Are you an atheist? (1 Viewer)

[Mihail]

Why only a thousand years of peace and not an eternity?

Because a sentence like this eliminate the fear.
And what is the Bible without the fear ?

 

[Galaxiom]

Did you not read a previous post that it is people that believe any-thing goes, there is no God thus morality is out the window.

This ludicrous claim is often repeated by theists. It is an insult and shows the profound ignorance embodied in what in theists passes for thinking.

I have seen the supposed morality as defined by the Bible. It is nothing more than the arbitrary prejudices and bigotry of ancient ignorant misogynists repackaged as divine will.

They arrogantly presumed that their every thought was driven by a supreme being.

Unsurprisingly these men placed women in a submissive role. Genuine enlightened morality shows that this premise cannot be sustained by any rational means.

Likewise the attitude to homosexuality and beating children into submission.

Religion has nothing to contribute to any sense morality.

 

[Libre]

This ludicrous claim is often repeated by theists. It is an insult and shows the profound ignorance embodied in what in theists passes for thinking.

I have seen the supposed morality as defined by the Bible. It is nothing more than the arbitrary prejudices and bigotry of ancient ignorant misogynists repackaged as divine will.

They arrogantly presumed that their every thought was driven by a supreme being.

Unsurprisingly these men placed women in a submissive role. Genuine enlightened morality shows that this premise cannot be sustained by any rational means.

Likewise the attitude to homosexuality and beating children into submission.

Religion has nothing to contribute to any sense morality.

I mostly agree, but it goes a little deeper.
The real question is, are people essentially moral beings, immoral, or amoral?
If they're immoral then they will do immoral things, regardless of what the bible prescribes.
I think we people are a mixture of the above: there is a touch of immorality in us all, a large slice of amorality, and a sliver of morality. For one thing, it depends on what the perceived consequences are of an immoral act. If it's a penal code, and the perp thinks he won't get caught, then he will act anyway. But if he thinks that God is watching, and God knows all - that might stop him form the immoral act.
You are right when you say that organized religion has often blown it when it comes to identifying what is actually immoral, and the less powerful (usually women, minorities, the poor, etc) are often screwed.
I said we are mostly amoral, because in general we act according to our needs without really considering if it is *right* or *wrong*, (as though there were a real *right* and *wrong*, which is open to debate). But without any penalties or repercussions, people are going to act in their own self interests most of the time.
That's why laws and enforcement are needed, although sometimes they blow that as well. But at least in a democracy, the less powerful have SOME influence on the outcomes of elections, and have swayed them often, if they can get organized and exert their influence - to wit, gay marriage, woman's rights, civil rights for minorities, to name a few.

 

[Galaxiom]

But at least in a democracy, the less powerful have SOME influence on the outcomes of elections, and have swayed them often, if they can get organized and exert their influence - to wit, gay marriage, woman's rights, civil rights for minorities, to name a few.

These minorities didn't get get rights through overwhelming an election.

These "new" moralities came from millions of people who had no personal gain from the change agreeing that such prejudices are fundamentally wrong.

Ending slavery took away the "needs" of many to have access to a cheap workforce yet still it ended (where it has ended because it still goes on in many places).

Gays are a tiny minority yet ordinary people have supported their cause.

Unmarried mothers were in small numbers compared to conventional families yet society changed its attitudes and agreed to help pay to support these women and their children.

Slavery is condoned by the Bible. The Bible also tells us that sex before marriage, homosexuality and even disobedient children are reasons to be be stoned to death.

Just what drove us, almost invariably led by secular people, to replace the entrenched "morality" of the Bible with modern values?

According to BladeRunner the secular have no capacity for morality. Are we to presume that he thinks all these changes are expressions of immorality? Sadly, I suspect so.

 

[Dick7Access]

disobedient children are reasons to be be stoned to death.

Grandchildren is the reward God gives you for not killing your own kids.

 

[Libre]

These minorities didn't get get rights through overwhelming an election.

These "new" moralities came from millions of people who had no personal gain from the change agreeing that such prejudices are fundamentally wrong.

Ending slavery took away the "needs" of many to have access to a cheap workforce yet still it ended (where it has ended because it still goes on in many places).

Gays are a tiny minority yet ordinary people have supported their cause.

Unmarried mothers were in small numbers compared to conventional families yet society changed its attitudes and agreed to help pay to support these women and their children.

Slavery is condoned by the Bible. The Bible also tells us that sex before marriage, homosexuality and even disobedient children are reasons to be be stoned to death.

Just what drove us, almost invariably led by secular people, to replace the entrenched "morality" of the Bible with modern values?

According to BladeRunner the secular have no capacity for morality. Are we to presume that he thinks all these changes are expressions of immorality? Sadly, I suspect so.

You really think slavery was abolished when the southern states just came to their senses and realized it was wrong - after fighting a war to protect their right to have their slaves?
Women's rights, gay rights, minorities civil rights were also bitterly opposed, until the opposition was worn away by a nucleus of determined activists, and the general population just accepted it because they were too busy worrying about their own problems to do much about it.
If you saw the movie Lincoln - a seemingly authentic portrayal - slavery was abolished in the US by wheeling and dealing - which is pretty much how anything gets done in congress to this day.
But I still say that the way to change someone's mind - once it
is made up - is to show them it's to their own benefit, not to convince them what is really *right*. Some will listen but many won't and history shows these battles were hard fought and took intense pressure to bring about change.

 

[Galaxiom]

But I still say that the way to change someone's mind - once it is made up - is to show them it's to their own benefit, not to convince them what is really *right*.

What are the benefits suggested for for others by allowing people to have same sex partners?

I think it is more a case of the prevailing attitudes literally dying out and being replaced by more enlightened attitudes not rooted in Biblical nonsense.

Some walk a strange path retaining their faith while they pretend that the Bible has been misunderstood and didn't really say that homosexuality is an abomination.

Similarly with women's rights.

 

[Galaxiom]

You really think slavery was abolished when the southern states just came to their senses and realized it was wrong - after fighting a war to protect their right to have their slaves?

No. But remember that slaves had also been previously held in the North. What made them, or any others who pushed for change in any issue stand up against injustice?

Reforms certainly aren't driven by the churches so morality, contrary to BladeRunner's implication, is not exclusive to the religious.

 

[Bladerunner]

Even if people believe that there is some all powerful being out there that created everything thousands, or even millions, of years ago why should it necessarily follow that they should be worshiped and / or obeyed as a god?

People are supposed to have free will and a conscience of their own without the need for outside influence.

He does not required anything except you believe in him. To believe in him you will try to live by his ten Commandments. Really all he ask for is just your love! Another being, older than us, yes more advanced than us yes, would more than likely required a lot more.

You have a free will and a conscience, It is your choice and only your choice! Nothing more.

Have a nice day :>)

Bladerunner

 

[Bladerunner]

Because a sentence like this eliminate the fear.
And what is the Bible without the fear ?

One Thousand years of peace among nations as mortal beings.
Eternity is with him in Heaven forever!

Have a nice day :>)

Blaerunner

 

[Galaxiom]

Really all he ask for is just your love!

Your God demands complete subjugation. Any who don't will suffer an eternity in a terrible place. Fortunately your god is just a myth created to gain compliant subjects.

This essay clearly demonstrates the true nature of your god's "love".

 

[Bladerunner]

Since I did not believe the Bible why would I believe any of the holy texts hence I declared myself an atheist.

If one rejects the Bible does one's sense of morality go with it? Even if you don't believe the words doesn't mean that the sentiment behind it isn't reasonable.

It doesn't mean I'm going to go out and kill someone just because I want something they've got or they simply annoy me.

Probably not. As someone else said a lot of people grow up with the church and religion with their parents. Those people will still have morals and a conscience which is why they are always trying to prove God does not exist.

The ones that grew up and many times have not grown up yet have no morals (killing is just a game) or a quick maneuver to get power (i.e. Various nations in Africa where millions are killed in the hunt for power).

Ask yourself this question, Since there is no written books of Atheism; if a person grows up (outside the influence of others like me and you) as an atheist, has had no contact with any kind of religion, will they have morals. If so, where do they (morals) come from? Hardwired in? Can we get that from evolution?

Have a nice day:>)

Bladerunner

 

[Brianwarnock]

One Thousand years of peace among nations as mortal beings.
Eternity is with him in Heaven forever!

Have a nice day :>)

Blaerunner

And after the thousand years?

Brian

 

[Galaxiom]

Ask yourself this question, Since there is no written books of Atheism; if a person grows up (outside the influence of others like me and you) as an atheist, has had no contact with any kind of religion, will they have morals. If so, where do they (morals) come from? Hardwired in? Can we get that from evolution?

You seem to think that writing something in a book is required as a basis for morality. There are moral codes in societies that have never had books.

We may or may not agree with what a society chooses as it tenets of morality but it does not mean they didn't have one.

When allowed to, morality does indeed evolve as societies develop. That is how modern societies have moved on from the deeply questionable values of ancients and stopped persecuting people solely for the sake of outdated norms based on ignorance.

What has stood most in the way of this progress is the insistence by religious authorities that the first moral codes to be written were the last word, leaving use wallowing in what were really no more than agreed prejudices formed without a rational context and certainly not appropriate in the vastly different world we now live in.

They persisted with the same nonsense in science only caving in when dogma such as a geocentric universe became utterly unsustainable. Four hundred years on the Pope admitted Galileo had been seriously wronged by the church.

Creationism is undergoing the same transformation. Morality is increasingly being transformed. The worldwide child exploitation scandals that are now clearly endemic in religiously organised institutions is taking a heavy toll. Everywhere the utter arrogance of church leaders who turned a blind eye to the abuse is being exposed. It is ugly and it will eventually be fatal to them.

Modern rational morality has exposed the deep fundamental flaws in the notion that one can be guided by the hand of God by simply praying without the context of a rigorous analysis of the framework on which we base our sense of morality.

Religion is an anachronism. Its days are numbered. Unfortunately those who hold the deepest loyalty to their prejudice and dogma would rather see complete destruction than to start thinking.

 

[Libre]

What are the benefits suggested for for others by allowing people to have same sex partners?

I think it is more a case of the prevailing attitudes literally dying out and being replaced by more enlightened attitudes not rooted in Biblical nonsense.

Some walk a strange path retaining their faith while they pretend that the Bible has been misunderstood and didn't really say that homosexuality is an abomination.

Similarly with women's rights.

My belief is that it is the legislators and the courts that bring about these changes. The prevailing attitudes dying out and being replaced in the general population could happen over a lot of time - meaning generations - but I doubt it could happen on an individual bases very often. People grow accustomed to their beliefs and are loath to change them. And besides they are basically apathetic about issues that don't affect them directly.
The legislators and the courts become convinced (by the persistant pressure of the afore mentioned nucleus of determined activists - coupled with the apathy and ambivalence in the general population) - that they will be toast if they don't change their tune. They will be toast because the activists have a lot of sway, can lobby and campaign (because they have financial backing and the will and determination to succeed), and it is in the legislator's interests to see things their way. There is the opposition too, and the legislators keep their eye on the ball and see who has more influence. And they are resistant at first - and often nothing changes for awile - and sometimes it changes and then gets changed back again (cases in point prop 8 in california, the continuing sagas of abortion rights, prayer in schools, and so on).
This is the means of social change in a large, complex society such as ours. And the pendulum swings back and forth and sometimes progress is reversed.

 

[Mihail]

Your God demands complete subjugation. Any who don't will suffer an eternity in a terrible place. Fortunately your god is just a myth created to gain compliant subjects.

This essay clearly demonstrates the true nature of your god's "love".

Do you think that a "true believer" will read more than 3 sentences from this link ?
I don't think so. The Bible has an interdiction to even read whatever seems to be, from the start, against its teachings.
You can start a new poll in order to see how many believers have read, at all, your link

 

[Mihail]

Just a joke:
There are 3 minutes from the time when God has created Adam and Eve.
He is very proud and, looking to Adam He say for Himself:
"What nice. It is superb. It is perfect" and so on...
Then turning His holly eyes to Eve:
"Hm. You will need some make-up".

 

[Old Man Devin]

Ask yourself this question, Since there is no written books of Atheism; if a person grows up (outside the influence of others like me and you) as an atheist, has had no contact with any kind of religion, will they have morals. If so, where do they (morals) come from? Hardwired in? Can we get that from evolution?

Morality is more likely to be instilled by parent and influential peers rather than books. If it is going to be from books, it is very likely to be because your parents told you to obey the book, and you in turn obey your parents. Morality is thus a cultural property for the most part, with the presence of religion possibly being the basis for the morals, but not the reason people have them.

Plus yes most morality is hard wired. A human has to be conditioned in certain ways to find extreme acts like killing to be acceptable. The default human brain trusts and cooperates with others until trained or traumatised into doing otherwise. There is a strong evolutionary advantage to this, so it is perfectly reasonable to have gained this trait naturally.

I'll also add that in African nations where you claim morality is at a low, it is a violent minority creating this image (the majority of people would be considered morally average by western standards), and the cause of their violence is often the presence of strong religious beliefs and the conflicts they cause with communities with differing beliefs as they compete for resources (they are 'trained' to compete, rather than cooperate as they would with groups of the same religion).

 

[Libre]

Probably not. As someone else said a lot of people grow up with the church and religion with their parents. Those people will still have morals and a conscience which is why they are always trying to prove God does not exist.

The ones that grew up and many times have not grown up yet have no morals (killing is just a game) or a quick maneuver to get power (i.e. Various nations in Africa where millions are killed in the hunt for power).

Ask yourself this question, Since there is no written books of Atheism; if a person grows up (outside the influence of others like me and you) as an atheist, has had no contact with any kind of religion, will they have morals. If so, where do they (morals) come from? Hardwired in? Can we get that from evolution?

Have a nice day:>)

For 1 thing there are numerous books about and on the subject of atheism (Chris Hitchens is a noted author and there are many others), and for another, I don't know of anyone trying to prove that God doesn't exist, which would be an exercise in futility because you can't prove that a thing doesn't exist, only that it does - which is why the burden of proof is on the one who proclaims the existance of something, not on the one who denies it.

 

[Galaxiom]

Do you think that a "true believer" will read more than 3 sentences from this link ?
I don't think so. The Bible has an interdiction to even read whatever seems to be, from the start, against its teachings.
You can start a new poll in order to see how many believers have read, at all, your link

I expect you are correct. The more incisive the piece the more the aversion to reading it and the essay is a very good one.

I doubt that most true believers have even read the Bible right through.