RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism

RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thishereboi -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/13/2010 4:13:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi So it's ok to kill someone as long as your doing it for kicks and not some greater power? How did you get from her position to this statement? I don't see how they have anything to do with each other. I have been watching the other posters and thought I would try my hand at spinning a thought into a whole new direction. Are you saying you didn't buy it?[8D]

hertz -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/13/2010 4:56:55 AM)
In the interests of debate - Why isn't it OK to kill someone else if God isn't around to punish you for eternity? Random slayings are notoriously difficult to investigate, and we've all watched enough of 'Dexter' to avoid the obvious slips. Why not just go out there and bump off a few malcontents and go on our way? You know we'd all be better off without them.

FirmhandKY -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/13/2010 7:36:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle For the record, firm, i don't have any religion. Science is a useful research methodology, tho (please let me emphasise this bit) it has its limitations. I will admit to being fond of rational thinking, tho, like all approaches, it has its limitations. I do profess to have ethics and to be guided by them. BTW there may well be, imho, some non-rational justifications for religions. These might include (but are not limited to) social utility; that religions tend to develop desirable characteristics in people; that the amount of social good they facilitate outweighs their negatives; .... amongst others. These justifications exclude any theological content that any given religion may have ie they are independent of the belief system. Nor am i saying i necessarily agree that these justify religions. Any appropriate ethical system, including of course secular ethical systems might generate similar, or possibly far better outcomes. All i am saying is that such justifications could exist and could be argued. So, reduced to its absolute minimum with all the risks that entails, all i am asserting in my last 2 posts is that religious belief is faith based and therefore irrational. All the major religions i am familiar with agree with that claim (tho they might choose to express it differently). Hardly controversial i would have thought....... I hope this clarifies my position for you. Thank you for the clear and cognizant post. They are rare enough around here. Some questions: 1. You acknowledge the possibility that religion may have some utility, but it's unclear if you therefore believe that religion actually has a place in society, or in the lives of people. Or is it a distraction, and on balance is a negative in human society and people's lives? 2. It does seem that you believe that any social utility can just as easily be reached by "Any appropriate ethical system, including of course secular ethical systems". What, exactly, is a "secular ethical system"? 3. Is it fair to say that you believe that religions are primarily based on "emotions", rather than logic, and that science and secular ethic systems are based on rationality and logic. but not emotions. Is this a fair summation? 4. What is the basis for your ethics, your moral sense of right and wrong? Where does it originate, from a purely scientific point of view? Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/13/2010 7:39:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle But perhaps I am being unfair. It could well be asking too much to insist on rational thinking by ppl who insist on the veracity of imaginary friends and fairy tales. Your frigging moral superiority is showing, dearie. Why thank you! How nice of you to say so! I should hope any evidence-based belief system is superior to one relying on superstition, other wise it would be remiss of me to use it wouldn't it! I like to examine the evidence, evaluate it and then form a view. Which appears to be what you have just done - you read my post (the evidence), evaluated it according to your lights and formed a conclusion. I would like to be able to exclude a belief in the supernatural in your method, but, as i don't know you, i can't. It may be that this accounts for for your somewhat-less-than-enthusiastic tone. Or it could be something else .... Nonetheless, should i take your apparent use of the same system as implicit agreement that it is a superior system? Please note that i don't claim that the evidence-based system i employ is the only superior system, or that is the most superior system. Simply that is superior to relying on superstition. What I took exception to was your dismissive and belittling attitude. Further discussion of this particular line of thought I will hold in abeyance, however, while we explore another path, based on my above post. I reserve the right to return to this to line of discussion, if I believe it appropriate. Firm

KatyLied -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/13/2010 7:52:14 AM)
quote: I do profess to have ethics and to be guided by them. I have often seen shock and disbelief on the faces of religious people when they fail to understand that non-religious people can conduct themselves in moral and ethical ways in the absence of rules/guidelines that are set forth from religious texts. Many people understand how to do the right thing and are guided by this in their life. Irregardless of teaching/instruction from the church.

tazzygirl -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/13/2010 8:00:04 AM)
I consider myself religious, and im not shocked. Most in my family do not follow a "church". There are many, many assumptions when it comes to the religion vs atheism debate.... on both sides.

KatyLied -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/13/2010 8:03:48 AM)
I agree Tazzy. I am not religious and a coworker asked how I can live knowing that I will not be rewarded for my good behavior/punished for my bad. It's hard to answer her because I do not understand how she can place such importance on either of those things, or why she needs those rewards/punishments in order to be a good person.

tazzygirl -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/13/2010 8:23:16 AM)
I would have simply said... My deeds, or lack of them, are not for you to judge. I would suggest you concentrate upon your own and allow me to worry about mine. ... People like that irk the hell out of me. I used to have a co-worker who would leave those little spiritual pamplets laying all around the break area. I would gather them up and throw them away. When she asked if i had, i admitted quickly that it was me and no other. She started yelling that i was going to hell. I simply said... Ill hold the door open for ya. [;)]

hertz -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/13/2010 8:27:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Katylied Many people understand how to do the right thing and are guided by this in their life. Both Firmhand and myself have asked the same question in different ways. If this is your answer, I'd like to make a suggestion to you. You are being guided by a God who is so invisible, even you can't see who is holding your hand and leading you to salvation. Hallelujah, Sister!

FirmhandKY -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/13/2010 8:40:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KatyLied quote: I do profess to have ethics and to be guided by them. I have often seen shock and disbelief on the faces of religious people when they fail to understand that non-religious people can conduct themselves in moral and ethical ways in the absence of rules/guidelines that are set forth from religious texts. Many people understand how to do the right thing and are guided by this in their life. Irregardless of teaching/instruction from the church. I am curious as to the origins of your ethics and morality. How do you determine what is "right' and what is "wrong"? Firm

KatyLied -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/13/2010 9:29:49 AM)
quote: You are being guided by a God who is so invisible, even you can't see who is holding your hand and leading you to salvation. Hallelujah, Sister! I am being guided by the random of the universe. Like others who inhabit this life, there are some things within my control, and some things not so much.

KatyLied -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/13/2010 9:41:24 AM)
quote: I am curious as to the origins of your ethics and morality. How do you determine what is "right' and what is "wrong"? I am bound by the same rules of society as everyone else. I determine what is right and wrong according to the rules of society and my own feelings about things, including my feelings about certain rules of socity. The difference between me and someone who is part of a religious background is that I do not refer to a text or pray for guidance. In this perhaps I am afforded a bit more freedom, I do not know for sure. I do not think that because someone refers to a religious text and/or prays that their decision making or morals or ethics are superior to mine.

Raechard -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/13/2010 9:45:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: KatyLied quote: I do profess to have ethics and to be guided by them. I have often seen shock and disbelief on the faces of religious people when they fail to understand that non-religious people can conduct themselves in moral and ethical ways in the absence of rules/guidelines that are set forth from religious texts. Many people understand how to do the right thing and are guided by this in their life. Irregardless of teaching/instruction from the church. I am curious as to the origins of your ethics and morality. How do you determine what is "right' and what is "wrong"? Firm Seriously? Empathy this is what guides people's morality. I didn't know the ten commandments until I was about ten but before that time I didn't kill anyone through not knowing them.

tazzygirl -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/13/2010 9:50:47 AM)
quote: The difference between me and someone who is part of a religious background is that I do not refer to a text or pray for guidance. In this perhaps I am afforded a bit more freedom, I do not know for sure. I do not think that because someone refers to a religious text and/or prays that their decision making or morals or ethics are superior to mine But do you feel theirs is inferior to yours?

DomKen -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/13/2010 10:00:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hertz There isn't much evidence to counter it, either. This is actually part of a well-known set of science thingies. Just because the universe looks as if it's origin can be traced back to a single point, doesn't mean it actually happened like that. If the universe is infinite (near as), then there is the possibility that a mind can spontaneously appear out of nothingness, apprehend all of creation, and voila - me. Boltzmann The universe has no existence outside of consciousness. Consciousness literally creates it all. I am God. Kneel before me! In all seriousness - science creates fanciful stories which may or may not be 'true'. Many of the beliefs cosmology rests upon cannot be proven in any meaningful way. All we have is a bunch of numbers which could easily be put together in the wrong order. that's not science of any sort. It is solipsism of the worst kind.

Raechard -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/13/2010 10:04:37 AM)
How can people even pretend that being religious ensures you have a moral core? You can teach the good word of the bible as much as you like but it's something else that gets the person to listen i.e. the need to be accepted as a good citizen. Some people don't have that quality regardless of how much you try to preach at them. Unless we are saying religious people don't commit crimes.

tazzygirl -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/13/2010 10:09:25 AM)
People commit crimes, religion does not. A religion can advocate a crime. It still requires people to commit the act. People can commit a crime then use any excuse they feel that will help their case when it comes to court.

Raechard -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/13/2010 10:22:59 AM)
My point is that the morality supposedly taught to them by religion obviously doesn't prevent them from committing crimes in all instances. This is because they weren't listening to it or taking it seriously. Seems obvious to me that you need a secret ingredient independent from religious teachings that makes people good citizens. Atheism isn't the magic answer either, it's something entirely different which I've already mentioned above.

KatyLied -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/13/2010 1:24:13 PM)
quote: But do you feel theirs is inferior to yours? No, I figure it is a way of thinking and relating to the world that gives them comfort. I have no difficulty with it unless they start preaching to me. If they preach to me I form an opinion of them that is not favorable.

hertz -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (11/13/2010 1:24:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: hertz There isn't much evidence to counter it, either. This is actually part of a well-known set of science thingies. Just because the universe looks as if it's origin can be traced back to a single point, doesn't mean it actually happened like that. If the universe is infinite (near as), then there is the possibility that a mind can spontaneously appear out of nothingness, apprehend all of creation, and voila - me. Boltzmann The universe has no existence outside of consciousness. Consciousness literally creates it all. I am God. Kneel before me! In all seriousness - science creates fanciful stories which may or may not be 'true'. Many of the beliefs cosmology rests upon cannot be proven in any meaningful way. All we have is a bunch of numbers which could easily be put together in the wrong order. that's not science of any sort. It is solipsism of the worst kind. Ignorance is bliss, I guess. It's not my job to open your mind. The science bit is in post 260. I don't really care if you understand it or not.

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875