, and ALL subsequent generations. So, you won't find a religious text that describes Mendelean genetics, or plate tectonics.....
Hermit
Silver Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Well, I don't know
That caste system was horribly reinforced by the British empire.To 'hold back humanity' implies to me something bigger than any nation (or bigger than any set of nations in conflict), and lasting longer than kings reign or goverments are in power. It takes a big, powerful, dogmatic, long-lived religion to do that - there really aren't any other contenders around.
Well, I don't know
To 'hold back humanity' implies to me something bigger than any nation (or bigger than any set of nations in conflict), and lasting longer than kings reign or goverments are in power. It takes a big, powerful, dogmatic, long-lived religion to do that - there really aren't any other contenders around.
I guess for us to take this discussion further, I'm gonna need to know exactly what you mean by "hold back humanity".
Fair enough?
Hermit
Silver Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
I'd argue that many of those deeds were, or have also been, done in the name of religion. Prior to secular states at least, where is the distinction between king and religion? The king of Spain wasn't excommunicated for starting the Spanish Inquisition, far from it. For a long time, Spain and Portugal had approval from the Pope to enslave non-Christians. Unethical laws quite often derive from a rigid religion-based perspective. The list just goes on and on and on.....
Hermit
Silver Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
I guess for us to take this discussion further, I'm gonna need to know exactly what you mean by "hold back humanity".
Fair enough?
You were the one who brought it in... what did you mean by it?
Maybe, maybe not...
Was the French Revolution just based on religion?
What about wars in the common time?
As for the "holding back humanity", I'm pretty sure someone else brought that into the discussion, and I was answering. I would have to go back and look.
Can you suggest a definition of it for arguments sake?
Well, I don't know
To 'hold back humanity' implies to me something bigger than any nation (or bigger than any set of nations in conflict), and lasting longer than kings reign or goverments are in power. It takes a big, powerful, dogmatic, long-lived religion to do that - there really aren't any other contenders around.
Any number of things can hold back humanity. Off the top of my head, war could do that as could a repressive totalitarian government. As far as religion goes, I'm not sure it has to be long-lived, the tenets just have to be credible and adhered to by enough people. It just helps credibility if the religion is long-lived.
As far as being a contender, I'd say, yes, religion would be a big contender. It would certainly be a factor in undermining teaching evolution in science class, abortion, gay rights, fetal stem cell research and a bunch of other things. And that would just be Christianity in America. If you look worldwide, you can add restricting the education of women, punishing apostates, etc.
You escalated and that doesn't exactly engender trust.
I don't give a flying fuck what you think bob. If you want to debate the topic, this isn't debating it...
This is to what I was referring....
Bob, fetal stem cell research isn't done. It's not only considered to be unethical, fetal cells are not pluripotent, thus not even as useful as adult stem cells, or adult stem cells made pluripotent (induced).
And again, holding back mankind by undermining teaching evolution? It is taught in all biology curricula that I know about. Gay rights? See my previous answer. In addition, how exactly does that "hold back humankind"? Abortion? Maybe some of those aborted would have made great contributions to humanity???? I don't see any holdback the other way around.
As for government vs religion in the "old days", one cannot really separate the two components in those societies.
Now government in general, that has been responsible for some really horrific atrocities. A really good example from just the last century would Godwin this thread.
Hermit
Silver Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Would you rather the French Revolution hadn't happened, and we never entered the age of 'Modern Society' with democracies in place of theocracies?
What about then the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre?
What about, what about... if you'd like to tally everything up and analyse the stats, feel free
I haven't said that religion has been at the root of the majority of evil... I started by saying that it had "done a great deal of harm". It's hard to refute that. It makes no odds if collectively there has been more harm done by 'others'.
As for "holding back humanity", OK, so that started somewhere else. But for this discussion between you and I, what did you think you were agreeing with when you wrote your post?
If you don't care what I think, fine. If you want to debate a topic, this wouldn't be the way to go about it.
Would you rather the French Revolution hadn't happened, and we never entered the age of 'Modern Society' with democracies in place of theocracies?
What about then the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre?
What about, what about... if you'd like to tally everything up and analyse the stats, feel free
I haven't said that religion has been at the root of the majority of evil... I started by saying that it had "done a great deal of harm". It's hard to refute that. It makes no odds if collectively there has been more harm done by 'others'.
As for "holding back humanity", OK, so that started somewhere else. But for this discussion between you and I, what did you think you were agreeing with when you wrote your post?
Yes Hermit, we could probably go tit-for-tat and tally up. Then assign "relative harm", and we would still get nowhere.
I don't think religion, ANY religion has "held back humanity". All the examples thus far don't equate to that in my book. But, neither has atheism. But government oppression, war, and politics HAVE.
Just think back to the 20th century. Of all the wars (which I classify as a detriment to humankind), what proportion were religion-based?
That's the point I'm trying to make.