Why do non-believers concern themselves with religion?

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens etc are the kind of atheists that I object to. If they were pure atheists, they wouldn't go about spouting their twisted gospel of hatred for religion and God.

I think thats the thing. These people are Anti-Theist, rather than being just alledgedly innocuous Atheists.

They have no idea the damage they're doing as they mess with people's faith in God.

I'd differ with you here. I'd have to question the faith of those who are persuaded by these guys in the first place.

I'll bet books like the Selfish Gene and the God Delusion has destroyed the last little bit of faith that 1000s of people had clung on to.

Again, everyone has responsability for themselves. There has been, there is, and will be alot more to stumble people away from Christ. If they are stumbled so easily, you'd have to question the foundation of their faith in the first place. Also, If you take this arguement and shine it inward, there has no-doubt been alot more damage done by religious institutions themselves in this regard.

I read about one guys who went into a clinical depression for years after reading the S.G. These guys are true anti-Christs, doing the devils work.

Well, all who oppose the truth of Christ are technically 'anti-christs'.
They are doing their own work, and are responsible for that work themselves. I wouldn't pass the buck to the devil.

Galvasean

kelly1 wrote: »

Everyone has a right to contribute to the decision making processes that affect our lives. Why shouldn't someone campaign agaisnt abortion or the abolition of religious practices in schools? What's wrong with trying to halt the moral decay in society?

Of course everyone has a right to contribute to said decisions. That was my point. If the non-theists of the world simply ignored the religious folk in a 'its none of my business' sort of way, they would have to forgo taking part in matters of state. I believe its called Democracy.

kelly1 wrote: »

And please don't tell me that allowing abortion is progressive or advances civilization!

For the record I'm against abortion, with the exception of the most extreme of circumstances. I think you'll find many atheists are too. Please don't assume that just because I don't believe in your God I find it acceptable to suck the unborn out of the womb via a tube because someone forgot to wear a johnny.


How nice of you to miss my point entirely and nit-pick details. :rolleyes:

Now, hopefully Dades can get back to his roll.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

\O/
I'm an anti christ

awesome, and my parents said I'd never amount to anything

estebancambias

Latchyco- Yeah a lad in my old class was so obnoxious when it came to his Atheism. He thought he was the coolest thing since sliced bread, and made it his business if someone used like the phrase 'oh my god' to talk about how stupid the person was.

I think he stumbled across the God Delusion one weekend and then thought he was an expert on the matter(not that you have to be intelligent to not believe in God(s))

Galvasean

estebancambias wrote: »

and made it his business if someone used like the phrase 'oh my god' to talk about how stupid the person was.

His name wasn't Bender was it?

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

Well, that's where we disagree. Contrary to millions of words of pro-decay propaganda from the church, the Daily Telegraph and vast numbers of right-wing publications, I don't think there's any significant "moral decay" happening. Rather the contrary, that people are more educated, have higher standards of living, live longer, have happier and more free lives, than has ever occurred in general society in the past.

What does one's standard of living have to do with moral decay? I'm talking about the levels of violence, promiscuity, selfishness, drink/drugs etc.

robindch wrote: »

Would you prefer to live in the past where you seem to think that "morals" were "undecayed", or would you prefer to live now?

Going back to the past solves nothing, it just has a different set of problems.

estebancambias

A few lads called him that all right....I was just responding to the Liverpool Guys comment about how some people thinks its cool to be Atheist.....there was a large proportion of Atheists in the year just this guy thought he was the ****.

Galvasean

kelly1 wrote: »

What does one's standard of living have to do with moral decay? I'm talking about the levels of violence, promiscuity, selfishness, drink/drugs etc.

It all depends on your perception of morality. My granny taught Tommy Tiernen's recent appearance on Tubridy Tonight* was immoral. My old school principal taught couples holding hands was immoral.
*I personally find the fact that Tubridy has his own show immoral! :eek:

And are we really more violent/full of alcohol than our grandparents' generation? I doubt it. We just have access to better weapons. Imagine if Gengis Khan had access to nuclear bombs!!!! (I stole that last one from a book, cant remember which one)

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

it would have been cooler if khan had a space shuttle

JimiTime

Galvasean wrote: »

*I personally find the fact that Tubridy has his own show immoral! :eek:

You see, if you were in the know, you'd realise he's the 4th plague spoken about in Revelation. Just after Pat Kenny and Paris Hilton:D When Staunton is the new Moring Ireland pre4senter, start prayin'!

Galvasean

JimiTime wrote: »

You see, if you were in the know, you'd realise he's the 4th plague spoken about in Revelation. Just after Pat Kenny and Paris Hilton:D When Staunton is the new Moring Ireland pre4senter, start prayin'!

Wow, the Bible is open to all sorts of interpretation.

kelly1

estebancambias wrote: »

A few lads called him that all right....I was just responding to the Liverpool Guys comment about how some people thinks its cool to be Atheist.....there was a large proportion of Atheists in the year just this guy thought he was the ****.

There's definitely a certain fashionability about atheism and the belief that atheism is the intellectually superior position.

I think there's also a fear of admitting belief in God in order to avoid ridicule.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

kelly1 wrote: »

There's definitely a certain fashionability about atheism and the belief that atheism is the intellectually superior position.

I think there's also a fear of admitting belief in God in order to avoid ridicule.

indeed, as it should be. the same way people who think elvis is still alive are nervous about admitting that too.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm talking about the levels of violence, promiscuity, selfishness, drink/drugs etc.

How do you know that "selfishness" was less in the past? What about the WWII, wasn't it more violent back then than now? And so what about promiscuity and booze?

kelly1 wrote: »

Going back to the past solves nothing

Well, you said that there is "moral decay". That means that you think that things were better in the past. If you don't think so, then don't use the phrase "moral decay"!

kelly1

Galvasean wrote: »

It all depends on your perception of morality.

Well that's the very point. People's perception of morality is changing rapidly. Sin is more acceptable and is actively justified.

Going back a generation or two, girls didn't go around in short skirts, with the breasts hanging out for all the world to see. "Living is sin" was seriously frowned upon. Sunday newspapers didn't look like soft porn mags. etc, etc.

Innocence really is a thing of the past.

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

What does one's standard of living have to do with moral decay? I'm talking about the levels of violence, promiscuity, selfishness, drink/drugs etc.

Honestly do you think increased religiousness would fix this? If so which religion?
How do you define promiscuity? How do you define selfishness? My parents baptising me when I wasn't self aware was pretty selfish.

kelly1 wrote: »

Going back to the past solves nothing, it just has a different set of problems.

I'm very interested to know what kind of society you would like to see in Ireland and how it would be enforced? Care to enlighten me?

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

Well that's the very point. People's perception of morality is changing rapidly. Sin is more acceptable and is actively justified.

Going back a generation or two, girls didn't go around in short skirts, with the breasts hanging out for all the world to see. "Living is sin" was seriously frowned upon. Sunday newspapers didn't look like soft porn mags. etc, etc.

Innocence really is a thing of the past.

Its funny. Usually in my travels its people who behave like that who sheepishly call themselves catholics. Not everyone though its gross generalisation, oh much like your original post.

estebancambias

Mordeth wrote: »

indeed, as it should be. the same way people who think elvis is still alive are nervous about admitting that too.

Whats intelligent about simply believing there is no God?

tbh

estebancambias wrote: »

Whats intelligent about simply believing there is no God?

it proves you have independent thought and don't simply follow what you've been "born" into. For example, I was at a christening on Saturday, and the priest talked about how he was "claiming" the child in God's name. Surely now if your religion is as powerful as the priest obviously thinks it is, you don't need to go around "claiming" anyone - let them find their own way. no?

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

How do you know that "selfishness" was less in the past?

That's my impression. Maybe greed is a better word.

robindch wrote: »

What about the WWII, wasn't it more violent back then than now?

Poor example. I'm talking about killings without a motive, stabbing with screwdrivers, beating with hammer for looking at someone the "wrong way" e.g. the Polish guys who were killed in Drimnagh. The gang wars between drug "Lords". We didn't have that 20 years ago. We live in a more and more violent society and you'd be blind not to see that. Actuall there is generational blindness i.e. we don't really have a view of how things have changed since the days when our parents were young. The older generation see that more clearly.

robindch wrote: »

And so what about promiscuity and booze?

You don't see a problem with that???

robindch wrote: »

Well, you said that there is "moral decay". That means that you think that things were better in the past. If you don't think so, then don't use the phrase "moral decay"!

Some things have got better but I think in general it's worse.

LaVidaLoca

we are certainly more immoral according to some criteria than once we were.

- Most people no longer give a **** what free men and women do with their genitals as long as children aren't involved.

- Most people are tolerant of gays. Coming out as gay no longer has to involve your family/friends never speaking to you again, or getting arrested, as it would in the past.

- Women are free to be and work at whatever they want. They are free to shag/not shag whoever they want, and to have/not have children if and when they want to.

- People in the Western World no longer automatically support their governments when they declare war.

- Most people consider racial hatred to be 'beyond the pale' of reasonable thinking.

That these postive developments have been accompanied by the development of a consumer society is not an indicdment of liberalism. It's an indictment of what happens to human beings when they live in a wants and not needs-based economy. America has been such a society since WWII, we're just catching up now.

And sure, it has it's down-sides: As a culture, it is all about pleasing people's selfish desires in order to sell them products that keep the economy ticking over. This usually involves using advertising to make them feel miserable so they keep buying stuff.

However, would you really want to go back to the way things were? Such talk reminds me of people who reminisce about how happy and community based England felt during the war: Everyone pulling together, a sense of puropse and mission to life. Does that mean anyone would actually wish a war upon us to get that feeling back? Same with religion. Of course we can mourn our loss of innocence, but we dont really want it back.

estebancambias

tbh wrote: »

it proves you have independent thought and don't simply follow what you've been "born" into. For example, I was at a christening on Saturday, and the priest talked about how he was "claiming" the child in God's name. Surely now if your religion is as powerful as the priest obviously thinks it is, you don't need to go around "claiming" anyone - let them find their own way. no?

So if a country is completely Atheist are they all then mindless sheep simply following what they have been born into?


Do I have independent thought if I think (insert lunatic) actions were justified, even though the majority of people think the actions were evil, immoral or whatever?

GhostInTheRuins

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Long live the day when I can turn on rte radio at 6 o'clock and there are no f**kin bells.

I'd miss it if they stopped doing that just before the 6:01 news. It's ****ing hilarious.

GhostInTheRuins

estebancambias wrote: »

Do I have independent thought if I think (insert lunatic) actions were justified, even though the majority of people think the actions were evil, immoral or whatever?

Oh you mean Timothy McVeigh? Good for you. :rolleyes:

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Going back a generation or two, girls didn't go around in short skirts, with the breasts hanging out for all the world to see.

So what? I must say I quite like to see people looking healthy, rather than being ashamed of their naughty bits and stuffing them away, in the manner of an elderly Victorian matron, in case somebody might see them.

In fact, as I pointed out to one cantankerous person who moaned about this exact topic in Kiev -- a world-class city for people-watching -- the only people who complain about other people dressing up and looking nice are the people who aren't able to do it any more.*

* Which is not to say that my slightly corpulent figure is worth a second glance, nor that yours isn't.

Latchy

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

However, would you really want to go back to the way things were? Such talk reminds me of people who reminisce about how happy and community based England felt during the war: Everyone pulling together, a sense of puropse and mission to life. Does that mean anyone would actually wish a war upon us to get that feeling back? Same with religion. Of course we can mourn our loss of innocence, but we dont really want it back.

That society back then was predominantly all white and without sounding like a little englander ( i'm irish born and bread ) that's what a lot of white anglo english born miss. Cricket on the lawns blah blah,that sense of englishness before multiculturism and immigration .

Dades

I'm not the "independent thought/intelligence" argument is adding anything to this thread...

The moral decay line is interesting, though. I suspect it's impossible to know the moral state of a nation 50 years ago. Today everything is so much more transparent. What was suffered in silence before, is now on the front pages of the tabloids.

kelly1

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Honestly do you think increased religiousness would fix this? If so which religion?

Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. When someone loves God, it means changing their lives to do His will. If people did God's will, we wouldn't have so many social ills. Christianity is:

Pro modesty/anti exhisitionist
Pro moderation/anti drunkeness
Pro chastity/anti promiscuity/adultery
Pro love/anti violence
Pro sharing/anti greed
Pro selflessness/anti selfishness
etc,etc

All these things would result in a better world for all concerned.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I'm very interested to know what kind of society you would like to see in Ireland and how it would be enforced? Care to enlighten me?

I would like to see a society which upholds and esteems Christian values but not all of these can or should be enforced.

Galvasean

Wow, you'd swear senseless violence was a new thing the way some people go on. I bet no one ever had drunken brawls or gangland killings in the 50s...

LaVidaLoca

"Going back a generation or two, girls didn't go around in short skirts, with the breasts hanging out for all the world to see.

And what, pray tell is wrong (other than aesthetically) about being able to see women's breasts?

There's always an implied desire behind such moral outrage. I assume Kelly, that you, being a human being, love to see the soft round curves of a woman's breast just as much as I do. Why torture yourself with the beleif that there's something wrong with that?