Should Abortion be Allowed?

[Adam Caramon]

Adam's comment looks like a pertinent question to me. I note that you did not answer it though.

Maybe I insulted him a way back? Either way, I think one of the things that m_elect has demonstrated is that old addage about the differences between religious people and non-religious people. Good people who are religious are good because a god commands them to be. Good people who are not religious are good because they want people to be good to them (i.e., golden rule, treat people the way you want to be treated).

That's the one thing about proving to religious people that god doesn't exist. Having lost their supreme lawgiver, they would feel their actions do not have consequences, and would run amuck committing crimes.

Working against this, however, is the all-encompassing nature of religion. If something good happens, god did it. If something bad happens, god works in mysterious ways. And if some proof comes along to disprove a religious text or idea, then god is testing the flock's faith.

Which is why I am sure the current slow but growing shift away from religion will continue. Studies show that higher levels of education lead to lower levels of religion, so (continue) support(ing) cheaper and more readily available education.

 

[Thales750]

Studies show that higher levels of education lead to lower levels of religion, so (continue) support(ing) cheaper and more readily available education.

Yes but higher levels of education don’t necessarily correspond to higher levels of intelligence. And in highly intelligent circles, God usually does exist.
Why would any non believer spend so much energy disproving the existence of God? As I have always maintained, Atheism is a religion, as fundamental as any that have ever existed.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Yes but higher levels of education don’t necessarily correspond to higher levels of intelligence.

I'm not sure what you mean by that? Do you mean to say that, generally speaking, people who have attained 2 year, 4 year, 6 year, or 8 year degrees are not any more intelligent than those who have only attained a high school diploma (or less)?

And in highly intelligent circles, God usually does exist.

Again, not sure what you mean? Are you saying that people who are highly intelligent tend to believe in god? If so, do you have any evidence to support such a claim?

Why would any non believer spend so much energy disproving the existence of God?

If you had a friend who fell in with a bad crowd, and that bad crowd brainwashed your friend into believeing a lot of really crazy things, would you try to disprove the things the crowd pushed on your friend?


For those of us in the non-religious community, we see a lot of anger, hate, and division as a result of religion. Religiously-influenced legislation is one of our biggest pet peeves. How do you counter this religious influence? One way is by trying to show how silly or foolish it is for modern people to believe in fairy tales.

As I have always maintained, Atheism is a religion, as fundamental as any that have ever existed.

Atheism, and the non-religious community in general, is definitely a movement. It definitely has goals, motives, etc. But it is not a religion by using the dictionary definition of the word.

Do you mean that you are unaware of a different word to define such a movement, thus you use the word religion as the closest approximation for what you can come up with?

 

[Thales750]

You’re pretty funny Adam,

Usually I refrain from this line by line dissection; but you seem to like it and you were being very funny.

I'm not sure what you mean by that? Do you mean to say that, generally speaking, people who have attained 2 year, 4 year, 6 year, or 8 year degrees are not any more intelligent than those who have only attained a high school diploma (or less)?

No, I think there was no ambiguity in my statement; education does not indicate higher levels of intelligence. That is not to say that people with less education are more apt to be more intelligent. Quite the contrary intelligent people will often opt for more education rather than less.

Still, an educated idiot…

Again, not sure what you mean? Are you saying that people who are highly intelligent tend to believe in god? If so, do you have any evidence to support such a claim?

Not any that you would choose to believe or even, I imagine, acknowledge but the vast majority of my, quite considerable, circle of friends and acquaintances are both intelligent and educated; and they all believe in a supreme deity of one kind or another. None of them however, are particularly religious.

Certainly none of them are as fundamentally religious as most of the atheist poster on this site.

If you had a friend who fell in with a bad crowd, and that bad crowd brainwashed your friend into believing a lot of really crazy things, would you try to disprove the things the crowd pushed on your friend?

Would you not agree that lumping groups, and demonizing them, is a trait most often associated with fundamentalist religious extremist?

For those of us in the non-religious community, we see a lot of anger, hate, and division as a result of religion. Religiously-influenced legislation is one of our biggest pet peeves. How do you counter this religious influence? One way is by trying to show how silly or foolish it is for modern people to believe in fairy tales.

Or as it may be that a seemingly random confluence of atoms could produce life.

Atheism, and the non-religious community in general, is definitely a movement. It definitely has goals, motives, etc. But it is not a religion by using the dictionary definition of the word.
Do you mean that you are unaware of a different word to define such a movement, thus you use the word religion as the closest approximation for what you can come up with?

That was the funniest part. Yes, my limited vocabulary has indeed, gotten the best of me. LOL

As it turns out, in Dictionary.com #3 tells the story.

Religion, my dear Adam, is more about the dogma and less about believing in God, than the religious anti-god views so often pronounced by the Atheist sects.

I believe that God exist, but I could care less if you believe the same way.

Who of us is the most religious?




Look up these words:
Fundamentalist
Religious

 

[Alc]

For you pro-death types: It's pretty hypocritical once you're already born!

No, it isn't.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypocrisy

 

[Galaxiom]

Would you not agree that lumping groups, and demonizing them, is a trait most often associated with fundamentalist religious extremist?

Demons are a religious construct used to explain all the bad things that happen to belivers. (Of course bad things that happen to one's enemies are the work of God).

Atheists critique beliefs and the way they effect behaviours which they attribute to the person rather than "posession" by a malevolent supernatural entity.

Or as it may be that a seemingly random confluence of atoms could produce life.

This is one of the most amusing "rationals" used by the devoted to "prove" the existence of their mystical creator. Although they suggest life is far to complex to have arisen without an intelligent creato,r the obviously far more complex creator, (the most complex thing in all of existence) apparently arose by itself.

In contrast, science can trace the progression from the very first pixel of the universe which contained an amorphous concentration of energy ultimately through to the most complex structures found in life.

Science expalins the step by step processes that led to each phenomonon in a coherent structured system. The Godists explain the process as God said, "Let there be X" and there was X. It is banal.

I believe that God exist, but I could care less if you believe the same way.

I would not care less about people having a personal faith if it was not for the fact that the leaders of those faiths continually insist their bigotted philosophy be taken as the basis for public policy.

 

[Alc]

I believe that God exist, but I could care less if you believe the same way.

You're spending a considerable amount of time arguing putting across a viewpoint you claim not to care about.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Education does not indicate higher levels of intelligence.

That would mean there is no positive connection between educated people and intelligent people.

Quite the contrary intelligent people will often opt for more education rather than less.

That would mean that there is a positive connection between educated and intelligent people.

And you don't think your statement is ambiguous?

Still, an educated idiot…

If you're trying to make the point that it is possible for someone to be intelligent and not educated, as well as someone being educated but not intelligent, I agree with you. That's why I previously said "Generally speaking". I wasn't talking in absolutes.

Not any that you would choose to believe or even, I imagine, acknowledge but the vast majority of my, quite considerable, circle of friends and acquaintances are both intelligent and educated; and they all believe in a supreme deity of one kind or another. None of them however, are particularly religious.

Its not that I don't believe or wouldn't acknowledge such evidence, its that the value of such evidence is very minimal. We all have our own personal experiences from which we draw conclusions. When we try to prove something, we have to seek more robust and less biased sources of information. Being that there is published evidence that refutes your claim, I'd be more inclined to trust the "hard" evidence, as it were.

Would you not agree that lumping groups, and demonizing them, is a trait most often associated with fundamentalist religious extremist?

I wouldn't say calling a group "a bad crowd" is demonizing them.

As it turns out, in Dictionary.com #3 tells the story.

Ah, so you mean that Atheism is a religion much in the same way that my neice's dance troupe is a religion. They believe dancing is fun and good exercise, and they practice all the various steps and movements. Or like working at Burger King. They believe that you should be able to have a burger your way, and they practice that by flamebroiling.

I believe that God exist, but I could care less if you believe the same way.

I don't care if you believe in god either. Each person should be able to make that decision for themself. Religion should also be something that stays at home and out of the public square.

 

[Thales750]

huhuhuhuh,

I think I made my point.

Zealots all.

 

[m_elect]

Adam's comment looks like a pertinent question to me. I note that you did not answer it though.

I was responding to the Doc Man's insult. What are you talking about?

I invite you to expalin how the absolute morality of God works to justify the Hebrew genocide as a Holy act. To my morality 'God told us to do it' is the most pathetic expediency possible.

I highly doubt this is your primary reason for refuting God. If it were, you'd know that God justifies this in Gen 15:16 and Deut 18:10-12.

The real questions you should be asking the Bible are: Why are we the way we are? Why does God hold us accountable? What hope do I have?

Or you can sit in the corner and do 1 of 3 things: Give up trying to find objective morals without an objective moral law giver and enjoy the short span of a man's life, Continue to fruitlessly define objective moral laws without an objective moral law giver, Create your own God who will not hold you accountable. Good Luck!

 

[m_elect]

Demons are a religious construct used to explain all the bad things that happen to belivers.

This is so absolutely ludicrous that nothing you ask deserves a serious response.

 

[Brianwarnock]

It is a smart tactic to quote out of context and then ridicule somebody that you are losing the argument with.

Brian

 

[Brianwarnock]

As usual any argument about God's existence revolves around the authenticity of the Bible, just incase nobody has noticed there are other religions and holy texts, which of course is the main weakness of the religious argument.

Brian

 

[Galaxiom]

Originally Posted by Galaxiom
I invite you to expalin how the absolute morality of God works to justify the Hebrew genocide as a Holy act. To my morality 'God told us to do it' is the most pathetic expediency possible

I I highly doubt this is your primary reason for refuting God. If it were, you'd know that God justifies this in Gen 15:16 and Deut 18:10-12.

Well neither of those passages offerred any explanation whatsoever.

However I do know the standard answer. God told the Hebrews that all of the more than thirty tribes who lived in the area were wicked people and He wanted them killed.

This justification relies entirely on the concept that the leaders of the massacre were in direct communication with God. If the Bible is just a book then, like so many who came later, they were simply justifying a crime against humanity by the criminally insane and the Hewbrew massacres were nothing more than the earliest recorded genocide in history.

Incredibly, the same God that could create anything He wanted by saying "Let there be ..." and killed the firstborn of the Egyptians all by Himself, needed the Hebrews to hack all the people in the Promised Land to death. Rather odd don't you think? Why didn't He just wave His hand? Or why didn't he kill the Egyptians who had treated the hebrews badly and give them that land?

The reality is that the whole episode describes a well known tactic employed by aggressors. Firstly vilify the target population with stories of their evil nature and deeds. Then emphasise that they are a threat, whip up people in to frenzy and insist the only rightful thing to do is wholesale slaughter.

Next take the stuff you can carry and burn the rest so anyone who returns from being away during the massacre will ultimately perish.

Joshua's death squad loaded the gold, silver and jewels into a box (The Arc of the Covenant) to "honour God". They then treated the box of loot as an exalted object. Indeed the box was parked overnight in a house and the owner had to build a new house because no woman or child could ever be allowed to enter that house again as that would be an insult to the Lord. (Just a little demonstration of the misogeny encompassed throughout this hideous book.)

What God was going to do with the box of treasure remains a mystery but His side of the bargain was to ensure the Hebrews conquered all the people and deliver the Promised Land to them.

Of course the history is always written by the conquerers so they can claim whatever they like about the nature of the vanquished. All the women were prostitutes! (Of course, since they had sex without being married in a proper Hebrew God approved ceremony.)

I urge everyone to actually read the Book of Joshua. It is real eye opener that will give you a taste of what the faithful are actually lending their support to.

 

[Adam Caramon]

huhuhuhuh,

I think I made my point.

Zealots all.

Would you not agree that lumping groups, and demonizing them, is a trait most often associated with fundamentalist religious extremist?

The real questions you should be asking the Bible are: Why are we the way we are? Why does God hold us accountable? What hope do I have?

And if you had been born in Iraq, you'd be telling people they need to see their Koran to find the answers to all of these questions. You find the bible important and above scrutiny because you were very likely indoctrinated to it at a young age.

As usual any argument about God's existence revolves around the authenticity of the Bible, just incase nobody has noticed there are other religions and holy texts, which of course is the main weakness of the religious argument.

Yeah. Religious crazies have been around for as long as there has been religion. They all preach doom and gloom unless you follow their One True Path™. Christianity, like all religions before it, will eventually outlive its usefulness and take its rightful place in history books.

 

[Rabbie]

Yes but higher levels of education don’t necessarily correspond to higher levels of intelligence. And in highly intelligent circles, God usually does exist.

There have been many highly intelligent people who are atheists and many more who onlypay lipservice to religion to avoid persecution by religious fanatics.

Why would any non believer spend so much energy disproving the existence of God? As I have always maintained, Atheism is a religion, as fundamental as any that have ever existed.

Ah this old canard. Atheism IMO is just the lack of belief in a deity/deities. It is not about ceremonies, rituals, shared beliefs or any of the other attributes of a religion.

 

[Galaxiom]

Religions owe their success to a simple principle.

People prayed to one God or another to support them in battle. Those who won the battle attributed their success to the help of their god. The survivors of the opposing side ultimatley agreed and signed up with the conqueror's god. This who didn't were killed for heresy. The end result in an environment centred on conflict is an attrition to a small number of gods.

Like in the battle between brands this usually comes down to two main players, a couple of significant minor players and a number of inconsequential brands. (Coke vs Pepsi, PC vs Mac, Christian vs Muslim.)

The origins of these gods amidst conflict is also evident in their holy writings as well as the attitudes of their early heros. Both the Hebrews and Mohammad's gangs swept their regions, establishing the reign their god upon all either by conversion or annihilation of the opposition.

 

[Galaxiom]

There have been many highly intelligent people who are atheists and many more who onlypay lipservice to religion to avoid persecution by religious fanatics.

A generation ago atheists avoided discussing religion. Many were assumed to be believers by the faithful because they didn't argue about it. Religion was considered an impolite matter to be discussed. Moreover, in a world where power was still very much in the hands of the church, people avoided confrontations that could see them destroyed by the church.

Now the religious stranglehold of power has weakened. Modern atheists are fully aware of the damage religion continues to do to our societies and are ready and willing to speak out about it.

Religions has responded by demanding tolerance. They insist that religious beliefs should be afforded respect and not criticised. Meanwhile they continue to complain loudly about the loss of religious values, accuse the unbelievers of causing the ills in society and expect us to just shut up and take it while thy lie to the world.

Well tough. I have no more tolerance for the beliefs of fascist religious attitudes than I have for Nazism. The contents of their primitive "holy books" will be their undoing because their brutal, fascist attitudes are clearly written there in black and white.

 

[dan-cat]

Atheism IMO is just the lack of belief in a deity/deities. It is not about ceremonies, rituals, shared beliefs or any of the other attributes of a religion.

There is a difference between a lack of (a) and anti (opposition).

Right or wrongly it's clear that Galaxiom is lending atheism to the quality of opposition to theism. This is where the notion of 'shared beliefs' springs.

 

[Galaxiom]

Absence of belief in a god does not constitute a religious belief. I will happily admit to holding anti-theist attitudes. That does not however mean that holding these views forms the basis of a religion, even if others hold similar views.

Otherwise the belief in the effects of gravity or the sun rising in the morning would also have to be called religous beliefs.

Religions stands apart from ordinary belief in the continued devotion to doctrine despite the observational realities.