PDA

View Full Version : Why do Religious People believe that Athiests are Immoral?




DamianTV
03-19-2009, 04:16 AM
Simple question.

Debate.

Truth Warrior
03-19-2009, 04:26 AM
Do atheists believe that religious people are immoral?

DamianTV
03-19-2009, 04:28 AM
Lets see. Youre a witch, well burn you alive so you can burn in hell because you believe differently from us. What do you think?

(not directed personally at you, just using you as an example in a hypothetical situation...)

Omphfullas Zamboni
03-19-2009, 04:42 AM
I don't believe atheists are immoral.

Kludge
03-19-2009, 04:43 AM
Because Atheists very rarely believe in the same principles as Theists?

Truth Warrior
03-19-2009, 04:44 AM
Lets see. Youre a witch, well burn you alive so you can burn in hell because you believe differently from us. What do you think?

(not directed personally at you, just using you as an example in a hypothetical situation...) Thanks, but I don't really care much for hypotheticals. :p

A simple direct answer to my yes/no question would suffice very nicely.<IMHO> ;)

DamianTV
03-19-2009, 04:48 AM
Then Yes. Religious people are the immoral ones.

Truth Warrior
03-19-2009, 04:53 AM
Then Yes. Religious people are the immoral ones. Thank you! :)

idiom
03-19-2009, 04:58 AM
Why do people fail to use the word immoral correctly?

Kludge
03-19-2009, 05:00 AM
Why do people fail to use the word immoral correctly?



S: (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=immoral&i=0&h=00#c) (adj) immoral (deliberately violating accepted principles of right and wrong)
S: (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=immoral&i=1&h=00#c) (adj) base (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=base), immoral (not adhering to ethical or moral principles) "base and unpatriotic motives"; "a base, degrading way of life"; "cheating is dishonorable";


http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=immoral

idiom
03-19-2009, 05:07 AM
There are theologies that consider *all* people to be incapable of living withint Principles. That is, even the orphaned jungle child has personal principles that he or she will eventually break.

That is the only case of considering a group of people (here, everyone) to be immoral that I can think of.

Otherwise one has to claim, for example, that an atheist believes that he or she should believe in God on principle but deliberately doesn't believe in God because they are evil.

I can think of three people on the forum that describes.

Maybe I am being generous to think that most people are misusing the term immoral and not infact implying that they, personally, are the gold standard of morality.

DamianTV
03-19-2009, 05:15 AM
Youre probably right about the word being misused, but its not just here, my beef with those of 'faith' is pretty much everywhere.

It seems to me that the typical relgious mindset thinks that I am immoral because I refuse to believe in their god because I have no fear of the consequences, when quite the opposite is true, Im just not afraid of consequences in the afterlife, which is what I think they are referring to, thus, they conclude that "I must be immoral because I dont believe in any god".

Truth Warrior
03-19-2009, 05:21 AM
The core message of all the world's religious writings is the same: ethical integrity, honesty, sincerity, compassion, tolerance and non-violence.

idiom
03-19-2009, 05:26 AM
http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2004/20040804h.jpg

Just because I have been dying to post that one.

Mesogen
03-19-2009, 06:28 AM
All the ethics and morals of all religions and philosophies can be summed up in a single sentence.

Be kind.

Conversely: Don't be a dick.

Kludge
03-19-2009, 06:34 AM
Be kind.

Conversely: Don't be a dick.

Those are not the same...


How kind must I be?

georgiaboy
03-19-2009, 06:53 AM
The core message of all the world's religious writings is the same: ethical integrity, honesty, sincerity, compassion, tolerance and non-violence.

fail.

Truth Warrior
03-19-2009, 07:24 AM
fail. Thank you for your thoughtful and in depth critique. I can tell that you really put a lot of time and effort into it. It's really appreciated. :)

Pennsylvania
03-19-2009, 07:32 AM
They believe atheists are immoral because they believe atheism in itself is immoral. Apostasy is considered a sin by most theistic religions.

zach
03-19-2009, 08:16 AM
I'm guessing it's because (in most traditional views) if one doesn't believe in God, then his/her life will end up immoral, detrimental, and sinful because of God's absence. Without God, one cannot learn to live and appreciate life properly.

Though I think most people (Christians or not) eventually realize that one can still be immoral, detrimental, and sinful even if God is believed to rule one's life.

To each their own.

Feenix566
03-19-2009, 08:25 AM
Just because someone believes in God, that doesn't necessarily mean that person thinks atheists are immoral.

However, now that we're on the subject of morality, I'd like to point something out. If a person believes that they will be rewarded or punished for their actions, that diminishes the moral component of their decision-making. At that point, self-interest takes over and the person is no longer primarily motivated by principle. The only truly moral stand that a person can take is one for which they do not believe they will be rewarded.

Truth Warrior
03-19-2009, 08:29 AM
Just because someone believes in God, that doesn't necessarily mean that person thinks atheists are immoral.

However, now that we're on the subject of morality, I'd like to point something out. If a person believes that they will be rewarded or punished for their actions, that diminishes the moral component of their decision-making. At that point, self-interest takes over and the person is no longer primarily motivated by principle. The only truly moral stand that a person can take is one for which they do not believe they will be rewarded. I agree! ;) :) Same with through fear of punishment for not.<IMHO>

Pennsylvania
03-19-2009, 09:18 AM
If a person believes that they will be rewarded or punished for their actions, that diminishes the moral component of their decision-making.

$this++;

Josh_LA
03-19-2009, 11:23 AM
Do atheists believe that religious people are immoral?

obviously not. at least not "all" and not "because they are religious".

Josh_LA
03-19-2009, 11:24 AM
fail.

yes, obviously, your resurrection religion is the exception.

Theocrat
03-19-2009, 02:13 PM
Simple question.

Debate.

It's not so much that "atheists" are immoral as it is that their worldview of "atheism" cannot account for morality as a necessity, without being relative or contradictory. As a Christian, I believe "atheists" have a knowledge of what good and evil are because God has given all of us consciences to know the difference between good and evil on a basic level. However, that knowledge of good and evil is not enough to make a person moral because we are subject to our sinful natures. We naturally do that which displeases God by giving in to our sinful desires, even though we know it's wrong to some extent. "Atheists" continue to live in such a state, and through the temptation and deception of their own sin, they forget God and try to establish morality based on their own behavior, all the while assuming they are good people.

The only way "atheists" can become consistently moral people is by a spiritual regeneration, whereby God gives them a new heart to live morally in the way which pleases God. This comes by hearing the Gospel, believing what it says as the truth, turning away from sin, and living unto God by His revelation and in the fellowship of other Christians. Of course, being a Christian doesn't automatically guarantee that a person will remain moral for the rest of his life because sometimes Christians can quench the Spirit by their continual disobedience which may lead to unbelief. The key is perseverance. The Spirit is available to help us persevere in our walk with God, and that's why prayer is important to keep us morally sound and consistent.

When "atheists" reject God as the basis for morality, they remove any foundation for establishing morals. As a matter of fact, morality is eradicated in an "atheist" worldview because you're left with nothing more than just molecules in motion, since there are no universal, abstract, and invariant entities such as moral concepts. Since molecules cannot tell us anything about what is good, how one ought to live, or even why we should be moral, the "atheist" is left in a serious dilemma for making sense of morals. Secretly, the "atheist" has to borrow from a Christian worldview of morals to appeal to morality as a standard for "rational and loving" behavior amongst humans. When he does so, he shows then that he really isn't an atheist, but he testifies that he is a creature made in God's image, whereby he can appeal to a moral standard as a basis for living right. Though "atheists" continue to deny their Creator as a foundation for moral behavior, they can't consistently live that way.

dirknb@hotmail.com
03-19-2009, 02:57 PM
It's not so much that "atheists" are immoral as it is that their worldview of "atheism" cannot account for morality as a necessity, without being relative or contradictory. As a Christian, I believe "atheists" have a knowledge of what good and evil are because God has given all of us consciences to know the difference between good and evil on a basic level. However, that knowledge of good and evil is not enough to make a person moral because we are subject to our sinful natures. We naturally do that which displeases God by giving in to our sinful desires, even though we know it's wrong to some extent. "Atheists" continue to live in such a state, and through the temptation and deception of their own sin, they forget God and try to establish morality based on their own behavior, all the while assuming they are good people.

The only way "atheists" can become consistently moral people is by a spiritual regeneration, whereby God gives them a new heart to live morally in the way which pleases God. This comes by hearing the Gospel, believing what it says as the truth, turning away from sin, and living unto God by His revelation and in the fellowship of other Christians. Of course, being a Christian doesn't automatically guarantee that a person will remain moral for the rest of his life because sometimes Christians can quench the Spirit by their continual disobedience which may lead to unbelief. The key is perseverance. The Spirit is available to help us persevere in our walk with God, and that's why prayer is important to keep us morally sound and consistent.

When "atheists" reject God as the basis for morality, they remove any foundation for establishing morals. As a matter of fact, morality is eradicated in an "atheist" worldview because you're left with nothing more than just molecules in motion, since there are no universal, abstract, and invariant entities such as moral concepts. Since molecules cannot tell us anything about what is good, how one ought to live, or even why we should be moral, the "atheist" is left in a serious dilemma for making sense of morals. Secretly, the "atheist" has to borrow from a Christian worldview of morals to appeal to morality as a standard for "rational and loving" behavior amongst humans. When he does so, he shows then that he really isn't an atheist, but he testifies that he is a creature made in God's image, whereby he can appeal to a moral standard as a basis for living right. Though "atheists" continue to deny their Creator as a foundation for moral behavior, they can't consistently live that way.

All of this from the guy who openly says he supports murder.

Theocrat
03-19-2009, 03:01 PM
All of this from the guy who openly says he supports murder.

I've never once said I supported murder on these forums.

Omphfullas Zamboni
03-19-2009, 03:06 PM
all the ethics and morals of all religions and philosophies can be summed up in a single sentence.

Be kind.

Conversely: Don't be a dick.

+3.14

heavenlyboy34
03-19-2009, 03:10 PM
+3.14

an allusion to pi? I thought pi was supposed to be rounded to 3.1416. :confused:

idiom
03-19-2009, 04:15 PM
However, that knowledge of good and evil is not enough to make a person moral because we are subject to our sinful natures. We naturally do that which displeases God by giving in to our sinful desires, even though we know it's wrong to some extent.

That is what I was talking about. Accurate use of immoral, Atheists are immoral because everyone is immoral.

Oh and Jesus Says:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/other/jesus-says.jpg

Theocrat
03-19-2009, 04:31 PM
That is what I was talking about. Accurate use of immoral, Atheists are immoral because everyone is immoral.

Oh and Jesus Says:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/other/jesus-says.jpg

Every person is not immoral, in a legal sense of God's justification. God does save people from their enslavement to immorality. Those who have been clothed in the righteousness of Christ are no longer servants of sin, as we're told in Romans 6.

asimplegirl
03-19-2009, 05:13 PM
I don't believe that atheists are immoral. I think that no matter who we are, no matter who we become, no matter what path we on, my God has a hand in it. Just like there are different religions that believe the same as me with slight differences, there are some that have huge differences, and atheists are on their own path.

Religions, or the lack thereof, do not define a person, their actions do. Someone's personal beliefs really have no bearing on whether they are immoral or not, as they are simply that, personal. As long as they do not try to take away my right to have those beliefs, they are completely fine in my book/

Also, religious is a term that applies to atheists. As long as you do something religiously, you are technically religious, right? I religiously take baths (lol), religiously clean my home, and religiously tell my husband that I love him.

As for why Christians believe that Atheists are immoral....well, lots of Christians lose their way just like anyone else. They lose sight of WHY they believe what they do- to be more like Christ. Just because we want to be more LIKE him, does not give us permission to BE him....permission to judge whether someone is immoral or not.. we can determine if someone's beliefs correspond with ours, but even Christ spoke of whores, thieves, and murderers who were more pure on the inside than his own followers in the Bible. Even he felt compassion for these people, without casting them out completely, or giving them a chance.

Truth Warrior
03-19-2009, 05:18 PM
I don't believe that atheists are immoral. I think that no matter who we are, no matter who we become, no matter what path we on, my God has a hand in it. Just like there are different religions that believe the same as me with slight differences, there are some that have huge differences, and atheists are on their own path.

Religions, or the lack thereof, do not define a person, their actions do. Someone's personal beliefs really have no bearing on whether they are immoral or not, as they are simply that, personal. As long as they do not try to take away my right to have those beliefs, they are completely fine in my book/

Also, religious is a term that applies to atheists. As long as you do something religiously, you are technically religious, right? I religiously take baths (lol), religiously clean my home, and religiously tell my husband that I love him.

As for why Christians believe that Atheists are immoral....well, lots of Christians lose their way just like anyone else. They lose sight of WHY they believe what they do- to be more like Christ. Just because we want to be more LIKE him, does not give us permission to BE him....permission to judge whether someone is immoral or not.. we can determine if someone's beliefs correspond with ours, but even Christ spoke of whores, thieves, and murderers who were more pure on the inside than his own followers in the Bible. Even he felt compassion for these people, without casting them out completely, or giving them a chance. Would you care to hazard an estimate of the % of CINOs among the Christians? Or vice versa?

Josh_LA
03-19-2009, 05:27 PM
Would you care to hazard an estimate of the % of CINOs among the Christians? Or vice versa?

I think she just basically said she doesn't care.

asimplegirl
03-19-2009, 05:27 PM
I keep having issues getting the stupid last page to come up..UGH.

Yes, Josh basically I don't care. LOL. It's truly not my business. If I were to guess the amount, I would say close to all of them... ::shrug:: There are very few Christians that live as Christ would expect them to, and none of us are perfect. It has been my own experience that people that do not believe in Christ, and instead believe in their own lives as what determines what happens to them, in terms of karma and the like, or those that simply want to LIVE and not worry about what anyone else thinks, only doing what they feel is right, tend to be better people. It is sad what the human element does to something as great as my Lord's word. Tsk Tsk.

heavenlyboy34
03-19-2009, 05:32 PM
I keep having issues getting the stupid last page to come up..UGH.

Yes, Josh basically I don't care. LOL. It's truly not my business. If I were to guess the amount, I would say close to all of them... ::shrug:: There are very few Christians that live as Christ would expect them to, and none of us are perfect. It has been my own experience that people that do not believe in Christ, and instead believe in their own lives as what determines what happens to them, in terms of karma and the like, or those that simply want to LIVE and not worry about what anyone else thinks, only doing what they feel is right, tend to be better people. It is sad what the human element does to something as great as my Lord's word. Tsk Tsk.

+1 (Nice to see ya, hun. ~hugs~ xoxoxo)

asimplegirl
03-19-2009, 05:35 PM
Aw, HB, I missed your wisdom! :)

heavenlyboy34
03-19-2009, 05:37 PM
Aw, HB, I missed your wisdom! :)

Of course you did! :) I'm surprised your head hasn't flown away since I haven't been able to advise you about how to prevent that! :) lolz;) (j/p)

Truth Warrior
03-19-2009, 05:38 PM
I think she just basically said she doesn't care. I'm still curious for an estimate.

asimplegirl
03-19-2009, 05:40 PM
I'm still curious for an estimate.

I gave one in my last post.

Truth Warrior
03-20-2009, 03:44 AM
I gave one in my last post. I disagree. :(

DamianTV
03-20-2009, 04:04 AM
They believe atheists are immoral because they believe atheism in itself is immoral. Apostasy is considered a sin by most theistic religions.

Thats exactly why said religions function like ponzi schemes. Works more like threats instead of persuading people to get off their lazy asses and do something good for the world. Help us help other people. VS Help us try to scare the shit out of other people into scaring the shit out of even more people so they scare the shit out of even more people, then get all those people to give us money because 'were the good religion and all otehr religions are teh fail'.

Religion == Ponzi Scheme.

DamianTV
03-20-2009, 03:23 PM
So in all fairness, I'll ask a question for both groups.

Can you name a time in history that religion was used as an excuse to do something immoral?

and...

Can you name a time in history that being an athiest was used as an excuse to do something immoral?

Theocrat
03-20-2009, 03:35 PM
So in all fairness, I'll ask a question for both groups.

Can you name a time in history that religion was used as an excuse to do something immoral?

and...

Can you name a time in history that being an athiest was used as an excuse to do something immoral?

How are those questions relevant to your topic thread question asking why religious people believe "atheists" are immoral?

By the way, "atheists" are just as religious as theists, so I think your question is misleading.

idiom
03-20-2009, 05:27 PM
So in all fairness, I'll ask a question for both groups.

Can you name a time in history that religion was used as an excuse to do something immoral?

and...

Can you name a time in history that being an athiest was used as an excuse to do something immoral?

In both case the existence of an excuse makes it a moral decision.

To call it immoral is simply to dismiss their ability to reason.

asimplegirl
03-20-2009, 06:46 PM
I disagree. :(

Did the PM help, or no?

I could elaborate if you'd like.

Sheepdog11
03-21-2009, 01:06 AM
By the way, "atheists" are just as religious as theists, so I think your question is misleading.

Please define "religious" before I attempt to form an opinion about this statement.

Mesogen
03-21-2009, 12:02 PM
By the way, "atheists" are just as religious as theists, so I think your question is misleading.

If religion is a group activity then theists beat atheists hands down. Most atheists don't congregate to revel in their atheism. There are some atheist and humanist organizations out there (I frankly don't see the point) but the percentage of atheists that participate is very low.

If religion is an individual thing then religion is just another word for faith. Since most atheists don't have faith then theists win the "more religious" award there too.

Theocrat
03-21-2009, 01:05 PM
Please define "religious" before I attempt to form an opinion about this statement.

I mean it in all senses of the word, as defined here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religious).

TurtleBurger
03-21-2009, 01:08 PM
If religion is a group activity then theists beat atheists hands down. Most atheists don't congregate to revel in their atheism.

They apparently do in Texas:
http://www.atheist-community.org/

Truth Warrior
03-21-2009, 01:13 PM
Did the PM help, or no?

I could elaborate if you'd like. I didn't receive it. :(

Theocrat
03-21-2009, 01:18 PM
They apparently do in Texas:
http://www.atheist-community.org/

Mesogen would probably say those "atheists" are in the minority of "atheists" who don't usually meet in groups to discuss their beliefs. However, I believe that there are many "atheist" groups which exist to promote "atheism" in society as a new religion to the masses against Christianity. In America, these "evangelistic" groups include:

American Atheists
American Humanist Association
American Secular Union
The Atheist Agenda
Camp Quest
Church of Reality
Council for Secular Humanism
Fellowship of Humanity
First Humanist Society of New York
Freedom From Religion Foundation
The Humanist Institute
Institute for Humanist Studies
Internet Infidels
Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers
North Texas Church of Freethought
Rational Response Squad
Secular Coalition for America
Secular Student Alliance

TurtleBurger
03-21-2009, 01:19 PM
Mesogen would probably say those "atheists" are in the minority of "atheists" who don't usually meet in groups to discuss their beliefs. However, I believe that there are many "atheist" groups which exist to promote "atheism" in society as a new religion to the masses against Christianity. In America, these groups include:

American Atheists
American Humanist Association
American Secular Union
The Atheist Agenda
Camp Quest
Church of Reality
Council for Secular Humanism
Fellowship of Humanity
First Humanist Society of New York
Freedom From Religion Foundation
The Humanist Institute
Institute for Humanist Studies
Internet Infidels
Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers
North Texas Church of Freethought
Rational Response Squad
Secular Coalition for America
Secular Student Alliance


"Internet Infidels" is far and away the coolest name on that list.

Kludge
03-21-2009, 01:22 PM
More Quakers, less neo-protestants, please.

Thanks.

Truth Warrior
03-21-2009, 01:23 PM
Mesogen would probably say those "atheists" are in the minority of "atheists" who don't usually meet in groups to discuss their beliefs. However, I believe that there are many "atheist" groups which exist to promote "atheism" in society as a new religion to the masses against Christianity. In America, these "evangelistic" groups include:

American Atheists
American Humanist Association
American Secular Union
The Atheist Agenda
Camp Quest
Church of Reality
Council for Secular Humanism
Fellowship of Humanity
First Humanist Society of New York
Freedom From Religion Foundation
The Humanist Institute
Institute for Humanist Studies
Internet Infidels
Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers
North Texas Church of Freethought
Rational Response Squad
Secular Coalition for America
Secular Student Alliance
Ya got a rough SWAG on the population totals overall, compared to those who are actually RUNNING the STATE shows?

Sheepdog11
03-21-2009, 02:26 PM
I mean it in all senses of the word, as defined here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religious).

Pick out the one you think fits best.

Theocrat
03-21-2009, 02:54 PM
Pick out the one you think fits best.

Let's start with Definition 1: "Of, pertaining to, or concerned with religion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion)."

Now, let's use Definition 2 for "religion": "A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects."

TurtleBurger
03-21-2009, 03:37 PM
Saying atheists are not religious is like saying water does not conduct electricity. It's technically true, but you wouldn't jump into a pool with a live current going into it.

asimplegirl
03-21-2009, 04:02 PM
I didn't receive it. :(




Originally Posted by Theocrat
In the thread in Hot Topics on why "atheists" are immoral, you stated that you don't believe "atheists" are immoral. If that's true, then do you believe that "atheists" will go to Heaven after they die, even though they reject Jesus Christ and live unto themselves?
I think it depends on the sins they commit.

I believe that Christ knows each person's heart, and if proclaiming to be a follower is all it took, we would not need the ten commandments or anything like that....there would be no such thing as sin.

Like I said, it has been my experience that these folks are better people than many Christians. Alot of us feel that this gives us personal permission to just do harm and be forgiven, whereas atheists general believe that their deeds do matter- in THIS life, not the afterlife.

Maybe I am jaded, but on the other hand, maybe I am a true Christian....guess I will never know until I die, right?

There ya go.

Before you respond, I know that alot of Christians do not feel that we are judged by our deeds alone, and neither do I, but I feel that our hearts, and our deeds matter alot.

Josh_LA
03-21-2009, 08:13 PM
They apparently do in Texas:
http://www.atheist-community.org/

MOST don't. At least not "religiously".

Josh_LA
03-21-2009, 08:16 PM
Mesogen would probably say those "atheists" are in the minority of "atheists" who don't usually meet in groups to discuss their beliefs. However, I believe that there are many "atheist" groups which exist to promote "atheism" in society as a new religion to the masses against Christianity. In America, these "evangelistic" groups include:

American Atheists
American Humanist Association
American Secular Union
The Atheist Agenda
Camp Quest
Church of Reality
Council for Secular Humanism
Fellowship of Humanity
First Humanist Society of New York
Freedom From Religion Foundation
The Humanist Institute
Institute for Humanist Studies
Internet Infidels
Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers
North Texas Church of Freethought
Rational Response Squad
Secular Coalition for America
Secular Student Alliance


You're kidding me right?

1/3 of these are parodies
1/2 only online
1/3 are political groups in response to religious activity
none of these ask members to be committed to any religious doctrine (or lack thereof).

Josh_LA
03-21-2009, 08:19 PM
Saying atheists are not religious is like saying water does not conduct electricity. It's technically true, but you wouldn't jump into a pool with a live current going into it.

but I would jump in the pool if the current was direct rather than alternating (and low voltage).

is being religious always bad and wrong? No.

Is being atheist always better? No.

DamianTV
03-24-2009, 01:13 PM
Blind Faith on either side, religous or athiest, is beyond dangerous.

-----

So, how would you guys respond to this:

Politics is to the President as Religion is to God. They are NOT one in the same, and I accuse both Politics and Religion of being completely corrupt and abused to control as many people as possible thru fear mongering, be it the fear of a supernatural deity or of the terrorist / enemy of the week.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
03-24-2009, 01:41 PM
Atheists are immortal

Kludge
03-24-2009, 01:45 PM
What causes the initial faith in government and how do we prevent it?

Nationalism existed long before socialized education, and indeed led to socialized education.

Is it possible that we're over-empowering people? Are we "motivating" ourselves beyond our potential? American Exceptionalism is very popular in the United States. We are superior to other nations, founded on Liberty and Christian Morality. We overcame our trials, such as racism and other prejudices through war and also peaceful means of which we claim ourselves to be pioneers of. I imagine the vast majority of Americans associate non-violent protest with MLK rather than Gandhi, though I don't think it would be tough to argue that Gandhi was far more committed and innovative.

We can't really campaign against nationalism... Frankly, I think our short-term goals are far more important, and this campaign would be wildly unpopular. O'Reilly would put us on his "Pinheads" segment as America-haters... But can we really have a revolution which places any state above an individual and expect it to go any route other than our most recent?

This is where it becomes very difficult for me to argue my way out of anarchy. Is it possible to even have a nation without nationalism and the associated dangers?

I hear people tell me that they love the United States, and I'm genuinely interested in what they mean. I can understand an "I love the United States, but not her current government" argument, but why do you love the United States, if not because of the political system? Would you love a Communist United States? I suppose you could say you love the people, but how many people do you actually know? If you know less than ~3.08 million (not counting illegals), you do not even know 1% of the nation, which is hardly a sample size, especially considering that most are within a few miles proximity of you now.

Anyway, enough rambling for now ;)

Theocrat
03-24-2009, 02:58 PM
You're kidding me right?

1/3 of these are parodies
1/2 only online
1/3 are political groups in response to religious activity
none of these ask members to be committed to any religious doctrine (or lack thereof).

Really? Could you tell me which ones are parodies, online, or political groups in response to religious activity?

Also, I doubt if the members of those organizations would allow Christians into their groups. So, in that sense, I would say they are committed to a religious doctrine which allows no Christian theistic beliefs into their organizations.

Mesogen
03-24-2009, 02:58 PM
What causes the initial faith in government and how do we prevent it?
One's parents probably did that. Also the schools.

I think people try to teach their kids to fear them and then to fear other authorities. When we are children (I suppose) we tend to lump authority figures together. Teachers, principles, cops, etc. are all adults (authorities) and you must fear them. But, they also provide things to you (it seems) just like your parents. People tend to see the government (or any kind of 'authority') as their parents, subconsciously.


Nationalism existed long before socialized education, and indeed led to socialized education.
yeah, it's just tribalism


We can't really campaign against nationalism... Frankly, I think our short-term goals are far more important, and this campaign would be wildly unpopular. O'Reilly would put us on his "Pinheads" segment as America-haters... But can we really have a revolution which places any state above an individual and expect it to go any route other than our most recent?
Sometimes I think that libertarians ARE campaigning against nationalism. Then I hear a bunch of people with libertarian labels speaking in nationalistic language.



This is where it becomes very difficult for me to argue my way out of anarchy. Is it possible to even have a nation without nationalism and the associated dangers?But of course. What is a nation anyway? Does it need a government?

Huge Native American tribes would call themselves nations, and they had a government in a kinda sorta kind of way, but not the way we do it.

So a government does not make a nation. You can have nationalism without government. It's just tribalism.


I hear people tell me that they love the United States, and I'm genuinely interested in what they mean. I can understand an "I love the United States, but not her current government" argument, but why do you love the United States, if not because of the political system? Would you love a Communist United States? I suppose you could say you love the people, but how many people do you actually know? If you know less than ~3.08 million (not counting illegals), you do not even know 1% of the nation, which is hardly a sample size, especially considering that most are within a few miles proximity of you now.

Anyway, enough rambling for now ;)

I hate that. I always think that I'll be in a situation, like an interview, where I'll be asked questions like "Do you love America?" "Are you a patriot?" and I won't have a YES! answer because it's all complicated as you said.

Kludge
03-24-2009, 03:11 PM
*snip*

Interesting insight. Thanks for the response.

I think you're right about children lumping "authority" together. Labels like anti-authority probably don't help either.

To further simplify, would you agree that a primary goal ought to be to simply stress that individuals are... individuals, and that the mob does not necessarily represent the individuals within it? I think that would be a good lesson to fit into education, whether as a parent or professional, which doesn't draw on party lines and a lot of people wouldn't mind discussing.

Looking back, I was taught many similar lessons in school (primarily in English classes) -- I just didn't really connect it to current situations as I do now. The most we ever connected it to were "Gay Rights".

Josh_LA
03-24-2009, 05:17 PM
Really? Could you tell me which ones are parodies, online, or political groups in response to religious activity?

Also, I doubt if the members of those organizations would allow Christians into their groups. So, in that sense, I would say they are committed to a religious doctrine which allows no Christian theistic beliefs into their organizations.

Why don't you try joining one?

Forward us your rejection e-mail, or find me some evidence they actually refuse to allow people in their groups.

American Atheists (an actual well known organization)
American Humanist Association (another one)
American Secular Union (political)
The Atheist Agenda (online only)
Camp Quest (for kids, casual)
Church of Reality (online only, parody)
Council for Secular Humanism (publishing company)
Fellowship of Humanity (an actual church, funny one)
First Humanist Society of New York (not sure it still exists)
Freedom From Religion Foundation (political)
The Humanist Institute (seminar education organization, no formal membership)
Institute for Humanist Studies (one of the biggest humanist orgs, political)
Internet Infidels (online only)
Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers (support group & casual gathering)
North Texas Church of Freethought (parody)
Rational Response Squad (online only, tough in cheek)
Secular Coalition for America (501c4, mostly online only, it's not an organization, but a network umbrella for a lot of others as you mentioned)
Secular Student Alliance (political)

Working Poor
03-24-2009, 05:32 PM
I believe I should not judge another

jmdrake
03-24-2009, 08:05 PM
So in all fairness, I'll ask a question for both groups.

Can you name a time in history that religion was used as an excuse to do something immoral?

and...

Can you name a time in history that being an athiest was used as an excuse to do something immoral?

Question 1: The crusades

Question 2: Communism. (Obviously). And don't give me that crap about "The communists didn't do it in the name of atheism". Communism requires atheism to survive because communism needs to have a monopoly on morality and Karl Marx was to lazy to come up with his own new theology.

And to answer your question, without dogma of some sort man is basically amoral. Note that's different from immoral. Case in point is the "rational actor" theory in tort law. That is you need either tort or regulation to protect third parties not directly involved in a business contract because "rational actors" will only protect their own bottom lines. That you have to make them "internalize external costs". Classic example is the infamous "Ford Pinto" memo where an executive stated that it would be cheaper to settle lawsuits from exploding Pintos than it would be to do the recalls.

What happens when there is no religion? Some other "dogma" fills the void. (Case in point the new "global warming" religion).

Josh_LA
03-25-2009, 04:53 PM
I believe I should not judge another

even if they're murderers and rapists, it's not your job to judge.

Folks, it's really THAT SIMPLE.

If you believe morality comes from belief in God, it's only reasonable to say people who have none, have none.

If I believed that only people with peanut butter have morality, I would naturally believe people who have no peanut butter have no morality.

If I believed only when a gun is at a person's head will a person act right, it's only reasonable and expected I can't believe people will voluntarily act right.

If you believe X, you believe contrary to X is contrary to X (duh!)

Josh_LA
03-25-2009, 05:04 PM
Question 1: The crusades


Crusades is so long ago I don't know why people bring it up anymore




Question 2: Communism. (Obviously). And don't give me that crap about "The communists didn't do it in the name of atheism". Communism requires atheism to survive because communism needs to have a monopoly on morality and Karl Marx was to lazy to come up with his own new theology.


WRONG, communism DOES NOT require atheism to survive, hatred towards private property has nothing to do with your religious beliefs. Hatred for abuse of capitalism does not require hatred of God or Christianity.

Communism and violence with communism is just that, violence when it's doable. It's not because they believed there was no God, they had no respect for law either. If you believe theism will prevent communism and violence, you can't be reasonably opposed to theocracy or Islam. How can you support religious freedom if you believe atheism is so bad?

Why should people be allowed to deny God's existence if it's so sure to cause bad things? Or if belief in God can prevent communist violence, why take the risk?
(I'm not sarcastic, I seriously believe you shouldn't advocate freedom of religion if you believe such a thing)




And to answer your question, without dogma of some sort man is basically amoral.


And why is that bad?




Note that's different from immoral. Case in point is the "rational actor" theory in tort law. That is you need either tort or regulation to protect third parties not directly involved in a business contract because "rational actors" will only protect their own bottom lines. That you have to make them "internalize external costs". Classic example is the infamous "Ford Pinto" memo where an executive stated that it would be cheaper to settle lawsuits from exploding Pintos than it would be to do the recalls.


Yes, being immoral is being immoral. Unless you have the balls to say moral people are always moral or law abiding (so much we should legislate morality, you pick the extent), your argument is useless.



What happens when there is no religion? Some other "dogma" fills the void. (Case in point the new "global warming" religion).

Yes, some other belief will fill the blank, and why is that bad?
Can you answer why a replacement religion is worse without using a utilitarian argument?

Madison
03-25-2009, 05:32 PM
I've never met a religious person in real life who said anything negative about atheists, or said anything at all about atheists. The average religious person doesn't care about them at all. Honestly it seems like atheists are the ones doing all the badmouthing of religious people. I'm not an atheist but have no problem with them, nor do they concern me in the least.

Josh_LA
03-25-2009, 05:33 PM
I've never met a religious person in real life who said anything negative about atheists, or said anything at all about atheists. The average religious person doesn't care about them at all. Honestly it seems like atheists are the ones doing all the badmouthing of religious people. I'm not an atheist but have no problem with them, nor do they concern me in the least.

good for you.

Working Poor
03-25-2009, 06:04 PM
The God of my understanding beseeches me to be gentle, kind, compassionate, intelligent and to watch actions not words but, still not judge others. I can observe, and learn. It is difficult to take this stand in all situations because I am still a work in progress.

I sometimes(when my ego become larger than I am myself) think that because someone does something I would not do that somehow that makes me above them. It doesn't. It is obvious to me that that guy who shot the cops and got killed himself and I were on the same planet. I don't pretend to understand what was happening in the lives of these people who died.

Because I love the Lord God Almighty it does not mean that I can't be wrong. It means I am forgiven. I believe Jesus when he says Judge not least you be judged with the same weight that you judge.

It means that even though I believe God will judge me that I cannot comprehend what that really means for me much less you or someone else not really.

I love Jesus. Do you? Yes? No? It is not up to me not really because I believe Jesus seeks and keeps his own in His bosom. You may see my life and my actions and decide you hate me or love me or even don't care.

I don't know if later down the road you may change your thinking about Jesus and be saved or if you may consider that you love Jesus but, I am not really a Christian in your opinion. I have no idea who is in trouble in these scenarios...

All I know is that I love Jesus and follow Him the only way I know how to do. I pray for my neighbor and seek to love my enemy because I think that is the biggest best challenge I could possibly ever reach for.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
03-25-2009, 06:04 PM
I've never met a religious person in real life who said anything negative about atheists, or said anything at all about atheists. The average religious person doesn't care about them at all. Honestly it seems like atheists are the ones doing all the badmouthing of religious people. I'm not an atheist but have no problem with them, nor do they concern me in the least.

You should meet my mom.

Josh_LA
03-25-2009, 06:27 PM
The God of my understanding beseeches me to be gentle, kind, compassionate, intelligent and to watch actions not words but, still not judge others. I can observe, and learn. It is difficult to take this stand in all situations because I am still a work in progress.

I sometimes(when my ego become larger than I am myself) think that because someone does something I would not do that somehow that makes me above them. It doesn't. It is obvious to me that that guy who shot the cops and got killed himself and I were on the same planet. I don't pretend to understand what was happening in the lives of these people who died.

Because I love the Lord God Almighty it does not mean that I can't be wrong. It means I am forgiven. I believe Jesus when he says Judge not least you be judged with the same weight that you judge.

It means that even though I believe God will judge me that I cannot comprehend what that really means for me much less you or someone else not really.

I love Jesus. Do you? Yes? No? It is not up to me not really because I believe Jesus seeks and keeps his own in His bosom. You may see my life and my actions and decide you hate me or love me or even don't care.

I don't know if later down the road you may change your thinking about Jesus and be saved or if you may consider that you love Jesus but, I am not really a Christian in your opinion. I have no idea who is in trouble in these scenarios...

All I know is that I love Jesus and follow Him the only way I know how to do. I pray for my neighbor and seek to love my enemy because I think that is the biggest best challenge I could possibly ever reach for.

you really made this a long answer.

But let me ask you (I hope this is fair and not a trick question, I'm sincerely interested in an answer, not baiting).

What do you do to murderers? Do you have any opinion? Or how do you "not judge" them?

DamianTV
03-25-2009, 06:41 PM
I've never met a religious person in real life who said anything negative about atheists, or said anything at all about atheists. The average religious person doesn't care about them at all. Honestly it seems like atheists are the ones doing all the badmouthing of religious people. I'm not an atheist but have no problem with them, nor do they concern me in the least.

We could post you some youtube links, but I wont bother.

In regards to teh DOGMA statement, I can kind of agree with that, but not from the religious standpoint. I AM YOUR DOGMA. AND YOU ARE MINE. I rob you, it could be considered dogmatic to call the cops on me.

However, its not the fear of being arrested, nor the fear of a supernatural entity punishing me that keeps me from running around stealing, murdering, and raping people.

Its a simple question to ask for anyone religious or not: What if it were me?

Would I enjoy something at the price of watching someone else to suffer? My answer: No.

Working Poor
03-25-2009, 07:25 PM
What do you do to murderers? Do you have any opinion? Or how do you "not judge" them?


I don't "do" anything to murderers. Someone like Ted Bundy clearly needs to be locked a way something "is" wrong with someone like him. We need to find out what is wrong with people like him how to identify it if possible treat them clearly it is a sickness. His actions tell me to to take head protect myself I don't think I could kill him.

Something is wrong with any individual be they ants or people or zebras who seeks to kill a member of their own population. Unless they are defending their personal territory against intruders or are males challenging another male for mating.

What does humane mean? We place ourselves above all over lifeforms on the planet and think we have the right to destroy ourselves and other populations. Is this superior?

I think humans need to get some good personal boundaries.

DamianTV
03-25-2009, 07:41 PM
Mars gets along just fine without any life on it. Although some would debate that...

Josh_LA
03-25-2009, 07:44 PM
I don't "do" anything to murderers. Someone like Ted Bundy clearly needs to be locked a way something "is" wrong with someone like him.


sounds like judgment to me.



We need to find out what is wrong with people like him how to identify it if possible treat them clearly it is a sickness. His actions tell me to to take head protect myself I don't think I could kill him.


How is saying "wrong" not making a judgment?



Something is wrong with any individual be they ants or people or zebras who seeks to kill a member of their own population. Unless they are defending their personal territory against intruders or are males challenging another male for mating.

What does humane mean? We place ourselves above all over lifeforms on the planet and think we have the right to destroy ourselves and other populations. Is this superior?

I think humans need to get some good personal boundaries.

Working Poor
03-25-2009, 08:44 PM
How is saying "wrong" not making a judgment?

Let's say he is sick...

TurtleBurger
03-25-2009, 08:44 PM
Say you have 2 roads that go to the same place, and one is marked "Evil" and the other is marked "Good". If the end result of taking either road is the same, people will have no reason to choose the "good" one over the "evil" one. The very terms "good" and "evil" would be meaningless and arbitrary.

And that is the answer to the OP question. Atheists believe that no matter what choices you make, the end result is exactly the same. Short term: worm food. Long term: utter annihilation when the earth gets sucked into the Sun. Super long term: Absolute zero temperature across the entire universe. Given that all branches in the road lead to these exact same conclusions, the terms "good" and "evil" are arbitrary and meaningless.

Working Poor
03-25-2009, 08:47 PM
the terms "good" and "evil" are arbitrary and meaningless.

Probably...

Josh_LA
03-25-2009, 09:35 PM
Let's say he is sick...

no different, you're making an evaluation and opinion, a comparison, that's a judgment.

You might not be sending them to prison or hell, but in your mind you've made the judgment (and there's nothing wrong with that, it's semantics to sound holier than thou as if you don't care).

Josh_LA
03-25-2009, 09:36 PM
Probably...

really? To a person like you who believes in God? Then I wonder what you get out of your religion.

Josh_LA
03-25-2009, 09:38 PM
Say you have 2 roads that go to the same place, and one is marked "Evil" and the other is marked "Good". If the end result of taking either road is the same, people will have no reason to choose the "good" one over the "evil" one. The very terms "good" and "evil" would be meaningless and arbitrary.


In other words, talk is cheap until lived and applied?




And that is the answer to the OP question. Atheists believe that no matter what choices you make, the end result is exactly the same. Short term: worm food. Long term: utter annihilation when the earth gets sucked into the Sun. Super long term: Absolute zero temperature across the entire universe. Given that all branches in the road lead to these exact same conclusions, the terms "good" and "evil" are arbitrary and meaningless.

No, atheists are not fatalists who don't believe in choice and responsibility. Even though they don't believe hell is waiting for them does not mean they don't care about short term results in this life.

good and evil may be less meaningful from person to person or inherently, but there are substitutes and applications , such as preference, such as gain, risk, worthy..etc.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
03-25-2009, 11:10 PM
Say you have 2 roads that go to the same place, and one is marked "Evil" and the other is marked "Good". If the end result of taking either road is the same, people will have no reason to choose the "good" one over the "evil" one. The very terms "good" and "evil" would be meaningless and arbitrary.

And that is the answer to the OP question. Atheists believe that no matter what choices you make, the end result is exactly the same. Short term: worm food. Long term: utter annihilation when the earth gets sucked into the Sun. Super long term: Absolute zero temperature across the entire universe. Given that all branches in the road lead to these exact same conclusions, the terms "good" and "evil" are arbitrary and meaningless.

Um. . . no.

Being a good or evil person does mean something. In this life. If I am nice to people, they will generally be nice to me. If I am going to live in a society, its to everyones benefit that we arnt walking around all day calling each other "fuckface"

To expand on this, point me to the section of the Bible that says you should not insult obese women. Its not there. So whats stopping you from walking around all day, hanging out next to the local donut shop, singing the theme song to Hungry Hungry Hippos? There is no punishment of hell for this act. Its not a sin. So whats stopping you from doing it?

Working Poor
03-25-2009, 11:22 PM
Then I wonder what you get out of your religion.

What religion? I do not have a religion

Josh_LA
03-25-2009, 11:41 PM
What religion? I do not have a religion

All I know is that I love Jesus and follow Him the only way I know how to do. I pray for my neighbor and seek to love my enemy because I think that is the biggest best challenge I could possibly ever reach for.

what do you get out of your belief? if not good and evil, right and wrong?

Working Poor
03-26-2009, 07:50 AM
love

jmdrake
03-26-2009, 05:37 PM
Crusades is so long ago I don't know why people bring it up anymore


:rolleyes: The OP didn't specify a time limit.



WRONG, communism DOES NOT require atheism to survive, hatred towards private property has nothing to do with your religious beliefs. Hatred for abuse of capitalism does not require hatred of God or Christianity.


:rolleyes: You really don't know much about communism do you? Communism requires a monopoly of people's belief systems to survive. Hatred of "private property" will only get the communist so far. At some point you have to have apathy to your fellow humans. Once it became clear that Stalin was murdering more people than Hitler and that many of those people had no private property he should have lost all popular support. He didn't because the people had no alternative belief systems to fall back on. You can't have complete worship of the state (which communism requires) if people believe in a god that teaches "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."



Communism and violence with communism is just that, violence when it's doable. It's not because they believed there was no God, they had no respect for law either. If you believe theism will prevent communism and violence, you can't be reasonably opposed to theocracy or Islam. How can you support religious freedom if you believe atheism is so bad?


:rolleyes: You really need to read more about communism before trying to debate it. I can send you some books if you like. What is bad is atheism forced on everybody else! Also it seems you can't read very well. I didn't say theism prevents communism and violence. I said freedom of religion prevents communism. Why do you hate freedom so bad? :rolleyes:



Why should people be allowed to deny God's existence if it's so sure to cause bad things? Or if belief in God can prevent communist violence, why take the risk?
(I'm not sarcastic, I seriously believe you shouldn't advocate freedom of religion if you believe such a thing)


Is English your second language? Seriously because you say a lot of off the wall things that have nothing to do with what I said. The problem is not with PEOPLE who deny God's existence! The problem is the STATE denying God's existence and forcing that belief on others!

I will try to break this down for you again.

1) Collectivism requires almost religious devotion.
2) In order to have such religious you can't have any competing religions.
3) There are two ways to accomplish this. A) Have an official state religion. B) Have "atheism" as the official "religion". It's all about getting rid of competing ideals.

Now somehow in your twisted thinking you've come to the conclusion that I'm saying atheism shouldn't be allowed. Nothing could be further from the truth. But atheism should not be promoted by the state any more that religion should be promoted by the state!




And why is that bad?


See above.




Yes, being immoral is being immoral. Unless you have the balls to say moral people are always moral or law abiding (so much we should legislate morality, you pick the extent), your argument is useless.


Moral people as least have a guide to follow. Using your argument people shouldn't have maps because it's still possible to get lost. :rolleyes:



Yes, some other belief will fill the blank, and why is that bad?
Can you answer why a replacement religion is worse without using a utilitarian argument?

If the state is "filling the blank" that is by definition bad. If you don't understand that you should go back and read article I of the constitution. :rolleyes:

Once again we have freedom when people are unfettered to choose whatever religion they like and yes even the "religion of no religion" atheism. Really, I'm not sure why you are so afraid of the free marketplace of ideas.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Josh_LA
03-26-2009, 05:57 PM
:rolleyes: The OP didn't specify a time limit.



:rolleyes: You really don't know much about communism do you? Communism requires a monopoly of people's belief systems to survive.


No it does not, at least no more than socialism and racism does. Any system needs some committment of belief that disregards other things opposed to it.



Hatred of "private property" will only get the communist so far. At some point you have to have apathy to your fellow humans.


Not every person is a fellow human being to you, no matter what system you're in.



Once it became clear that Stalin was murdering more people than Hitler and that many of those people had no private property he should have lost all popular support.


Not if they were told you need to break some eggs to make an omlet, you're saying that as if every person who our founding fathers murdered were evil British tyrants.



He didn't because the people had no alternative belief systems to fall back on.


They lacked free thinking, sure, religion certainly does not offer that.



You can't have complete worship of the state (which communism requires) if people believe in a god that teaches "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."


What if the State says they're authorized by God, or Churches who claim to speak on behalf of God? You can't have worship of ANYTHING if people have an alternative belief or think freely. Just like you can't have worship of being anti-abortion if some people believed murder can be conditionally acceptable.



:rolleyes: You really need to read more about communism before trying to debate it. I can send you some books if you like. What is bad is atheism forced on everybody else!


Are you against forcing beliefs? Or only if it doesn't agree with your beliefs?

Please recommend some books, highly doubt it'll be news to me, but I'll check them anyway.



Also it seems you can't read very well. I didn't say theism prevents communism and violence. I said freedom of religion prevents communism. Why do you hate freedom so bad? :rolleyes:


No, I love freedom more than you do. I believe might makes right.

So you admit theism doesn't prevent communism and violence, fair enough.



Is English your second language? Seriously because you say a lot of off the wall things that have nothing to do with what I said. The problem is not with PEOPLE who deny God's existence! The problem is the STATE denying God's existence and forcing that belief on others!


Therefore you are admitting atheism is not inherently wrong, thanks.

Yes, English is my second language.



I will try to break this down for you again.

1) Collectivism requires almost religious devotion.


What -ism does not?


2) In order to have such religious you can't have any competing religions.


What system is different from such?



3) There are two ways to accomplish this. A) Have an official state religion. B) Have "atheism" as the official "religion". It's all about getting rid of competing ideals.


Actually there are two ways (more general and more inclusive)
1. Force
2. Convincing



Now somehow in your twisted thinking you've come to the conclusion that I'm saying atheism shouldn't be allowed. Nothing could be further from the truth. But atheism should not be promoted by the state any more that religion should be promoted by the state!


What should be promoted by the state? Didn't you just say if people don't have a belief or religion they'll follow anything else and have nothing to fall back on, then left to support State's murders?

Should the State promote freedom and free thinking? Should the State promote skepticism even if it's harmful the states' authority? Should the State even be allowed to exist? (need me answer first? Irrelevant, might makes right)




See above.

Moral people as least have a guide to follow. Using your argument people shouldn't have maps because it's still possible to get lost. :rolleyes:


No, using my argument people shouldn't claim to know where they are going unless they know where they are going, not based on whether they claim to have seen a map!



If the state is "filling the blank" that is by definition bad. If you don't understand that you should go back and read article I of the constitution. :rolleyes:


No, filling in the blank can be good and bad, depending on circumstance, the State is no more evil than other humans, humans are just humans.



Once again we have freedom when people are unfettered to choose whatever religion they like and yes even the "religion of no religion" atheism. Really, I'm not sure why you are so afraid of the free marketplace of ideas.


I'm not afraid of free market of ideas, but I believe some are better than others and it's not wrong to demonizing certain ideas.





Regards,

John M. Drake

jmdrake
03-26-2009, 08:01 PM
No it does not, at least no more than socialism and racism does. Any system needs some committment of belief that disregards other things opposed to it.


You really don't understand communism do you? Communism is a system of government. Racism is not. Also socialism is communism that hasn't taken complete control of the government. Note that communist Russia was called the United Soviet Socialist Republic.

Once you understand that communism requires complete control you can better understand what I'm taking about. It comes down to the famous Lincoln quote "You can all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." You can have racism by fooling some of the people all of the time. You can have socialism by fooling enough of the people to get a majority in the legislature. But you can't have communism without a complete monopoly on dogma. When it should be obvious that your economic system is crumbling around you only near religious devotion to the state will prop up your system. (Case in point North Korea).



Not every person is a fellow human being to you, no matter what system you're in.


Speak for yourself. Every person is a fellow human being to me no matter what system our government might eventually become. That belief in ingrained in my being.



Not if they were told you need to break some eggs to make an omlet, you're saying that as if every person who our founding fathers murdered were evil British tyrants.


:rolleyes: So now you're calling the founding fathers evil murderers? Did you get that from the MIAC documents? Since I don't have all of the legal records from 1776 I demure on the idea that some of the founding fathers may have committed unlawful killings. And based off that you're making a comparison to Joseph Stalin? He killed MILLIONS! At some point you start running out of eggs. Had George Washington starting rounding up Tory men, women and children and gunning them down in the street he would have lost popular support too. Many of the colonists that eventually fought for the revolution initially thought of themselves as loyal British subjects.



They lacked free thinking, sure, religion certainly does not offer that.


Surely it does. Especially in the aggregate. In this country you are free to pick whatever religion is of your liking including the religion of no religion. And there is even robust debate WITHIN religion. You have Catholics who support abortion rights and Jews who are against Zionism for instance. And people on both sides of such debates use the SAME RELIGION to support their positions.



What if the State says they're authorized by God, or Churches who claim to speak on behalf of God?


I already covered that. State religion is a bad thing. That either is, or leads to, a monopoly of religion. Freedom comes from people making up their own minds.



You can't have worship of ANYTHING if people have an alternative belief or think freely.


Correct. That's my point. You can't have worship of the state if people have alternative belief systems. Really I don't know why you've been trying to debate against this obvious conclusion.



Just like you can't have worship of being anti-abortion if some people believed murder can be conditionally acceptable.


Worship of being anti-abortion? :confused: Not sure what you are trying to say. In fact that's not even a coherent sentence. Maybe you meant to say "you can't have being anti abortion as part of your religious dogma." As for murder being "conditionally acceptable" that's an oxymoron. Murder by it's very definition is the unlawful killing of another human being. Self defense, for example, is not murder. You do have people influenced by their religious beliefs into believing that an unborn fetus is in fact a human being. But there are other reasons to believe that. (Such as all of the recent science about early in utero brain development.)



Are you against forcing beliefs? Or only if it doesn't agree with your beliefs?


:rolleyes: What part of "free market of religion including the religion of no religion" do you NOT understand? Maybe you don't understand free markets? You can't have a free market by "forcing" anything.



Please recommend some books, highly doubt it'll be news to me, but I'll check them anyway.


And not a shot is fired by Jan Kozak is a good one. So is Phillip Dru administrator. Sounds like you've already read the Communist Manifesto although I'm not sure you totally understood it.




No, I love freedom more than you do. I believe might makes right.


:rolleyes: Loving freedom and believing "might makes right" are contradictory ideas. If you really love freedom you'll stand up for it even if your side isn't the "mightiest" at the moment. Maybe you meant to say "might makes right possible".



So you admit theism doesn't prevent communism and violence, fair enough.


I said freedom of religion prevents communism. :rolleyes: Having people of different faiths is an imperative condition for defeating collectivism. But having people of different faiths is NOT "theism". Once again collectivism requires an absence of competition for dogma in order to thrive. In the old days that was accomplished by having a state religion. (i.e. The "holy" Roman Empire.) Communism did the same thing by enforcing the religion of no religion (atheism).




Therefore you are admitting atheism is not inherently wrong, thanks.

Yes, English is my second language.


Ok. English being your second language explains a lot. Because I never "admitted" there was nothing inherently wrong with atheism. What I'm saying is that the existence of atheism, as long as it's just one of many other religious choices, does not by itself cause collectivism.

Let me put it another way. Say if the state only allowed one car company such as Ford. That would lead to inherently bad results because of a lack of competition. Now that doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with Ford per se but it also does NOT mean that there is NOT anything inherently wrong with Ford! Ford might have a lot of things inherently wrong with it but in a free market those things will get worked out or Ford's market share will decline. Dogma is a bit different because it's not always easy to adjust to changing markets. You can't for example say "This no god thing isn't selling well. Maybe we should trying having at least half a god" and still be an atheist.



What -ism does not?


Racism doesn't require religious devotion. Any "ism" that isn't about total control of the entire society doesn't require religious devotion. In fact I'd say most "isms" can exist without religious devotion. Even socialism. Communism (socialism in complete control) cannot.



What system is different from such?


:rolleyes: A democratic republic.



Actually there are two ways (more general and more inclusive)
1. Force
2. Convincing


No. Force and convincing are merely a means to an end. At the "end" you have to have a dogma to convince people to follow. It's just like in the book 1984. It wasn't enough to force or convince the protagonist to go along with Big Brother. The state needed him to LOVE Big Brother.




What should be promoted by the state? Didn't you just say if people don't have a belief or religion they'll follow anything else and have nothing to fall back on, then left to support State's murders?


*sigh* I said that people needed to be free to choose their own religious beliefs. So the state should not promote anything.



Should the State promote freedom and free thinking? Should the State promote skepticism even if it's harmful the states' authority? Should the State even be allowed to exist? (need me answer first? Irrelevant, might makes right)


The state shouldn't promote any particular vein of thought. They just need to allow free thought. If someone chooses not to think at all that's his own right. But in a free society such a person won't get very far. Why do you seem to need the state to promote free thinking? Can't you think freely on your own?



No, using my argument people shouldn't claim to know where they are going unless they know where they are going, not based on whether they claim to have seen a map!


:rolleyes: Actually the people you are arguing against clearly have seen a map. You just don't agree with its validity. You have a right not to agree. They have a right to follow their map. You go your direction and leave them free to go theirs. Everybody is (or should be) happy. We don't need the state to promote which map to follow or to tell people they shouldn't have a map.




No, filling in the blank can be good and bad, depending on circumstance, the State is no more evil than other humans, humans are just humans.


Power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. You are right. Humans are just humans. That's why the power of humans over other humans (the state) needs to be severely limited.




I'm not afraid of free market of ideas, but I believe some are better than others and it's not wrong to demonizing certain ideas.

As long as it's you doing the demonizing and not the state you are free to do so. And on the flipside others are free to demonize atheism.

DamianTV
03-26-2009, 08:49 PM
So communists are immoral because, uh, I dont know, put some words in my mouth or something, or is it because their beliefs are just different?

Josh_LA
03-26-2009, 08:52 PM
You really don't understand communism do you? Communism is a system of government. Racism is not. Also socialism is communism that hasn't taken complete control of the government. Note that communist Russia was called the United Soviet Socialist Republic.


They are both beliefs unbacked by science and reason. Naming a government "freedom" does not make it so.



Once you understand that communism requires complete control you can better understand what I'm taking about.


I don't doubt for communism or any system to work, you need complete control and complete support, you can't have a legal system unless you have complete cooperation and ways to deal with dissent.



It comes down to the famous Lincoln quote "You can all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." You can have racism by fooling some of the people all of the time. You can have socialism by fooling enough of the people to get a majority in the legislature. But you can't have communism without a complete monopoly on dogma. When it should be obvious that your economic system is crumbling around you only near religious devotion to the state will prop up your system. (Case in point North Korea).


I agree, that's exactly my objection to religion & dogmatic, absolutists beliefs, theist or not.




Speak for yourself. Every person is a fellow human being to me no matter what system our government might eventually become. That belief in ingrained in my being.

Talk is cheap, let's see you live it. Let's see you lose sleep over defending justice for the person down your street ripped off or mistried. At least I'm honest enough to say I don't care about other people and I live it (what else can you call freedom and responsibility?).



:rolleyes: So now you're calling the founding fathers evil murderers?


No, I'm calling our founding fathers GOOD MURDERS.



Did you get that from the MIAC documents? Since I don't have all of the legal records from 1776 I demure on the idea that some of the founding fathers may have committed unlawful killings.


they were smart enough to disrespect laws they disagreed with, and I applaud them for that. They too had a religious belief, FREEDOM (their version of it).



And based off that you're making a comparison to Joseph Stalin? He killed MILLIONS! At some point you start running out of eggs.


Murder is murder, how little respect for human life do you have to do math on it? You think killing 10 people is worse than killing 1?

(in case you wanted me to answer first, I don't believe killing 10 people is worse than killing 1, it depends on circumstances).



Had George Washington starting rounding up Tory men, women and children and gunning them down in the street he would have lost popular support too.


Which is why he and his homies did it only after they knew they could get away with it, when it was too late to lose support, "when the timid join him, for then it takes no balls to be a patriot"



Many of the colonists that eventually fought for the revolution initially thought of themselves as loyal British subjects.


Yes, thankfully they lost their religion and respect for human lives that don't respect back.



Surely it does. Especially in the aggregate. In this country you are free to pick whatever religion is of your liking including the religion of no religion. And there is even robust debate WITHIN religion.


IS there robust debate within communism? Maybe in some countries, it depends on what system you're in. The point is, blind faith does not offer free thinking, and religion, theistic or not are the enemy of free thinking (yes, I consider Marxism and racism dogmatic beliefs, not religion by definition, but no better in intents and purposes).



You have Catholics who support abortion rights and Jews who are against Zionism for instance. And people on both sides of such debates use the SAME RELIGION to support their positions.


Which is exactly what's wrong with religions. Using trust and authority to their advantage, no better than Marx, dishonestly claiming to do good.



I already covered that. State religion is a bad thing. That either is, or leads to, a monopoly of religion. Freedom comes from people making up their own minds.


What if the dogmatic belief was "freedom for all". would you be opposed to absolutist principles if you agreed with it? Do you not believe that common grounds, common sense and laws for a civil society should be shoved down people's throats?



Correct. That's my point. You can't have worship of the state if people have alternative belief systems. Really I don't know why you've been trying to debate against this obvious conclusion.


I wasn't, you're the one who said it's wrong to say that communism wasn't done in the name of atheism, am I wrong about that?



Worship of being anti-abortion? :confused: Not sure what you are trying to say.


Worship the idea that abortion is unconditionally wrong or absolutely unacceptable.



In fact that's not even a coherent sentence. Maybe you meant to say "you can't have being anti abortion as part of your religious dogma." As for murder being "conditionally acceptable" that's an oxymoron.


Why is conditionally acceptable an oxymoron?

I wasn't saying you can't have any belief as part of your dogma.



Murder by it's very definition is the unlawful killing of another human being.


So in anarchy, nothing is murder by definition?

I'm very anti-Semantic if you've not noticed yet.



Self defense, for example, is not murder. You do have people influenced by their religious beliefs into believing that an unborn fetus is in fact a human being. But there are other reasons to believe that. (Such as all of the recent science about early in utero brain development.)


Again, back to the gay issue, fetus issue.

The question is not so much "is it" but "so what".

I don't doubt fetuses are human beings, but they have no personality, and yes, that makes it ok to kill them.



:rolleyes: What part of "free market of religion including the religion of no religion" do you NOT understand? Maybe you don't understand free markets? You can't have a free market by "forcing" anything.


what if a religion preaches force and violence? is that allowed in the market?

does a free society allow freedom to preach anti-freedom?



And not a shot is fired by Jan Kozak is a good one. So is Phillip Dru administrator. Sounds like you've already read the Communist Manifesto although I'm not sure you totally understood it.


thanks, I'll write these down/



:rolleyes: Loving freedom and believing "might makes right" are contradictory ideas.


No they are not, I believe freedom is conditional. I don't believe people have unalienable rights or the law should protect anybody.



If you really love freedom you'll stand up for it even if your side isn't the "mightiest" at the moment. Maybe you meant to say "might makes right possible".


Yes indeed might makes right possible, it also makes wrong possible, which makes the right and wrong not very useful tags.and standing up for freedom even if it's not the mightiest, is just cheap talk, talk can't get you freedom, might can.



I said freedom of religion prevents communism. :rolleyes:


Freedom of religion prevents social order too, and I think that's a good thing. Freedom of religion allows people to murder in the name of their stupid religion, is that a price you're willing to pay?



Having people of different faiths is an imperative condition for defeating collectivism. But having people of different faiths is NOT "theism". Once again collectivism requires an absence of competition for dogma in order to thrive.


racism also requires the absence of competing racial ideas and arguments against it. people having different faiths and biases is not theism, it's freedom of belief (not necessarily all beliefs promote freedom though)



In the old days that was accomplished by having a state religion. (i.e. The "holy" Roman Empire.) Communism did the same thing by enforcing the religion of no religion (atheism).

No, communism did it by convincing people actions speak louder and justice is overdue. Also by promoting hatred against human nature of greed.




Ok. English being your second language explains a lot. Because I never "admitted" there was nothing inherently wrong with atheism.


Ok, then do you believe there is something inherently wrong with atheism?

Not putting words in your mouth, say it yourself.



What I'm saying is that the existence of atheism, as long as it's just one of many other religious choices, does not by itself cause collectivism.


I agree, good.



Let me put it another way. Say if the state only allowed one car company such as Ford. That would lead to inherently bad results because of a lack of competition.


Or lack of complaints as complaints do nothing. Or lack of an alternative to compare which renders the opinion of bad quality meaningless.



Now that doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with Ford per se but it also does NOT mean that there is NOT anything inherently wrong with Ford! Ford might have a lot of things inherently wrong with it but in a free market those things will get worked out or Ford's market share will decline. Dogma is a bit different because it's not always easy to adjust to changing markets.


I agree, that's what I am opposed to, religion and dogma, theist or atheist, blind faith and full cooperation against all other competing ideas is just that! DANGEROUS. (I can make this argument without bringing up Hitler)



You can't for example say "This no god thing isn't selling well. Maybe we should trying having at least half a god" and still be an atheist.


You can be a hypocrite and claim to sell half a god, or borrow religious doctrines to use as your ammo while never holding these beliefs yourself (oh wait, that's what Marx and Stalin did).



Racism doesn't require religious devotion.


It requires dogmatic blind faith against observation, reason, and evidence.



Any "ism" that isn't about total control of the entire society doesn't require religious devotion. In fact I'd say most "isms" can exist without religious devotion. Even socialism. Communism (socialism in complete control) cannot.


What's socialism in partial control? Mixed economy America? Worst of both worlds?



:rolleyes: A democratic republic.
What is that? Please explain?

A system where both people and law rule the whole?



No. Force and convincing are merely a means to an end. At the "end" you have to have a dogma to convince people to follow.


That's where the results will speak for itself. Sustainability is all dependent on how many true believers there are.



It's just like in the book 1984. It wasn't enough to force or convince the protagonist to go along with Big Brother. The state needed him to LOVE Big Brother.


If he was smart enough, he can lie and pretend he loves them, but in the end, he may slowly lie so much he'll believe it.




*sigh* I said that people needed to be free to choose their own religious beliefs. So the state should not promote anything.


Not even law and order?



The state shouldn't promote any particular vein of thought. They just need to allow free thought.


Semantics, so the state should promote freedom of thought and respect for freedom of thought.



If someone chooses not to think at all that's his own right. But in a free society such a person won't get very far. Why do you seem to need the state to promote free thinking? Can't you think freely on your own?


So you believe might makes right? because without public education, or forced integration, minorities will almost be on the losing end due to competition and neglect of the power structure. (and I'm not saying that's a bad thing!)

So are you saying slavery and racism is ok as long as it's voluntary?



:rolleyes: Actually the people you are arguing against clearly have seen a map. You just don't agree with its validity. You have a right not to agree.


Fair enough. You're not telling me the map where you go heaven and I go hell, are you? If so, I'll be happy to test it's validity.

Hey, thanks for understanding my analogy.



They have a right to follow their map. You go your direction and leave them free to go theirs. Everybody is (or should be) happy. We don't need the state to promote which map to follow or to tell people they shouldn't have a map.


I don't believe in maps very much, but I don't think you'd disagree that the state should promote and enforce freedom of choice among maps (are you an anarchist?)



Power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. You are right. Humans are just humans. That's why the power of humans over other humans (the state) needs to be severely limited.


Giving state no power means they'll be zero corruption, why take the risk?



As long as it's you doing the demonizing and not the state you are free to do so. And on the flipside others are free to demonize atheism.

This is where I want to get on my soap box

I dislike giving "the State" a special status or pass, I believe the State, like a corporation, is just as human as I am, and should enjoy the same free speech, freedom to kill as I do. The State has every right to demonize me, or atheism, or Christianity, just like the media does. If you believe in free speech, shouldn't you beleive it applies for people you disagree with and have different powers as you?

Josh_LA
03-26-2009, 08:53 PM
So communists are immoral because, uh, I dont know, put some words in my mouth or something, or is it because their beliefs are just different?

I love asking this question, for some people, they literally believe communism is only wrong because it's atheism, people who have no problem with collectivism as long as God is in it.

TurtleBurger
03-26-2009, 08:55 PM
Um. . . no.

Being a good or evil person does mean something. In this life. If I am nice to people, they will generally be nice to me. If I am going to live in a society, its to everyones benefit that we arnt walking around all day calling each other "fuckface"



That's a very broad generalization and untrue as often as not. Very often it is to your short-term benefit not to treat people nicely. An atheist who is very old or terminally ill has no reason at all to act morally.
A common exception is people who make Social Darwinism itself a religion. The Social Darwinist may act morally to advance the good of the human race, to do all he can to perpetuate the species. The problem with this is that the long-term existence of the human species has no benefit at all to the people living now; whether humanity continues for 100 more years or a billion more years, we won't know it. And eventually, the entire universe will run down, and the human species will invariably go extinct before that point.

DamianTV
03-26-2009, 08:57 PM
...and others have a problem with communism because its not the same as where they live. Isnt that in and of itself totally oxymoronic? "We dont like you because you all like the idea of being the same but youre bad because youre not the same as me!" Makes shitloads of sense, doesnt it?

TurtleBurger
03-26-2009, 09:12 PM
I love asking this question, for some people, they literally believe communism is only wrong because it's atheism, people who have no problem with collectivism as long as God is in it.

The fact that communist governments generally kill thousands of religious people is definitely a huge strike against it. Radical atheism is much more deadly than any other radical religion.

jmdrake
03-26-2009, 09:21 PM
I love asking this question, for some people, they literally believe communism is only wrong because it's atheism, people who have no problem with collectivism as long as God is in it.

I will respond to this even though it wasn't directed at me because it is short and at least somewhat coherent. ;) As I said before, collectivism is wrong in general. But collectivism requires a monopoly on dogma. You can have religious collectivism (Holy Roman Empire) or atheist collectivism (Communism). You seem to love to make up arguments people didn't say just so you can argue against them. ;)

Josh_LA
03-26-2009, 09:22 PM
The fact that communist governments generally kill thousands of religious people is definitely a huge strike against it. Radical atheism is much more deadly than any other radical religion.

are you against murder or only when it's disfavorable to your cause?

Josh_LA
03-26-2009, 09:23 PM
I will respond to this even though it wasn't directed at me because it is short and at least somewhat coherent. ;) As I said before, collectivism is wrong in general. But collectivism requires a monopoly on dogma. You can have religious collectivism (Holy Roman Empire) or atheist collectivism (Communism). You seem to love to make up arguments people didn't say just so you can argue against them. ;)

Ok, take your time.

I love to make arguments based on a person's vague statements which can be misused to an absurd conclusion (which they have the responsibility to clarify and prevent)

Josh_LA
03-26-2009, 09:24 PM
...and others have a problem with communism because its not the same as where they live. Isnt that in and of itself totally oxymoronic? "We dont like you because you all like the idea of being the same but youre bad because youre not the same as me!" Makes shitloads of sense, doesnt it?

I agree, which is why I don't believe in speaking for those who can't speak or giving freedom to those who can't use it or isn't asking for it.

Josh_LA
03-26-2009, 09:29 PM
That's a very broad generalization and untrue as often as not. Very often it is to your short-term benefit not to treat people nicely. An atheist who is very old or terminally ill has no reason at all to act morally.


I agree, and we should be thankful people still act morally for no good reason.



A common exception is people who make Social Darwinism itself a religion. The Social Darwinist may act morally to advance the good of the human race, to do all he can to perpetuate the species.


Depending on where the definition of "race" ends, people disagree whats good and bad about racism and social Darwinism



The problem with this is that the long-term existence of the human species has no benefit at all to the people living now; whether humanity continues for 100 more years or a billion more years, we won't know it. And eventually, the entire universe will run down, and the human species will invariably go extinct before that point.

that doesn't explain why nature preserves animals with much less intelligence than us, the simple answer is nature and selfish genes are self perpetuating to survive.

this is why Ayn Rand's ideas are considered radical. it's very easy to think that humans are selfish animals, but you will see in nature that animals do things that benefit the race, it's instinctual (of course, your counterarugment is HUMANS ARE NOT ANIMALS).

Mesogen
03-27-2009, 10:59 AM
The fact that communist governments generally kill thousands of religious people is definitely a huge strike against it. Radical atheism is much more deadly than any other radical religion.

These communist governments didn't want competition for control of the people. The only reason they didn't want people to have religion is because they wanted complete control. Totalitarianism is not an innate component of atheism. It wasn't radical atheism that killed millions of people. It was totalitarianism.

EndTheFed
03-27-2009, 11:18 AM
Simple question.

Debate.

They are not immoral... just ignorant...

Mitt Romneys sideburns
03-27-2009, 12:39 PM
Radical atheism is much more deadly than any other radical religion.


If you hold religion so highly, why do you think you are zinging the atheist argument by calling it a religion?

When you call atheism a religion, you are essentially trying to say, "you guys are just as stupid as we are"


And again; religion is a belief system based on notions of a diety, an after life, or a soul. Until you can point out the atheist god we worship, you sound like an idiot when you say this.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
03-27-2009, 12:40 PM
They are not immoral... just ignorant...

you believe in magic sky gods. Whos ignorant?

Mitt Romneys sideburns
03-27-2009, 12:43 PM
and a quick note on the "atheism = communism" line of argument:

Hugo Chávez

Josh_LA
03-27-2009, 01:46 PM
you believe in magic sky gods. Whos ignorant?

rhetorical question? :cool: