Question for Athiests and church bashers

Bookworm85

LighterGuy wrote: »

To throw an interesting question out there ....

Say lets take an athiest. So they dont believe in god. fair enough. but whats right and wrong then to them?


Like, with religious beliefs what you do in life will be judged when you go down. (now that can bring up another topic about religious control etc but we'll leave that for another thread) but if you dont believe in god ... doesnt that mean you should do what you want in life. Be a liar, two faced, user etc because when you go down, thats it.

As I said earlier in the thread. I believe in a god. I DONT believe in religion. Its a business. But I know in my heart if I ever stopped believing in a god... right and wrong would be out the window 100%. 'Cause lets be honest everyone is out for themselves in this world as it is. But yet we generally have a threshold of whats really bad. If I dont believe in a higher power then whats really right or wrong to me?

I guess I am asking a moralistic question. Yeah sure we have laws. But these laws are made by the same people who break them.

I don't break the laws, be they moral law or state law, many of the commandments or laws in the bible are just common sense. By breaking these laws a person risks becoming an outcast, shunned or whatever. It makes no sense to deviate from these 'norms', life just becomes difficult if we do. Back in the early days of man, becoming an outcast probably meant death.

And as an atheist, I don't believe in an afterlife, so if I ever was to break a law or do anybody/anything harm then I fully expect to pay for it in this life.

LighterGuy

Snakeblood wrote: »

Just because there's no god doesn't mean religion and philosophy have given us no good ideas.

But whats religious beliefs to a person if they dont believe in religion. As for philosophical beliefs ... what, beliefs coming from a man or woman? who lets be honest, theres good and bad in everyone. Alot of hypocrissy too.

LighterGuy

Mickeroo wrote: »

If that's really true then there's a good chance you're an affectionless psycopath and should be locked up or at least get therapy. :pac:

:pac:
when i say right and wrong gone, im not talking about busting out an AK-47 :pac:... but ... doing whats best in my interests... using people, stepping over people etc etc.

Bookworm85 wrote: »

I don't break the laws, be they moral law or state law, many of the commandments or laws in the bible are just common sense. By breaking these laws a person risks becoming an outcast, shunned or whatever. It makes no sense to deviate from these 'norms', life just becomes difficult if we do. Back in the early days of man, becoming an outcast probably meant death.

And as an atheist, I don't believe in an afterlife, so if I ever was to break a law or do anybody/anything harm then I fully expect to pay for it in this life.

Good post. Cant say anything against it. Only thing I can mention is, again is alot of people in life are out for themselves. Laws can be "blurry" :pac:

KeithAFC

The Atheist revolution won't take place with the current figure heads at the top of the militant Atheist movement. They need a new strategy.

Mickeroo

LighterGuy wrote: »

But whats religious beliefs to a person if they dont believe in religion. As for philosophical beliefs ... what, beliefs coming from a man or woman? who lets be honest, theres good and bad in everyone. Alot of hypocrissy too.

As opposed to the beliefs in the bible that only men came up with, at least philosophy is balanced then.

Son Of A Vidic

OP surely you know that the Irish have a talent for blind allegiance or sheep like behaviour? This also applies to matters outside of religion unfortunately. Now many are starting to cop on, but not quick enough in my opinion.

LighterGuy

Mickeroo wrote: »

As opposed to the beliefs in the bible that only men came up with, at least philosophy is balanced then.

A good argument can be made about religion being all bo**ix. All stories that were wrote along time ago. "The greatest story ever told" it could be as they say.

Equally, philosophy can be bo**ix too. No person is perfect. Sure I could become a famous philosopher one day (not bloody likely :pac: ) but for example I could spread a message of peace and respect for my fellow human being (while sleeping with my best friends wife at the same time, telling people they should donate to my cause to help others... aka my back pocket)

Mickeroo

LighterGuy wrote: »

A good argument can be made about religion being all bo**ix. All stories that were wrote along time ago. "The greatest story ever told" it could be as they say.

Equally, philosophy can be bo**ix too. No person is perfect. Sure I could become a famous philosopher one day (not bloody likely :pac: ) but for example I could spread a message of peace and respect for my fellow human being (while sleeping with my best friends wife at the same time, telling people they should donate to my cause to help others... aka my back pocket)

But that wouldn't make your message any less valid. Besides, I don't think that's how philosophy works, i'm not even sure spreading a message of peace and respect could be considered philosophy.

Seachmall

LighterGuy wrote: »

Equally, philosophy can be bo**ix too.

Philosophy is bo**ix, but it knows it's bo**ix and so philosophical discussions maintain some level of humility and open-mindedness.

marty1985

LighterGuy wrote: »

But whats religious beliefs to a person if they dont believe in religion. As for philosophical beliefs ... what, beliefs coming from a man or woman? who lets be honest, theres good and bad in everyone. Alot of hypocrissy too.

Religious beliefs would be things like not attending mass every weekend is a sin. So they mean very little to both religious and non religious people.

I hope you don't think You shall not murder is a religious belief.

LighterGuy

marty1985 wrote: »

Religious beliefs would be things like not attending mass every weekend is a sin. So they mean very little to both religious and non religious people.

I hope you don't think You shall not murder is a religious belief.

its a law too? ... :pac:
But seriously, philosophy is bo**ix too. I can have my way of thinking and someone can have their way of thinking. Thats a clash. What starts out as a disagreement, can turn into a hatred, into violence.

Think my over all message is "people suck" :pac:

Naikon

If the bible is anything to go by, I am entitled to have a slave.

LighterGuy

Naikon wrote: »

If the bible is anything to go by, I am entitled to have a slave.

Yeah its called a wife in the bible :pac:

ba-da-dish.

Seachmall

LighterGuy wrote: »

But seriously, philosophy is bo**ix too. I can have my way of thinking and someone can have their way of thinking. Thats a clash. What starts out as a disagreement, can turn into a hatred, into violence.

In a proper philosophical discussion between two opposing philosophers one side will willingly concede if he can't counter his opponents position because the point of a philosophical discussion is to advance your perceived understanding of the world.

In a proper religious discussion between two opposing believers one side will never concede if he can't counter his opponents position because the point of a religious discussion is to prove your current position right.

The difference between a philosopher and a theologian is one knows he'll never reach the correct conclusion whilst the other believes he begins with the correct conclusion.

Freddie59

Mickeroo wrote: »

Wikipedia:espite its status as the most widespread and influential religion in the US, Christianity is undergoing a continuous relative decline in demographics. While the absolute number of Christians rose from 1990 to 2008 as the overall population increased, the actual percentage of Christians dropped from 86.2% to 76.0%

Yep, that's what i'm saying - SEVENTY-SIX PERCENT!

Liam Byrne

Thread fail, for 2 reasons:

1) Lumping atheists and "church bashers" together
2) Using the word "bashers" for those who have a justified criticism - "bashing" is just hating/criticising for the sake of it

So I don't fit either category. But let me know if you want my opinion.

Mickeroo

pragmatic1 wrote: »

2. Not in the western world. Its been in sharp decline for decades now, which is to be expected as western countries are generally more advanced.

Freddie59 wrote: »

Em, USA...........?

Mickeroo wrote: »

Wikipedia:
Despite its status as the most widespread and influential religion in the US, Christianity is undergoing a continuous relative decline in demographics. While the absolute number of Christians rose from 1990 to 2008 as the overall population increased, the actual percentage of Christians dropped from 86.2% to 76.0%

Freddie59 wrote: »

Yep, that's what i'm saying - SEVENTY-SIX PERCENT!

*facepalm*

Monty Burnz

KeithAFC wrote: »

The Atheist revolution won't take place with the current figure heads at the top of the militant Atheist movement. They need a new strategy.

Yes, you've got to be wary of those militant atheists, with their violent militancy and what not, and all the bombings and...wait, what?

housetypeb

:rolleyes:

Freddie59 wrote: »

Yep, that's what i'm saying - SEVENTY-SIX PERCENT!

http://b-static.net/vbulletin/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

robindch

Downlinz wrote: »

What does that say about your judgment on the intelligence of your parents, grandparents and other relatives who more than likely devoted so much of their lives to these causes?

Bearing in mind that you'd be a social outcast back then in most places if you went public with atheist views, I'd have said that pretending to be religious was quite a good idea really.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

There is no evidence of Christianity other than in a cultural sense in any of the writings I've looked at on document.no or in his manifesto. There is no specific mention to Christian theology, the Biblical text or anything else. That's what I find so perplexing. The media jumped to conclusions. I couldn't draw that he is a "fundamentalist Christian" at all from what evidence we have so far. I could draw that he used Christian identity as a fearmongering tool mostly in the context of demographics. That "Christian" Europe was being overrun by social Marxists and Muslims via immigration.

I retract this statement.

I'm flicking through Brevik's manifesto and there is some discussion about Christianity and pacifism with Biblical verses used. However, there is other material in there that would cause me to question the sincerity of his Christian faith. It's a disturbing read thus far, and I don't think I'll manage to get to flick through it all.

The vast majority of his reasoning is political, the Biblical verses he selects are used to prop his position up. He doesn't seem to use the correct context in reading many of them though. The media are currently poring through the manuscript as a document. It's 1517 pages long and one couldn't be expected to really analyse all of it in depth.

robindch

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

OP, why didn't you ask this in the Atheists forum?

Because he doesn't believe in it.

Atheists + Agnostics forum exists here, regardless of who doesn't believe it exists

aidan24326

raah! wrote: »

There is plenty of denying of both of those things. You also don't seem to understand what religion is, by that post. It's not generally seen as a means of understanding physical processes, just so you know.

I'm not gonna get into an involved discussion here. However, if you are 16 or something, then I only reccommend that perhaps you wait a while and read a bit more before deciding that you know everything there is to know about science philosophy and religion. Yes I'm talking about you and not your post. It's personal advice from me to you. Spend less time in internet circle jerks and more time actually reading. If you actually want to learn and acheive your goal of being an intelligent fellow. It's clear where the two paths there lead to, and come from. The former from a desire to be seen as intelligent, and the latter from a genuine desire to learn (or perhaps also just to seem intelligent, but in a more legitimate way).

That condescending drivel doesn't deserve a response.

philologos wrote: »

It's absolute nonsense that I haven't subjected my beliefs to scrutiny, given that I read the Bible and thought through on the basis of Christian arguments and critques from non-believers during the time when I was considering adopting faith. That was about 4 years ago. Over the past few years I have welcomed to criticise my beliefs in a calm and reasonable manner (that being the prerequisite to discussion) and I aim as best as I can to respond. Where's the lazy attitude in respect to reasoning it through?

It's not lazy if you have indeed reasoned it through in your mind. BUT, to read the bible and arrive at the conclusion that it's all absolutely true requires some very very twisted reasoning. You won't agree with me on that of course.

LighterGuy wrote: »

But I know in my heart if I ever stopped believing in a god... right and wrong would be out the window 100%

That has to be one of the most ludicrous things I've read here in quite a while.

'Cause lets be honest everyone is out for themselves in this world as it is. But yet we generally have a threshold of whats really bad. If I dont believe in a higher power then whats really right or wrong to me?

You should really learn a little about the role co-operation and altruism have played in evolution, and not just for humans either. Look at the amazing social co-operation of meerkats for example. No god involved there.

Helix

LighterGuy wrote: »

But I know in my heart if I ever stopped believing in a god... right and wrong would be out the window 100%

youre basically saying the only reason you behave isnt because of morals, but because youre scared of being punished by god

thats absolutely terrifying, and sounds slightly unhinged

Overheal

LighterGuy wrote: »

To throw an interesting question out there ....

Say lets take an athiest. So they dont believe in god. fair enough. but whats right and wrong then to them?


Like, with religious beliefs what you do in life will be judged when you go down. (now that can bring up another topic about religious control etc but we'll leave that for another thread) but if you dont believe in god ... doesnt that mean you should do what you want in life. Be a liar, two faced, user etc because when you go down, thats it.

As I said earlier in the thread. I believe in a god. I DONT believe in religion. Its a business. But I know in my heart if I ever stopped believing in a god... right and wrong would be out the window 100%. 'Cause lets be honest everyone is out for themselves in this world as it is. But yet we generally have a threshold of whats really bad. If I dont believe in a higher power then whats really right or wrong to me?

I guess I am asking a moralistic question. Yeah sure we have laws. But these laws are made by the same people who break them.

Your questions are based on the assumption that people are inherently 'evil', or would spend their short lives being assholes because they could.

If that were even remotely true, allow me to counter that because we don't believe in an Afterlife, that we appreciate the time we have in this form more than a religious person might. With that in mind wouldn't an Atheist want to be the best version of themselves?

It's a humorous yet sad stereotype from religious people, that non-religious people have no values, no ethics, no morality. This is simply untrue. It also raises the implication that the religious only strive to do 'good' because they believe a) that's what their creator wants, and b) they are fearful of not obeying that wish.

But riddle me this: you believe in a creator, a creator that gave you choice and free will. It would be fairly sadistic of such a creator to give you this free choice and then only allow you to make the 'right' decisions. And if you make the 'wrong' decisions, they punish you for that. Why? If they don't want you to make the 'wrong' choice, why give you the choice at all? For this being's personal amusement?

marty1985

KeithAFC wrote: »

The Atheist revolution won't take place with the current figure heads at the top of the militant Atheist movement. They need a new strategy.

Do you mean Dawkins? I have to say I find him a bit annoying. He can be very condescending and behaves like a troll in a lot of interviews with the extremely religious nutjobs, trying to get them to say something for him to jump on. Must try harder.

Chuck Stone

raah! wrote: »

The kind of mentality where people think being a "rationalist" or "scientific" amounts to simply agreeing with consensus really is not an intellectually healthy one.

I really agree with this. A lot of people's skepticism tends to fail them when it comes to anything academic or anything which wraps itself in the language of science (this obv includes myself somewhat too).

marty1985 wrote: »

Maybe I didn't present my argument clear enough, but I stand by it. It hasn't really been countered either, since you agree that all societies in the past have been religious. Whether you agree with what I said or not, my belief is that it's wired into us because of human behaviour over the last 15,000 years of our ancestry

I'll have a crack off countering it.

First of all saying religion is innate doesn't really make sense. Religion is a series of rituals and a system of belief that has to be learned - religion comes from our culture - it's not innate.

I think what you might come back with now is that rather than religion being innate that what you mean is that we are predisposed to create religions and I will counter that too.

I would contend that rather than being predisposed to be religious we are predisposed to seek knowledge and understanding of our environment.

Now we have reason, science and empiricism to fill in the gaps where the false culture of religion once held sway.

marty1985

First of all saying religion is innate doesn't really make sense. Religion is a serious of rituals and a system of belief that has to be learned - religion comes from our culture - it's not innate.

We have been performing those rituals since we left Africa 50,000 years ago. If you do something for so long, it has to become hard wired into us, if you ask me.

Now we have reason, science and empiricism to fill in the gaps where the false culture of religion once was held sway.

Science has made incredible leaps and bounds in the last 350 years, and correspondingly religion has declined. But my point is that religion still isn't going anywhere. If anything, religious fervour is increasing.

Science isn't going to tell us where our dead parents are, so we're never going to stop wondering, and people will always be inclined to have faith in something higher.

What a lot of atheists don't seem to grasp is that it's not the job of science to eradicate religion, so you shouldn't hold your breath for that to happen.

marty1985

Also, just because there is an increase in secular states does not mean that religion is dwindling.

If anything, secular states allow for a free market in religion. This is what happened in America, where there are many different forms of Christianity competing against each other. If religion is voluntary, people then take ownership of their churches and carry the responsibility for creating communities. Their entirely dependent upon popular interest, and they're booming.

If you ask me, the more religions there are, the better. If there were only one, it'd be a dictatorship. If there were only two, it would be anarchy. If there were 10,000, we can minimise the dangers and maximise the benefits.

If there were no religions - well, let's not get silly.

Chuck Stone

marty1985 wrote: »

. If you do something for so long, it has to become hard wired into us, if you ask me.

Not religion. Religious belief and ritual is learned.

Science has made incredible leaps and bounds in the last 350 years, and correspondingly religion has declined. But my point is that religion still isn't going anywhere.

Well this is your opinion. I try not to get involved in discussions about the future because they are pretty fruitless.

Science isn't going to tell us where our dead parents are, so we're never going to stop wondering, and people will always be inclined to have faith in something higher.

Science will point you to the grave in which our dead parents are buried and say 'right there - that's where they are'.

What a lot of atheists don't seem to grasp is that it's not the job of science to eradicate religion, so you shouldn't hold your breath for that to happen

It may not be the job of science and reason to eradicate religion like it might a virus but it will inevitably shine a critical light on some of the superstitions to which religions hold dear.

Also, religion is being 'sanitizied' by science. What people who subscribe to religious teachings tend to do is move with science and change their stance to accomodate new theories and discoveries so in that way religion is being rationalized by science.

For example most rational people will now reject the idea of Adam and Eve and the talking snake in favour of Darwin's theory of evolution.