The Theism/Atheism Mega-thread Hullabaloo Extravaganza

[Retro Rob]

You are partially right. It is a human tendency for some to be violent. That is why it's bad to also add religion to the mix to make people even more intolerant by some so called divine words.

You need to understand how all this sounds to me. Basically, we don't need religion to do good (as you all ignore and/or whitewash the good done by religion), but its somehow needed to "add fuel to the fire" of evil.

Why can't it also add "fuel to the fire" of good like it has demonstrably done?

That's because giving religion any credit will completely contradict the evil you attribute directly to religion, and expose the obvious prejudice in atheism.

That's mind-boggingly inconsistent, and why these discussions are good for the public to see why I disregard a lot of the opinions on religion that comes from atheism -- they're consistently inconsistent on exactly what role religion plays in both good and bad in the world, and they "pick and choose" what they attribute to religion and human nature.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Dogma adds more fuel to the fire is what you mean to say.

That is what I'm getting at. The root cause of much (all?) of our problems is humanity itself. But when a violent handbook is supposedly divinely inspired and calls for hatred and even violence, that isn't helping matters when people follow that faith by the millions and even billions, even if the majority of those people wouldn't and don't cause violence over their beliefs. But the dogma and hatred it contains stay alive and in the limelight. As an example, it probably makes it easier to take people and consider them your property, your slave, when you as the master feel you are divinely given that right and even doing good by saving their soul by 'owning' that slave and forcing their religious conversion.

Humanity and society are where they are today with religion playing a major role for past thousands of years, and to a large degree today as well. There has been a lot of good added to the mix due to religion, and a lot of evil, hatred, and violence as well. I don't think there is anything that religious groups are doing today to better our situation that can't be done by non-religious organizations.

 

[SlowSpyder]

You need to understand how all this sounds to me. Basically, we don't need religion to do good (as you all ignore and/or whitewash the good done by religion), but its somehow needed to "add fuel to the fire" of evil.

Why can't it also add "fuel to the fire" of good like it has demonstrably done?

That's because giving religion any credit will completely contradict the evil you attribute directly to religion, and expose the obvious prejudice in atheism.

That's mind-boggingly inconsistent, and why these discussions are good for the public to see why I disregard a lot of the opinions on religion that comes from atheism -- they're consistently inconsistent on exactly what role religion plays in both good and bad in the world, and they "pick and choose" what they attribute to religion and human nature.

Religion has done good for humanity. I think there was a time when it gave people hope when life was pretty miserable. I think today many christian organizations try to do good as well, by doing things like helping feed the needy, providing relief efforts for natural disasters, etc. I acknowledge that completely. But do you acknowledge all the evil spawned by religion through history and today that might not have existed otherwise? My opinion is that when you look at it on the whole, we'd be better off without it.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Rob, can you come up with one testable / observable way that christianity helps people today that a non-secular group can't do, that helps improve society and humanity as a whole? I say testable / observable because saying something like 'saving someone's soul' isn't a valid answer in my opinion. What would be your example of this?

On the other hand, can you think of any examples of how christianity has hindered progress or violence was spawned because of the religion and/or it's followers?

 

[alzan]

The "atheistic mindset" already showed that those possessing it are incapable of providing a "better" world -- they had their chance in the 20th century to show how "rational" they were. This is how they went about "replacing religion":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists

Note: This was a result of the "mindset" -- not atheism itself. Every atheist isn't rational, every atheist isn't tolerant...we don't need anymore of these people anymore than we need religious extremism.

As long as we have irrational people (which is at the heart of every societal problem), the world will never become a better place.

There is no one single cause of the world's problems...or we would have taken care of it by now.

The League of Militant Atheists was a movement heavily influenced and promoted by the Soviet government. As such it pulled in members by perceived and real threat of force; that it's members shared a dislike of religion was one of the threads that held them together.

Thanks for the history lesson but really atheists of today are not atheists through government influence and force. Most simply want the influences of religion (mainly Christianity) out of laws that affect all citizens. One only has to look at the recent and disastrous Hobby Lobby SC decision to see that.

 

[alzan]

You need to understand how all this sounds to me. Basically, we don't need religion to do good (as you all ignore and/or whitewash the good done by religion), but its somehow needed to "add fuel to the fire" of evil.

Why can't it also add "fuel to the fire" of good like it has demonstrably done?

That's because giving religion any credit will completely contradict the evil you attribute directly to religion, and expose the obvious prejudice in atheism.

That's mind-boggingly inconsistent, and why these discussions are good for the public to see why I disregard a lot of the opinions on religion that comes from atheism -- they're consistently inconsistent on exactly what role religion plays in both good and bad in the world, and they "pick and choose" what they attribute to religion and human nature.

It seems to me you're picking and choosing amongst what's been said by atheists and agnostics to arrive at that conclusion. I've said over and over the beneficial acts of theists, both anecdotal and publicly known and acknowledged; the same has been said by SlowSpyder and others in this and similar threads.

Religion can be give credit for the compassion and good acts it inspires but more credit goes to it's adherents. Most do good acts without proclaiming their religion as the reason for their acts. Conversely, the evil acts done by the religious are more often proclaimed as inspired by their religion (really their interpretation of their religion); the Inquisitors of the Inquisition always proclaimed to the heretic that the atrocities being committed on them were done so in the name of the Catholic church and in the name of G-d. Likewise the extremist Muslim kill in the name of their interpretation of their religion and in the name of their G-d.

As has been posted by others and yourself the real problem is people and their proclivity to attack others because of perceived and real differences. Theism/atheism is cited and blamed because it's easier and more convenient to attack and denigrate the communal groups they represent than it is to discuss and denote the problems with the individual(s).

 

[JEDIYoda]

But when a violent handbook is supposedly divinely inspired and calls for hatred and even violence, that isn't helping matters when people follow that faith by the millions and even billions, even if the majority of those people wouldn't and don't cause violence over their beliefs. But the dogma and hatred it contains stay alive and in the limelight. As an example, it probably makes it easier to take people and consider them your property, your slave, when you as the master feel you are divinely given that right and even doing good by saving their soul by 'owning' that slave and forcing their religious conversion.

You should quit While you are ahead...you keep digging your hole deeper and deeper......it is really obvious you have no clue concerning things of the Bible......in fact it could be said you probably have no understanding of the Bible or how to interpret the Bible....

 

[SlowSpyder]

You should quit While you are ahead...you keep digging your hole deeper and deeper......it is really obvious you have no clue concerning things of the Bible......in fact it could be said you probably have no understanding of the Bible or how to interpret the Bible....

Have people ever acted out in violence over what is written in the bible?

Does your god command his followers to kill people at any part in the bible?

Does your god tell those fighting for him that they can keep spoils of battle, including women (like they are property), at any part in the bible?

Does your god call for people to be put to death for things like worshiping other gods or for a woman not being a virgin?

Does your god destroy entire cities?

Did your god kill every child in Egypt to make his point?

Does your god send his son to be a blood sacrifice?

Would most of the people who have lived and died be in eternal torment according to the bible? (Remember, a majority of the population who has ever lived haven't accepted jesus as their savior)

The bible is mixed at best, it has passages about love and getting along as well as a lot of hatred and violence. But I am glad we both agree that I am ahead. Not quitting in these discussions, though.

 

[alzan]

Have people ever acted out in violence over what is written in the bible?

Does your god command his followers to kill people at any part in the bible?

Does your god tell those fighting for him that they can keep spoils of battle, including women (like they are property), at any part in the bible?

Does your god call for people to be put to death for things like worshiping other gods or for a woman not being a virgin?

Does your god destroy entire cities?

Did your god kill every child in Egypt to make his point?

Does your god send his son to be a blood sacrifice?

Would most of the people who have lived and died be in eternal torment according to the bible? (Remember, a majority of the population who has ever lived haven't accepted jesus as their savior)

The bible is mixed at best, it has passages about love and getting along as well as a lot of hatred and violence. But I am glad we both agree that I am ahead. Not quitting in these discussions, though.

Ah but you forget, the g-d of the Bible operates under different rules than us lowly humans. To question G-d is to be unfaithful.

 

[Retro Rob]

Religion has done good for humanity. I think there was a time when it gave people hope when life was pretty miserable. I think today many christian organizations try to do good as well, by doing things like helping feed the needy, providing relief efforts for natural disasters, etc. I acknowledge that completely. But do you acknowledge all the evil spawned by religion through history and today that might not have existed otherwise? My opinion is that when you look at it on the whole, we'd be better off without it.

No, I do not acknowledge that because that's something we will never know. However, I think its kind of hypocritical to complain about evil and violence anyway.

Looking at this from an evolutionary POV, violence is more apparent in the animal kingdom than homosexuality is. We're really just acting on our animal nature so trying to combat something as natural as violence is an exercise in futility.

It's [violence] perfectly natural, technically, so why not simply accept nature?

 

[Retro Rob]

Religion can be give credit for the compassion and good acts it inspires but more credit goes to it's adherents.

Most Christians do good acts out of Jesus command to "love your neighbor", so you can directly credit their religious beliefs without trying to divorce their good acts from their doctrine.

There is no "more credit". Their religion is either responsible, or its not.

Most do good acts without proclaiming their religion as the reason for their acts.

So what? They're probably being modest.

Not acknowledging the source of your acts doesn't mean that source doesn't deserve full credit.

When I do good, I also don't go around telling people my religion requires this of me -- doesn't mean my religion doesn't deserve the credit, either.

Conversely, the evil acts done by the religious are more often proclaimed as inspired by their religion (really their interpretation of their religion); the Inquisitors of the Inquisition always proclaimed to the heretic that the atrocities being committed on them were done so in the name of the Catholic church and in the name of G-d. Likewise the extremist Muslim kill in the name of their interpretation of their religion and in the name of their G-d.

Same thing as I said above, though. If a Muslim blew up a building, killing himself in the process, without proclaiming his religion, you'd automatically attribute that to his religion. You wouldn't say "he didn't proclaim his religion as the reason for his acts".

This is the hypocritical atheistic reasoning I'm pointing out; they say that religion is the reason for religious violence, but 'human nature' is the reason for religious good deeds.

The facts are, human nature and religion play huge roles on both violence and good deeds.

 

[alzan]

No, I do not acknowledge that because that's something we will never know. However, I think its kind of hypocritical to complain about evil and violence anyway.

Looking at this from an evolutionary POV, violence is more apparent in the animal kingdom than homosexuality is. We're really just acting on our animal nature so trying to combat something as natural as violence is an exercise in futility.

It's [violence] perfectly natural, technically, so why not simply accept nature?

Violence in the animal kingdom comes mainly from need for food, some of the rest is from protecting the young and competition for mates. http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/why-are-we-violent.htm

Maybe you're okay with our somewhat animalistic violence towards each other; I know I'm not. Most people like to think they've risen above the violent tendencies of our ancestors.

http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2000-2004/03AH.pdf

 

[alkemyst]

Have people ever acted out in violence over what is written in the bible?

Does your god command his followers to kill people at any part in the bible?

Does your god tell those fighting for him that they can keep spoils of battle, including women (like they are property), at any part in the bible?

Does your god call for people to be put to death for things like worshiping other gods or for a woman not being a virgin?

Does your god destroy entire cities?

Did your god kill every child in Egypt to make his point?

Does your god send his son to be a blood sacrifice?

Would most of the people who have lived and died be in eternal torment according to the bible? (Remember, a majority of the population who has ever lived haven't accepted jesus as their savior)

The bible is mixed at best, it has passages about love and getting along as well as a lot of hatred and violence. But I am glad we both agree that I am ahead. Not quitting in these discussions, though.

I think you should read the Bible yourself once.

 

[alzan]

Most Christians do good acts out of Jesus command to "love your neighbor", so you can directly credit their religious beliefs without trying to divorce their good acts from their doctrine.

There is no "more credit". Their religion is either responsible, or its not.

So what? They're probably being modest.

Not acknowledging the source of your acts doesn't mean that source doesn't deserve full credit.

When I do good, I also don't go around telling people my religion requires this of me -- doesn't mean my religion doesn't deserve the credit, either.

Same thing as I said above, though. If a Muslim blew up a building, killing himself in the process, without proclaiming his religion, you'd automatically attribute that to his religion. You wouldn't say "he didn't proclaim his religion as the reason for his acts".

This is the hypocritical atheistic reasoning I'm pointing out; they say that religion is the reason for religious violence, but 'human nature' is the reason for religious good deeds.

The facts are, human nature and religion play huge roles on both violence and good deeds.

So Christians need the commands of a deity to treat people nicely. How sad.

The source of a persons act is either themselves or the dictums of their leader or superior through threat of censure or of being cast from the group.

In most cases it is a religious fervor or reason. There are of course the rare sociopath/psychopath who commits violence for violence's sake.

That's how you're choosing to comprehend it.

So without religion people would not act in kind and compassionate ways. Absolutely fascinating. Careful now, that purple liquid Jim Jones is handing you ain't koolaid.

 

[Retro Rob]

So Christians need the commands of a deity to treat people nicely. How sad.

Yes, it is sad if you need to be told to do right. But what it means that is you're gonna be part of said religion, doing good deeds to others is an important part of the framework, and thus, required.

So without religion people would not act in kind and compassionate ways. Absolutely fascinating. Careful now, that purple liquid Jim Jones is handing you ain't koolaid.

I admittedly didn't know about JJ until fairly recently...absolutely horrifying how that turned out for those people.

 

[alzan]

Yes, it is sad if you need to be told to do right. But what it means that is you're gonna be part of said religion, doing good deeds to others is an important part of the framework, and thus, required.

I admittedly didn't know about JJ until fairly recently...absolutely horrifying how that turned out for those people.

I'd rather do good deeds without being told I should. IMO, having to be told to do good deeds speaks to a failing on the part of the individual(s).

JJ was corrupt and power hungry; but his followers believed him to be a prophet of sorts. It's interesting what some people will latch onto just to feel part of a community.

 

[Retro Rob]

I'd rather do good deeds without being told I should. IMO, having to be told to do good deeds speaks to a failing on the part of the individual(s)

No one said they had to be told to.

Its like being required to show up to work on time according to what's stated in an employee handbook. That doesn't mean that you HAVE to be told to show up to work on time -- you're just being made aware of the requirement.

This is a common practice employed by literally every organization of any sort.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I think you should read the Bible yourself once.

I have, but that was some time ago, I should read it again. But before I read it again I'd like to get more familiar with other religious figures that I believe the story of christ in the bible p̶l̶a̶g̶i̶a̶r̶i̶s̶e̶ borrow from.

If you disagree with what I said, please explain. There is quite a bit of violence and death in the bible, that is a fact. There are rules where god commands his followers to kill people over what we would consider silly reasons today.

 

[SlowSpyder]

No, I do not acknowledge that because that's something we will never know. However, I think its kind of hypocritical to complain about evil and violence anyway.

Looking at this from an evolutionary POV, violence is more apparent in the animal kingdom than homosexuality is. We're really just acting on our animal nature so trying to combat something as natural as violence is an exercise in futility.

It's [violence] perfectly natural, technically, so why not simply accept nature?

So you think the Crusades would have happened if religion didn't exist? Think the thousands tortured and killed in brutal way by the Inquisition would have still occurred if religion didn't exist? Sure, we don't know what might have happened had religion died out hundreds of years before those two examples, but we do know that many thousands got killed in those cases because religion was still going strong.

Yes, the animal kingdom can be violent, as can human nature. But evolution gave us a tool that other animals don't have, that being the human brain and all of it's capabilities.

Unless you accept abortion (many animals will eat their own offspring when born) I will assume you understand why we can't "simply accept nature" as a lone excuse for our violent behavior. There was more to it, an added ingredient... (Hint: Religion)

 

[Retro Rob]

So you think the Crusades would have happened if religion didn't exist? Think the thousands tortured and killed in brutal way by the Inquisition would have still occurred if religion didn't exist?

Who knows? There is really no point in speculating about whether or not something would or wouldn't have happened centuries ago.

Your questions suggests that the Crusades etc, wouldn't have happened had it not been for religion, yet, for that to be true, you'd have to know beforehand that Crusades would not had been possible without religion.

That's why your speculation is moot.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Who knows? There is really no point in speculating about whether or not something would or wouldn't have happened centuries ago.

Your questions suggests that the Crusades etc, wouldn't have happened had it not been for religion, yet, for that to be true, you'd have to know beforehand that Crusades would not had been possible without religion.

That's why your speculation is moot.

Do you really think many religious crusades to capture the holy land would have still happened had no one believed that the land was holy and hence had no real value?

Yea, I agree that we can never know what might have happened had history been different. But, I don't see too much violence carried out in the name of zeus these days. Think about that and what you said about the crusades for a second. Just saying.

 

[alzan]

No one said they had to be told to.

Its like being required to show up to work on time according to what's stated in an employee handbook. That doesn't mean that you HAVE to be told to show up to work on time -- you're just being made aware of the requirement.

This is a common practice employed by literally every organization of any sort.

Sigh...okay, required to do good deeds and/or treat people nicely. Still sad. Of course according to your hypothesis, since I left the church I'm no longer part of the framework and no longer required to do good deeds. So why do I still do them.

Why would a Buddhist or Taoist do good deeds; they're not part of a religion.

 

[Retro Rob]

Sigh...okay, required to do good deeds and/or treat people nicely. Still sad. Of course according to your hypothesis, since I left the church I'm no longer part of the framework and no longer required to do good deeds. So why do I still do them.

Why would a Buddhist or Taoist do good deeds; they're not part of a religion.

I see that you'd prefer to act like a 6 year-old than have an adult conversation.

And yes, Jesus would be proud that I'm calling you out on your child-like behavior.

Oh, and out before the "the same back to you" brainless retort you robotically chirp back.

 

[soulcougher73]

I think you should read the Bible yourself once.

Maybe you should as well. Everything listed is in the bible. Talk about looking like a dumb ass lol

 

[SlowSpyder]

I see that you'd prefer to act like a 6 year-old than have an adult conversation.

And yes, Jesus would be proud that I'm calling you out on your child-like behavior.

Oh, and out before the "the same back to you" brainless retort you robotically chirp back.

I'm used to seeing you make these kinds of posts when your faith gets cornered. What part of his post was alzan acting like a six year old to you..? I don't see it, but maybe I'm missing something.

Is there any good deed done by christians that can't be done by non-secular groups?