Bit of Controversy for us all to debate about

[Shad0hawK]

I love being Agnostic. Makes the whole religion thing a non-issue.

actually it could be said agnositicism is the only really truly intellectually honest view since atheism is really as much a matter of faith as the theistic views(they hate when i say that)...as for myself i was an atheist, then an agnostic, then a christian.

 

[RZAL]

Shad0hawk
My apologies, I now see that you are a worthy adversary in the art of debate. We may differ in ideologies, however I must say I am quite intrigued. Please by all means teach us and I do hope that you are not offended if challenged.

I noticed you have made reference to Atheism, agnosticism, communist nations and Stalin. Should the readers assume you are from a communist nation and if so please share your fundamental views with the readers?

actually it could be said agnositicism is the only really truly intellectually honest view since atheism is really as much a matter of faith as the theistic views(they hate when i say that)...as for myself i was an atheist, then an agnostic, then a christian.

Christian? Could you please elaborate?

Again, I do apologize for being condescending.


The Patriot

 

[smwScott]

what about morals common to many religions? and would not a totally areligious government be hostile to religion(and thus the religious)? they all have in the past in governments that made atheism state policy...

I don't think morals should play a part in government either, as that is also subjective. Laws should objectively be based on what is wrong and what is acceptable, and define them that way. Not through a sense of good and evil.

And I'm not advocating atheism in government, I'm advocating indifference. To not acknowledge theology in any way, but allow it's citizens to pracice any religion however they see fit.

 

[bboymatty]

everyone should know that the only thing religion does is give otherwise good people false hope and keeps the masses in control through fear of unthinkable punishment

Absolute bullshit.

If i was prez or whatnot id BAN religion!

 

[RZAL]

I don't think morals should play a part in government either, as that is also subjective. Laws should objectively be based on what is wrong and what is acceptable, and define them that way. Not through a sense of good and evil.

And I'm not advocating atheism in government, I'm advocating indifference. To not acknowledge theology in any way, but allow it's citizens to pracice any religion however they see fit.

Is wrong not also defined as evil, amoral, criminal, undesirable, unacceptable, etc. etc….?
In a free society are laws not objectively based on what is right or wrong, are citizens not allowed to practice any religion?
Then I ask you what is a free society and what are laws based on?
Who then defines right or wrong?

The Patriot

 

[Raziaar]

everyone should know that the only thing religion does is give otherwise good people false hope and keeps the masses in control through fear of unthinkable punishment

Absolute bullshit.

If i was prez or whatnot id BAN religion!

Yeah right. Even if that were true. How would it affect you anyways? If these people are being controlled by fear, who controls them? Nobody but god, that's who, and if you think god doesn't exist, then how does that even matter to you? And what would it be keeping them in control of? Nearly all religions I know of preach peace and good will towards man kind.

You don't like goodwill towards man kind? Are you afraid people of these religions are going to be TOO nice?


Anyways... those were all questions under a hypothetical. I don't believe religion gives false hope. It gives hope. Hope is better than the thought of no hope. These people believe that they will go to a better place when they die, rather than rot in the ground. Would you rather them feel dismayed that once its over... its just over? Nothing, no future life for their soul? Just rotting in the ground? That's oppressive of you.

Nearly the entire world's populace practices some form of religion. This is a fact. These people aren't slaves. They desire to practice religion. It makes them feel good, it makes them happier. They should be allowed to have that happiness.

The only thing the practicers of athiesm have taught me, is that they suffer from intolerance. They hate the idea of religion, and don't want other people to practice it, so because of this they try to discredit everything a person believes in to achieve this. Why not just not practice religion if you're athiest, instead of trying to prove everybody else wrong? Only one answer... oppressive intolerance.

 

[Lemonking]

look at Iran dude

 

[Raziaar]

look at Iran dude

Please explain? What post are you responding to, and also what do you mean by it? All these things are helpful, and don't require deciphering. Even if they're plainly obvious to you, does not mean they are for others.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Shad0hawk
My apologies, I now see that you are a worthy adversary in the art of debate. We may differ in ideologies, however I must say I am quite intrigued. Please by all means teach us and I do hope that you are not offended if challenged.

I noticed you have made reference to Atheism, agnosticism, communist nations and Stalin. Should the readers assume you are from a communist nation and if so please share your fundamental views with the readers?


Christian? Could you please elaborate?

Again, I do apologize for being condescending.


The Patriot

i apologize for reacting a bit fiery as well, but i was in a cranky mood

i am not from a communist nation, but through the years i have observed the great failure of socialism/communism. as for my views, i think i have ealready presented them very well
to elucidate on the journey from atheist to agnostic, to christian would be very difficult in a few paragraphs, but maybe i can give some sense of the how and why.


for awhile i was an atheist. then after examination i acknowledged the possibility that God existed, but was of the mind that a mere human intellect could not really comprehend God or even really know if God existed because of human limitations of perception.

i came to be a christian after God revealed Himself to me, thus circumventing my limited human perception, now to be honest i fully realize human perception(that is understanding and the senses both) is an imperfect thing, and that even though the senses and the mind usually do a great job of getting us through life, they can be fooled. considering many details i do not have the time to go into though becoming a christian was a perfectly rational thing for me to do.

if you have any questions feel free to ask, and being challenged does not bother me, i thrive on it

 

[Shad0hawK]

I don't think morals should play a part in government either, as that is also subjective. Laws should objectively be based on what is wrong and what is acceptable, and define them that way. Not through a sense of good and evil.

And I'm not advocating atheism in government, I'm advocating indifference. To not acknowledge theology in any way, but allow it's citizens to pracice any religion however they see fit.

without morals as a basis to determine what exactly "wrong"(unacceptable) and right(acceptable) is, there is no way to objectively make laws on something subjective.

you see the quandry is defining what right and wrong is with no objective definition...it is imposible.

as far as government being "indifferent" i agree whole heartedly! the federal government has no business deciding if (for example)religious monuments can be displayed on federal property...that has already been decided because the bill of rights states "congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof"

just as the government cannot discriminate on the basis of race, etc. within the government itself because of laws that say so, it cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion within the government itself.

the only real way for the federal government to truly stay neutral is to let the issue be decided on the local community level.

for example if a community in wyoming is predominately predominately buddhist(and they are willing to pay for it themselves) they should be able to put a statue of bhudda in the local courthouse.

the same would go for a community of muslims in california ,or a community of jews in new york, or christians in mississippi. many people object to this really because they do not like religion and want it done away with, and in doing so would create a government that respects the established religious viewpoint of atheism above others, which further violates the law as written.

this is the only way to be fair, this is the only way for the government on the federal level to be truly neutral. otherwise if religious symbols are banned from federal property, the freedom to exercise religion has been denied and the law has been broken. not just any law, but the "inalienable" right to exercise religion.

 

[Absinthe]

Yeah right. Even if that were true. How would it affect you anyways? If these people are being controlled by fear, who controls them? Nobody but god, that's who, and if you think god doesn't exist, then how does that even matter to you?

It matters to me because these people could be manipulated for political gains.

And what would it be keeping them in control of?

The Presidency? The country itself? Leaders in the military?

Nearly all religions I know of preach peace and good will towards man kind.

And yet there have been countless examples of religion being used as an excuse to invade, torture, and slaughter. While I'm not suggesting that religious texts outright demand this kind of behavior, they do have a problem in that they are open to interpretation. Take a couple of lines out of context and you can have a holy war on your hands.

You don't like goodwill towards man kind? Are you afraid people of these religions are going to be TOO nice?

I'm sorry, but that is a very naive comment.

The only thing the practicers of athiesm have taught me, is that they suffer from intolerance. They hate the idea of religion, and don't want other people to practice it, so because of this they try to discredit everything a person believes in to achieve this.

As opposed to having a bible shoved down my throat in an attempt to convert me? You claim that I hate the idea of religion and that I don't want people to practice it. Well, that's true. I do hold disdain for religious institutions. But you know what? There are many Christians that don't like the Muslim religion, and vice versa.
I do not try to change the beliefs of other people, but I will glady point out the flaws in your position and support mine if it should ever become the subject of debate.

Why not just not practice religion if you're athiest, instead of trying to prove everybody else wrong? Only one answer... oppressive intolerance.

Weak Atheism: Not holding a belief in God because you feel that there is not enough evidence to substantiate such a belief.

Strong Atheism: The outright rejection of all Gods.

Don't generalize atheists. Furthermore, don't misrepresent it. There is no atheist doctrine that says "prove everybody wrong". You act as if oppressive intolerance is somehow exclusive only to atheists. You have absolutely no idea how wrong you are.

In any case, I have yet to come across a good reason to just get up and practice a religion as you suggest.

 

[Absinthe]

in much the same way that death in wars involving other religious views are.

Debatable. Stalin's policy making and his atheist beliefs were generally mutually exclusive. Wars with religious purposes, however, can be for purposes of conversion or "whiping out an infidel".

because atheism was the state sanctioned religous view, and like any other state sanctioned religious view, it is hostile to other views.

Crimes committed under a theocracy are stemmed from religion. Religions promote particular lifestyles and beliefs. Under a theocracy, deviation from these things can result in punishment. Atheism, on the other hand, does not promote anything like that. It is merely the lack of belief. So even if the aheist belief was state-sanctioned, the crimes commited cannot be considered a direct result of it.

for there to be an objective moral law, there by necessity must be an objective moral law giver, aka "God" without an objective moral law, morals are only a matter of personal opinion.

Not a convincing argument. This objective moral law giver spreads his word through man. Laws and punishments can be more easily introduced if one claims that God commanded it. There is no objective moral law except for the one that the top man decrees.
This is why it's dangerous to have the Church and State intertwined. Religion can be abused and used as a tool for public manipulation.

ditto...again. except that atheism while being "disbelief" is still a viewpoint on religion.

It is a viewpoint on religion. It is not a religion itself.

 

[Raziaar]

I'm sorry, but that is a very naive comment.

Religions have fueled great atrocities in history, yes... but the religions themselves are non violent, in what they preach. The violent people are straying from the path of those religions. Even if religions were never a factor in history... these atrocities would find ways to happen. It's the nature of man, not religion.


Anyways. time for bed!

 

[Absinthe]

Religions have fueled great atrocities in history, yes... but the religions themselves are non violent, in what they preach. The violent people are straying from the path of those religions. Even if religions were never a factor in history... these atrocities would find ways to happen. It's the nature of man, not religion.

Of course. I've never blamed religion itself for these atrocities. But I do stand by my opinion that they give a greater impetus for them to happen.

 

[Raziaar]

Of course. I've never blamed religion itself for these atrocities. But I do stand by my opinion that they give a greater impetus for them to happen.

In no scientific way am I saying this, but in my opinion, I think without religion, we'd see an increase in violence among mankind. Most religions tend to guide people think twice about doing what is percieved as a 'sin', such as thievery, or murder, or any other such crimes. Without these good fundamentals being taught to children who practice these religions, I don't believe violence would go down. Sure, society may teach these youngsters that violence is bad, and crime is wrong... but it leads to the assumption that if you're not caught, its concequence free, whereas with religion... you cannot escape these evil deeds. I think religion is more of a way for the participants to control themsleves than be controlled by others. Nobody controls me based on my religion, and i'm sure is the case for many millions of religious people worldwide, especially more humble religions whose followers forgo prosperity and material property.

 

[RZAL]

i am not from a communist nation, but through the years i have observed the great failure of socialism/communism.

I agree.

to elucidate on the journey from atheist to agnostic, to christian would be very difficult in a few paragraphs, but maybe i can give some sense of the how and why.

Just trying to understand your perspective.

for awhile i was an atheist. then after examination i acknowledged the possibility that God existed, but was of the mind that a mere human intellect could not really comprehend God or even really know if God existed because of human limitations of perception.

Cognitive Reasoning?

i came to be a christian after God revealed Himself to me, thus circumventing my limited human perception, now to be honest i fully realize human perception(that is understanding and the senses both) is an imperfect thing, and that even though the senses and the mind usually do a great job of getting us through life, they can be fooled. considering many details i do not have the time to go into though becoming a christian was a perfectly rational thing for me to do.

Not sure that I understand?

The Patriot

 

[RZAL]

without morals as a basis to determine what exactly "wrong"(unacceptable) and right(acceptable) is, there is no way to objectively make laws on something subjective.

you see the quandry is defining what right and wrong is with no objective definition...it is imposible.

Agreed

as far as government being "indifferent" i agree whole heartedly! the federal government has no business deciding if (for example)religious monuments can be displayed on federal property...that has already been decided because the bill of rights states "congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof"

just as the government cannot discriminate on the basis of race, etc. within the government itself because of laws that say so, it cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion within the government itself.

Agreed

the only real way for the federal government to truly stay neutral is to let the issue be decided on the local community level.

Bingo! This was the original intent of the colonies and the Constitution/ Bill of Rights. The Federal Gov. was born out of necessity/ war with England, it was never meant to be a strong central gov. The colonies/states were to remain sovereign, leaving the federal gov. limited powers mainly to protect the states and carry out international affairs.

The founders were divided in their beliefs on how strong the Gov. should be. These viewpoints can read throughout the Federalist Papers and the Anti Federalist Papers. The Constitution once ratified, under went fundamental changes in terms of Constitutional Amend and Judicial Review, hence the term “in theory”. Once in power and over a period of time the Federal Gov. simply passed laws giving it self more power over the states.

Main steam belief is the Civil War was fought over morals concerning slavery, when in fact it was actually about state rights.

for example if a community in wyoming is predominately predominately buddhist(and they are willing to pay for it themselves) they should be able to put a statue of bhudda in the local courthouse. the same would go for a community of muslims in california ,or a community of jews in new york, or christians in mississippi. many people object to this really because they do not like religion and want it done away with, and in doing so would create a government that respects the established religious viewpoint of atheism above others, which further violates the law as written. this is the only way to be fair, this is the only way for the government on the federal level to be truly neutral. otherwise if religious symbols are banned from federal property, the freedom to exercise religion has been denied and the law has been broken. not just any law, but the "inalienable" right to exercise religion.

The US Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue and under the current ruling the Buddhist community can put their statue on government property…. as long as it is displayed as a historical monument along with any other monuments.

In the spirit of 1776, this would be a state issue, not a federal one. As I have said in other threads “freedom is not free”.

Shad0hawK, I believe we may have more in common than I previously thought.

The Patriot

 

[Shad0hawK]

Debatable. Stalin's policy making and his atheist beliefs were generally mutually exclusive. Wars with religious purposes, however, can be for purposes of conversion or "whiping out an infidel".

and wars, or purges to wipe out religion by pragmatically wiping out the religious are in no way different.

Crimes committed under a theocracy are stemmed from religion. Religions promote particular lifestyles and beliefs. Under a theocracy, deviation from these things can result in punishment. Atheism, on the other hand, does not promote anything like that. It is merely the lack of belief. So even if the aheist belief was state-sanctioned, the crimes commited cannot be considered a direct result of it.

sometines they are stemmed from religion, often religion was just one of many excuses. atheism does promote itself, and as i earlier mentioned the semantic distinction between disbelief and belief is irrelevent. both theism and atheism are religious viewpoints. the crimes can be considered a result because atheism was the oficial government view and the government took active steps to wipe out competeing views. there is again no difference. thi is not mere opinion, it is a matter of historical record.

Not a convincing argument. This objective moral law giver spreads his word through man. Laws and punishments can be more easily introduced if one claims that God commanded it. There is no objective moral law except for the one that the top man decrees.

right and the "top man" being God in the various monotheistic views the method of promulgation is not

This is why it's dangerous to have the Church and State intertwined. Religion can be abused and used as a tool for public manipulation. It is a viewpoint on religion. It is not a religion itself.

the danbury letter is the most abused and misconstrued document in existence. the "wall of seperation" between church and state exists primarally for the protection of religious from the state that is why jefferson expounded on it in a letter to the danbury baptist church, he was addressing concerns they had.

i agree theocracies are bad, but just has bad is a government with atheism as it's official view. the federal government should stay out of al religious views period, including the atheistic view, this really is a local matter, not a federal one.

 

[Absinthe]

and wars, or purges to wipe out religion by pragmatically wiping out the religious are in no way different.

You're missing the point. Atheism does not promote conversion or the defeat of rival viewpoints, but it can be argued that other religions do.

Any attempt to whipe out the religious is born out of a personal mission, not an atheist one.

sometines they are stemmed from religion, often religion was just one of many excuses. atheism does promote itself, and as i earlier mentioned the semantic distinction between disbelief and belief is irrelevent. both theism and atheism are religious viewpoints.

Fair enough, but I never said that atheism doesn't promote itself. It does, but just not in the ways you seem to think it does.

the crimes can be considered a result because atheism was the oficial government view and the government took active steps to wipe out competeing views. there is again no difference. thi is not mere opinion, it is a matter of historical record.

But these Stalin's policies were not made because of atheism. They just rested alongside it. These crimes were committed by a man that just happened to be atheist. Atheism has no doctrine.

right and the "top man" being God in the various monotheistic views the method of promulgation is not

I'm sorry, but I didn't quite understand this.

the danbury letter is the most abused and misconstrued document in existence. the "wall of seperation" between church and state exists primarally for the protection of religious from the state that is why jefferson expounded on it in a letter to the danbury baptist church, he was addressing concerns they had.

Same difference?

i agree theocracies are bad, but just has bad is a government with atheism as it's official view. the federal government should stay out of al religious views period, including the atheistic view, this really is a local matter, not a federal one.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think atheism should be an official government view either since it can screw over the religious. I agree that those can be just as bad. I just disagree that the problems you've entailed are a direct result of atheism.

 

[burner69]

I read something interesting in a letter posted in a paper last week, went something like this:

The underlying principle that religions are based upon is faith of a higher being. You can argue that that's wrong, that religions are based upon ideals - like thou shalt not kill etc. Not true, tho such ideals provide a very important role. If we are being told that the reason many people don't rob, kill, inflict harm to their neighbour is because they are religious... and so they believe they won't go to heaven if they do.
So religion is based upon faith. And yet in everything else in a persons life is based around evidence. We need proof of things. You can't accuse somebody of theft and just give the police 'faith' that he did it - you need evidence.
Surely having these two conflicting ways of going about things can cause problems - and to make this fit the topic better - especially in a government.

Incidently if people genuinely think that the reason people are good is down to religion I'd serious make you question that. Is anyone really scared of going to hell? Does no one else just find it wrong to rob people? Does no one else find it simply good to donate money to the tsunami appeal, getting some bonus points on my heaven passport is not on my mind.

 

[Shad0hawK]

You're missing the point. Atheism does not promote conversion or the defeat of rival viewpoints, but it can be argued that other religions do.

i understand what your saying, and you are wrong. atheism when organized into a state sanctioned policy is hostile to competeing views, again this is not opinion but a matter of historical record

Any attempt to whipe out the religious is born out of a personal mission, not an atheist one.

and the impetus was because stalin being atheist and a pragmatist decided to wipe out religion by wiping out the religious. there was no reason for him the view this as wrong since atheism told him right and wrong do not exist...an atheist killing a christian because he is a christian is no different than a christian killing an atheist because he is an atheist. the religious viewpoints themselves and thier natures are really irrelevent to the motive and the action of killing, which are the same and with the same result.

the only real difference is that an christian can say that the killing was done in violation and contrary to the christian philosophy, the atheist howver does not have this luxury for obvious reasons