Not all scholars agree with any such thing. The very fact you have two scholars disagreeing with each other in your video illustrates that.
Will God accept you if you renounce religion?
- Thread starter craptakular
- Start date
Not all scholars agree with any such thing. The very fact you have two scholars disagreeing with each other in your video illustrates that.
On the contrary, I often appreciate your well thought out responses, it gives great insight into that of a believer but from an educated and fairly sane standpoint.
My point about the burden of proof being on the religious, and the idea of God just being a step too far into the unknown as per Carl Sagan stands completely unscathed against anything said in this thread so far, if that was t the case I'd be more than happy to change my mind.
Attacking people for believing in such nonsense is important in advancing humans to a stage where we make evidence based policies and decisions rather than pandering to the delusional, it will take time, but I firmly believe that as Atheism takes hold, and it is firmly doing so in various parts of the world, intelligent decision making will come along with it, such as ending homophobia and the war on drugs.
I think he's more than just a bit mentally ill than just believing in his fairy tails and what not, he doesn't seem to get basic logic or the idea that YouTube propaganda videos are not complete infallible.
You're nuts pal. Hating people 'cause they believe something different to you? You say they believe in nonsense but what is your reasoning to say that which they believe is nonsense?
And you believe we can stop homophobia and other such things? You really are stupid. Or naive. I aren't sure which.
I wondered how long it'd be until you played the "mentally ill" line again. Keep it up!
And please don't make assumptions. I get logic perfectly fine. The video I posted is a debate between two jews: One who believes Jesus is the messiah, and one who doesn't. I fail to see how that is propaganda.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 14,081
- Location
- Between Realities
His point is you're posting up youtube links asthough they're proof of some sort.
Shall I go post you a video about lizard people? They're on youtube! People are saying they're real! So you know, under you logic, its a completely sane proposal
There is no burden upon anyone to prove their belief or lack of belief to anyone else, only when you use such belief or non-belief to impose your specific ideology onto others do you inherit a burden of proof. That goes for everyone. As Sagan said, absense of evidence, is not evidence of absense.
There is a common misconception among the more vehement of non-believers that the believer has not come to ther belief rationally, in some cases this may be true, but like I have said a dozen times in this thread, it may be a truth, it is not THE truth, because many believers have very rational and evidenced based convictions for their belief...Peter Hitchens is a prime example. The problem is trying to ascribe scientific evidence as being the only kind, this fundamentally limits the value of individual perceptions and insights into how humanity interact with both the universe and within themselves in using reason and logic to determine fundamental truths that science is either unable or not designed to answer. Liberal Christianity for example is invested in determine truth value from scripture using methods firmly grounded in the naturalistic and rational values of higher criticism as I explained earlier.
The problem is when one group tries to force everyone to conform to their rationalisation, which in itself is irrational.
I have no idea what atheism as a position has to do with the War on Drugs, however, we are in Western Society (and also eastern societies such as China in some respects) largely invested in secular law making and secular assessment of Human needs on a day to day basis. Scientific discovery and technological and sociological advancement are high priorities for such societies. Atheism isn't necessary for that, neither is theism...what is necessarily is tolerance, tolerance of the individual freedoms and rights inherent in expression and belief...these should be the cornerstones to building society, not simply replacing one form of indoctrinated ideology with another. You are right that we should be making intelligent and rational decisions to determine our societies needs and structures, we need to remove negative intolerances and prejudices from society wherever possible, but we don't do that by prejudicial and intolerant means, we do it by changing peopes attitudes through education, rationalisation, and liberalism. You have to convince them, not attack them...all that accomplishes is an internalisation of their beliefs and a move to fundamentalism. It is counter-productive to the aims and values you want to instil.
We should be opposing people and ideas only where they are holding negative positions, we should be criticising religious organisations for their opposition to Gay Marriage for example, but equally not all religious organisations oppose Gay Marriage so it would be irrational to oppose all religious organisations, if you see my point.....this is what I was saying, you criticise the actions of a person or group based on their actions and in relation to their beliefs...you do not attack them purely because they hold a different world view or belief than we do. That is counter to a rational and free society.
In my opinion Catholicism is deeply and fundamentally mistaken in the way it interprets Pauline Epistles to oppose homosexuality, Judaism is equally mistaken for the rationaliation it gives for circumcision as well, for example, I often criticise and show why I think these things, but I don't presume to determine a persons basic belief in God as being fundamentally delusional, I simply criticise based on their actions. If their belief in God informs a liberal and tolerant individual then who am I to say they are mental? As in all things, it is how a person rationalises their position that is important to me, not that they hold a position I do not hold myself.
Last edited:
I am not going to suggest anyone is mentally ill or the reasons why they believe as they do.....without knowing Jason2's religious affiliations I cannot even comment on how he determines his beliefs or the underpinnings for them. He is unwilling to expand on how he rationalises his statements or the theological context in which he makes them....all I can do is point out why I disagree with him on a personal level rather than a purely evidenced one.
RDM, perhaps I misinterpreted your view but it did seem clear to me that you didn't believe that objective morality exists. By claiming that objective morality exists, I am simply meaning that "in any scenario a given act is either right or wrong regardless of human opinion".
I think it's important to reiterate the distinction between moral ontology and moral epistemology. The latter is about how we come to understand morality, and this has no bearing whatsoever on whether objective morality exists or not. For example, the objective external universe can exist, even if we have no reliable way to know it exists. Moral ontology on the other hand deals with whether objective moral values exist and what is the basis for something being good or evil.
What I can't understand is why you would base morality around harm done. What is to say that harm done is wrong? On atheism we are just animals and harm done doesn't seem to be necessarily wrong in the animal kingdom. To me it seems a strange point to stop on. Perhaps harm done is wrong because it limits the flourishing of our species? If so, then it seems that harm done isn't actually the basis after all. Instead the flourishing of our species is the basis for morality. The same question is raised again, what states that the flourishing of our species is good?
Additionally, I can't see where moral obligation comes in. I certainly agree that limiting harm to fellow humans is good but basing our moral standard on harm done doesn't obligate me to do anything. It may be benefical to my peers, but on what authority should I conform?
If theism is false then I really can't see what other basis for objective moral values and duties there can be. Sure, you can suggest that morality is based in nature. Science can tell us how something "is" but there is absolutely no concept of "ought". On atheism I just can't see who or what issues these moral obligations.
Just like how you failed to understand how disingenuous and selectively quoted your previous examples of thoughts from noted atheists were, trying to twist their words into making it sound like they believed in a god.
You quite clearly fail to understand an awful lot of things.
Don't be so disingenuous, or is it you that is that stupid?
Not ending it completely no, but helping put a stop to a lot of it that is religious based once religion is wiped out like it is slowly being in some areas of the world.
James 1:5
"If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him."
Ask your god for advice on how to deal with hurfdurf, if he answers let me know, I have a feeling even he would not stand and bang.
I would argue that merely following orders isn't morality anyway, so the question is wrong.
One good reason to act in accordance with morality based on harm done is self-interest. Society can't function at the current level without it - we're far too densely populated and inter-connected. Modern civilisations are fragile and require a large majority of people to act at least to some extent with consideration for others. As a result, anyone who likes living in a rich, developed society should act in accordance with a moral code based on minimising harm to others, as a matter of self-interest.
Exactly the same as with theism - people. Theistic morality is created by people claiming divine authority, but it's still created by people. There's no real difference. It's not like any god manifests anywhere on Earth and proclaims their orders. No TV appearances. No websites. It's all done by people who claim to be speaking for a god, i.e. people claiming divine authority. There's nothing objective about it.
Are you for real?
Probably, since many people have the same view.
Me, for example. I see no reason to view any religion as being anything other than a collection of stories, although I don't think that making people feel better was the only motive. Religion is ideal for controlling people and I don't think that's unintended.
Yes... its true.
Exactly.
People went to war for religious means... its something used to control people.
Luckily I turned away from being a catholic at the age of 13 after realiseing it was all a crock of poo.