Quote from Chaoswind

You know the basics, threat others the way we want to be treated... and... huh... hmmm Don't kill ants?

Jokes aside, you are aware that the bible does teach a few good things, (charity, selflessness, etc) and if applied well and in small dozes it can only lead to good things.

Yeah, like when Joshua exterminated Jericho or when Jephthah sacrificed her only daughter to god. Who doesn't want to be exterminated or sacrificed (in small dozes of course)? 🤨

What I like in Trivial Pursuit style. Pick your category:[img]http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo233/Reid4891/Manga/trivia-1.jpg[/img]

You know what the scary thing is ? Well, look at it this way : Religious people claim that their religion and God teaches and guides them to be good to other and what not goody-goody stuff.
So, if you peel religion away from them what do you get ? 😲
I mean if you really want religion to teach you to be nice and what not and you are nice to others just because there is someone watching you, then you are really hopeless.

Quote from Sagaris

Quote from Nashnir

^^^^^^

or Everyone just converted to Atheism wink

you're trying awfully hard to fan dying flames here...

Well it did work 😛

Quote from reid1

Quote from Chaoswind

You know the basics, threat others the way we want to be treated... and... huh... hmmm Don't kill ants?

Jokes aside, you are aware that the bible does teach a few good things, (charity, selflessness, etc) and if applied well and in small dozes it can only lead to good things.

Yeah, like when Joshua exterminated Jericho or when Jephthah sacrificed her only daughter to god. Who doesn't want to be exterminated or sacrificed (in small dozes of course)? 🤨

Well, things like Selflessness and self sacrifice are not THAT common in the Natural world (Helping others without any kind of reward goes against nature), so the chances of us humans learning those things without religion and the hypothetical eye in the sky are almost non existent, however, most religions tend to blind people and just say THAT is WRONG, don't do it, instead of explaining why is wrong... but whatever, I have to take the early bus to work...

[img]http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs14/f/2007/026/1/1/Into_Werewolf_by_AbyssWolf.gif[/img]

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v168/Tank_soldier222/Into_Werewolf_RETURNS_by_AbyssWolf.gif[/img]

Certainly many people who believe in God have immature ideas of him.

That's nice and all, but you still haven't told what are these immature ideas the people are having, and with what your idea of good is more mature then theirs.

Well, things like Selflessness and self sacrifice are not THAT common in the Natural world (Helping others without any kind of reward goes against nature), so the chances of us humans learning those things without religion and the hypothetical eye in the sky are almost non existent, however, most religions tend to blind people and just say THAT is WRONG, don't do it, instead of explaining why is wrong... but whatever, I have to take the early bus to work...

Question, if it's too hard for people to learn those things without religion then how did we learned about them in first place? Answer - Romans, Greeks you can't say they were really cotholic, but as horrible it would sound they were well aware of all those basic things. In reality greeks were the first ones who stood up for the idea that there are some rights that have all people and that can't be taken away by anyone. So we don't need religion to tell us what's good and what's not. We learn it from the one little thing we all have got called common sence that killing others is BAD.

"Computer games don't affect kids....
I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music."
/Kristian Wilson, Nintendo Inc, 1989

Quote from Chaoswind

Well, things like Selflessness and self sacrifice are not THAT common in the Natural world (Helping others without any kind of reward goes against nature), so the chances of us humans learning those things without religion and the hypothetical eye in the sky are almost non existent, [...].

So if a friend asks you a favor you think that you do that because religion thought you that?
And not because you're a social animal who can't live alone and has to live in a society, forming bonds with other humans, resulting in having feelings for them?

Well, if you say so...

What I like in Trivial Pursuit style. Pick your category:[img]http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo233/Reid4891/Manga/trivia-1.jpg[/img]

Quote from Chaoswind

Well, things like Selflessness and self sacrifice are not THAT common in the Natural world (Helping others without any kind of reward goes against nature), so the chances of us humans learning those things without religion and the hypothetical eye in the sky are almost non existent, however, most religions tend to blind people and just say THAT is WRONG, don't do it, instead of explaining why is wrong... but whatever, I have to take the early bus to work...

I will say you are wrong. That is just absurd. You are forgetting one thing. Tribes existed long before there was religion and even before man invented God for his own purpose. Man is a social animal no matter how lowly some people can get and make us loose faith in man's ability to reason.

btw if you want to think in terms of Survival of the fittest, the only thing that religion has successfully done is sugar coat the Natural law, Not change it.

The raw fact is everything in this world is runs on give and take policy and it will always be that way. You may argue endlessly about it but I know I am right. Just that the return may not be in the form of what you gave.

Quote from RexIX

Question, if it's too hard for people to learn those things without religion then how did we learned about them in first place? Answer - Romans, Greeks you can't say they were really cotholic, but as horrible it would sound they were well aware of all those basic things. In reality greeks were the first ones who stood up for the idea that there are some rights that have all people and that can't be taken away by anyone. So we don't need religion to tell us what's good and what's not. We learn it from the one little thing we all have got called common sence that killing others is BAD.

Um, you do realize that Romans and Greeks both had their own religions right? Greek, by the way, was a more a collection of city-states than a unified nation. Your claim that the Greeks were the first to realize that all humans had certain rights aren't really true. It's only the Athenians who truly had a democratic society and even they had slaves and held annual (un)popularity contests to see who to exile from their city. Notice also, this society that you praise as the champion of human rights is named after a god. Probably not the best examples to use as an arguement against religion.

You also realize that, in the quote you referenced, the person was talking about selflessness and self-sacrifice, NOT "killing others" right? How does this fit into common sense? Once you answer that question, what exactly is common sense? How is it that we developed common sense? Is common sense innate? Is it a product of society? If it's the former, how does one explain that common sense seems to not be common at all and in fact differs greatly from person to person? If it is a product of society, did humans not have common sense before modern society existed? Why is it that almost everybody consider somethings to be common sense even if they come from wildly different societies (for example, as you point out, killing innocent people is wrong). Is common sense the same thing as morals?

I don't mean to attack you personally but your post just struck me as an example of how atheists often attack religion by using the same faulty logic and argumentation that they criticize religions of using. You attacked someone's claim (and I'm not saying their claim was right or wrong) and for support you point to a vague concept, "COMMON SENSE" which you and most other people don't truly understand and don't bother to explain that concept or why it supports your argument. I mean, just switch the roles in your sentences and replace religion with science and common sense with God.

"Question, if it's too hard for people to learn those things without SCIENCE then how did we learned (sic) about them in first place.... We learn it from the one little thing we all have got called GOD that killing others is BAD."

See how ironic that is? Doesn't that remind you of one of those evangelical religious fanatics who stand on street corners, yelling at the top of their lungs? This is the sort of argumentation that both atheists and followers of religion (religionsists?) need to stop using. It just makes both sides look silly.

As for my own beliefs - I am neither an aethiest or a religionist. I believe that this issue is far more complex than many on both sides believe it to be. I also believe that I have neither the time nor the intelligence to solve these complexities fully or even in a satisfactory manner. I have spent enough time musing about the issue to come up with my own reasonings but they are nowhere near strong enough to be termed as faith or proof. Happily, I believe that one can live a full and satisfying life without knowing whether or not God really exists. I guess if I must be labeled something, I would call myself a pragmatist.

Edit: Forgive me for the HUGE block of text. It's 3 AM and I have alot of thoughts running round the ol' brain. Woe is the life of an insomniac 🙄

Quote from shade449

Quote from RexIX

Question, if it's too hard for people to learn those things without religion then how did we learned about them in first place? Answer - Romans, Greeks you can't say they were really cotholic, but as horrible it would sound they were well aware of all those basic things. In reality greeks were the first ones who stood up for the idea that there are some rights that have all people and that can't be taken away by anyone. So we don't need religion to tell us what's good and what's not. We learn it from the one little thing we all have got called common sence that killing others is BAD.

Um, you do realize that Romans and Greeks both had their own religions right? Greek, by the way, was a more a collection of city-states than a unified nation. Your claim that the Greeks were the first to realize that all humans had certain rights aren't really true. It's only the Athenians who truly had a democratic society and even they had slaves and held annual (un)popularity contests to see who to exile from their city. Notice also, this society that you praise as the champion of human rights is named after a god. Probably not the best examples to use as an arguement against religion.

You also realize that, in the quote you referenced, the person was talking about selflessness and self-sacrifice, NOT "killing others" right? How does this fit into common sense? Once you answer that question, what exactly is common sense? How is it that we developed common sense? Is common sense innate? Is it a product of society? If it's the former, how does one explain that common sense seems to not be common at all and in fact differs greatly from person to person? If it is a product of society, did humans not have common sense before modern society existed? Why is it that almost everybody consider somethings to be common sense even if they come from wildly different societies (for example, as you point out, killing innocent people is wrong). Is common sense the same thing as morals?

I don't mean to attack you personally but your post just struck me as an example of how atheists often attack religion by using the same faulty logic and argumentation that they criticize religions of using. You attacked someone's claim (and I'm not saying their claim was right or wrong) and for support you point to a vague concept, "COMMON SENSE" which you and most other people don't truly understand and don't bother to explain that concept or why it supports your argument. I mean, just switch the roles in your sentences and replace religion with science and common sense with God.

"Question, if it's too hard for people to learn those things without SCIENCE then how did we learned (sic) about them in first place.... We learn it from the one little thing we all have got called GOD that killing others is BAD."

See how ironic that is? Doesn't that remind you of one of those evangelical religious fanatics who stand on street corners, yelling at the top of their lungs? This is the sort of argumentation that both atheists and followers of religion (religionsists?) need to stop using. It just makes both sides look silly.

As for my own beliefs - I am neither an aethiest or a religionist. I believe that this issue is far more complex than many on both sides believe it to be. I also believe that I have neither the time nor the intelligence to solve these complexities fully or even in a satisfactory manner. I have spent enough time musing about the issue to come up with my own reasonings but they are nowhere near strong enough to be termed as faith or proof. Happily, I believe that one can live a full and satisfying life without knowing whether or not God really exists. I guess if I must be labeled something, I would call myself a pragmatist.

Edit: Forgive me for the HUGE block of text. It's 3 AM and I have alot of thoughts running round the ol' brain. Woe is the life of an insomniac 🙄

And you do understand that neither greek nor roman religions had a strict moral code (like christianity or islam), so they can't be really used as an example of how religion is the fundament of all the good things we do in society. And you do realize that romans took over large part of greek concept of gods and just changed their names.
Aristotle expressed an opinion that there are rights that are the same everywere, that are given to humans by nature. He was the forefather of Natural law, law from what the human rights were born. And yes he was a greek, so it doesn't matter how many or in witch place the idea of natural law existed in greek states. The fact is it was born in Greece, so you are wrong.

"killing is bad" I stated as an example of common sence, as this view is shared by the majority of our society, it's common. From that we gain the idea that it's a common sence. As with natural law there are some things shared by nearly all people, like "jumping in vulcano might not be a good idea", so the idea that common sence is not common is absurd in it's basis. It's NOT common sence if it's NOT common, i.e., it's NOT shared by the majority of society.
No it's not the same thing as morals, but in society ussualy the morals and common sence don't differ greatly.

No I don't see how ironic is that. I don't see what are "those things" and I don't see why science should be used to understand them.

"Computer games don't affect kids....
I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music."
/Kristian Wilson, Nintendo Inc, 1989

Quote from shade449

You also realize that, in the quote you referenced, the person was talking about selflessness and self-sacrifice, NOT "killing others" right? How does this fit into common sense? Once you answer that question, what exactly is common sense? How is it that we developed common sense? Is common sense innate? Is it a product of society? If it's the former, how does one explain that common sense seems to not be common at all and in fact differs greatly from person to person? If it is a product of society, did humans not have common sense before modern society existed? Why is it that almost everybody consider somethings to be common sense even if they come from wildly different societies (for example, as you point out, killing innocent people is wrong). Is common sense the same thing as morals?

You do realise that you are replying to just one person. I also did reply to the same post with similar views. Selflessness and sacrifice comes in the tribe as well as I said. Are you telling me a mother in most cases will abandon her child if there is possibility that only one of them will survive ? Or is that she will save her child just because religion taught her to or this God creature will acknowledge her selflessness ? I bet the real answer is no.

This is embedded into our genes from the very start : Survive and flourish. The only reason our actions differ is the surroundings we grow up in.

About common sense. Just because common sense is called so doesn't mean it is common at all. In my experience Common sense is the ability to judge situations and handle real life based on experience and obligations ( Moral or otherwise ). Wel live in a society of rules and passed down teachings hence most of the responses to a situation is similar and hence it is called coomon sense in general.

I don't mean to attack you personally but your post just struck me as an example of how atheists often attack religion by using the same faulty logic and argumentation that they criticize religions of using. You attacked someone's claim (and I'm not saying their claim was right or wrong) and for support you point to a vague concept, "COMMON SENSE" which you and most other people don't truly understand and don't bother to explain that concept or why it supports your argument. I mean, just switch the roles in your sentences and replace religion with science and common sense with God.

Frankly, I am happy that you brought it up. We ( or at least I ) atheists derive our common sense from a scientific standing which when proved wrong is accepted and amended even if we feel sore that we were wrong. But the thing about religion is the have around 2-5 thousand years of coating which we can't peel off no matter what we reason with. I will agree from your points that there are Atheists who are Atheists for the sake of it but the thing is even if one is one of them we have to back ourselves into a corner and answer all the questions.

I can bet ReixIX will never use the same points again in further argument since you proved him partially wrong but I can assure you that religious people will put forth the same points forth again and again as they can never loose. It is either their win or that we are ignorant about the so called facts.

"Question, if it's too hard for people to learn those things without SCIENCE then how did we learned (sic) about them in first place.... We learn it from the one little thing we all have got called GOD that killing others is BAD."

lol... just lol. You do realise that your view of the word Science is very narrow don't you ?

I f I have not put things down more clearly then it is because I am lazy >.>

@RexIX

Firstly, about Greece and Rome. Neither had a strict moral code in the sense of Christianity and Islam. However, every city had a set of principles that was heavily defined by the god they chose to worship. For example, Athens worshiped Athena heavily and took care to emphasis the qualities she represented. As for Romans taking on Greek gods, of course I understand that. Where did I say anything that would suggest I didn't? Besides, this is only true for part of Rome's history. Rome converted to Christianity eventually.

About Aristotle - I think you're misunderstanding his moral and ethical theories. The base of Aristotle's moral philosophy is centered around the theory of the Golden Mean. In it, he teaches that balance between vices and virtures is the most important thing. He defines Virtue as the perfect point in balance between vices and virtues. Furthermore, he argued that "good" is that which everything in existance strives towards. He argued that since reason is unique to humans, our highest "good" is contemplation of the First Principles (or laws of nature). However, he was a Deist and believed in the existance of a higher force. He DID believe that every human had the ability to strive towards "good" so yes, you could argue that he was relatively a humanist. But he did NOT believe that every human had certain inalienable rights. Remember he lived in a society that had an accepted and lauded slavery system. Nowhere does he criticize this system.

Also, just for your information, Aristotle was the biggest influence on Thomas Aquinas, one of the earliest and most influential Christian philosophers. In fact, Aquinas believed Aristotle to be the smartest human in the history of mankind and only modified his philosophy slightly to put it in the context of Christianity.

On common sense - you pointed out more examples where everyone should know them. How about I give a counterexample then. For example, in Korean culture, it's common sense to take off your shoes when you enter a room. This is not the case in British culture. Obviously, this is a consequence of the differences in the two societies. Now, how many different nations do we have in this world? How many different societies are within each of those nations? I would guess quite a few. If each society has a different set of common sense then I propose that it no longer becomes so common. Also, the reason why I asked you to define common sense is that not everyone defines it the way you do. Nashnir, who seems to be your fellow atheist, gave a perfectly reasonable, yet completely different definition of it as well.

@Nashnir

Yes, I do realize I'm addressing one person. As you can tell by the length of my posts, if I had attempted to address more people, I'd likely be still writing this tomorrow. In any case, I could not have replied to your post as I was in the middle of writing my post when you posted yours. My apologies.

On your mother example - while I don't have any exact numbers, I do know that there are many mothers who do abandon their children for far less reason than their own survival. There are many children everyday who are abandoned. You could argue that abortion is another example where the mother chooses her own future over her childs (let's not make this an abortion debate though). Besides, I would not argue that this hypothetical mother would save her child because of God. Like I said, I am not religious. I was merely trying to illustrate that the issue is more complicated than simply throwing the words common sense out there. FYI, if I had to give my own personal beliefs, I would agree that it is through natural selection. I would still acknowledge, however, that there are problems and inconscitencies in the theory of natural selection. That's not to say that it is wrong, but there are still more things to explain.

On common sense - That is another way to define common sense. It is one that is very popular and that I would agree with. However, there are a large faction of people, many of whom are much more intelligent than I, who believe that common sense or morals are innate. That's why I asked for the definition. It is hard to have any sort of worthwhile debate if both sides are working under completely different terms.

On argumentation (or lack of) - I understand that you strive towards a logical and sytematic approach towards your belief. I understand that there are many other atheists such as yourself. I would ask, however, that you understand that there are many religious people who are the same as well. I've met Christian philosophers who understand and acknowledge more of the inconsistencies and flaws of their religion than any Atheist I know. They don't shun these problems and instead try to reason them out logically. One of the greatest philosophers of all time, Descartes, worked out a perfectly logical metaphysical proof that concluded with the existance of a God. Are there flaws with the proof? Of course. However, there are flaws with every philosophical that seek to prove that God does not exist as well. The problem of lack of argumentation is a human one, not an Atheist or religious one. Both sides are guilty of this.

My view on science - That quote was not meant to illustrate my view on science. What it was was an example of how I've heard many Atheists argue. "Of course God didn't create humans. The Big Bang did, it's science duh." with no more follow through. Both you and RexIX seem to have misunderstood my point. That's probably entirely my fault, I've often been told that examples are misleading/don't have a point.

Actually, this is all very ironic to me because in real life, I often argue AGAINST the existance of God with my religious friends. In fact, most of them would say that I'm one of the most secular people you'll meet. I'm mostly doing this because I love playing Devil's advocate (no pun intended) and I love healthy debate. Plus it's been a while since my last philosophy class and it's nice to have the brain juices flowing again before my next semester.

It's been a long time since I post a comment.. 😀
I chose the 4th one but that doesn't mean i disrespect atheism..
I'm quite religious and im not a christian..I'm a muslim and i'm proud of it..For those who may attack me about terrorist and killing, u can search the internet since many people hv answer it. 😁 (I'm too lazy to write about it and I'm not so good in english 🙁 )
To me, I hv my own opinion about this matter..
If god does not exist but i believe in god, nothing will happened to me..
If god exist but i does not believe in god, im a dead man..

Second, i wan u guys please stop telling that religion is source of violence..
I mean even if there is no religion, there will be violence..Are the mafia, yakuza, triad and whatever is bound to a religion? Did hitler start the war because of religion?? Greed and power is the main source.. So, u should blame that instead of religion..At least some religion discourage ppl to be greedy and obsess with power.. 😉

I hope u guys understand my points..(sorry for bad grammar >.<)

Edit: this maybe out of topic..Is jewish a religion or a race??

[img]http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h46/lh_4ever/n79231101368_2219924_5452403.jpg[/img]
Slow internet is DEADLY

[img]http://img.userbars.pl/69/13603.gif[/img]

Quote from mashqi

It's been a long time since I post a comment.. 😀
I chose the 4th one but that doesn't mean i disrespect atheism..
I'm quite religious and im not a christian..I'm a muslim and i'm proud of it..For those who may attack me about terrorist and killing, u can search the internet since many people hv answer it. 😁 (I'm too lazy to write about it and I'm not so good in english 🙁 )
To me, I hv my own opinion about this matter..
If god does not exist but i believe in god, nothing will happened to me..
If god exist but i does not believe in god, im a dead man..

Second, i wan u guys please stop telling that religion is source of violence..
I mean even if there is no religion, there will be violence..Are the mafia, yakuza, triad and whatever is bound to a religion? Did hitler start the war because of religion?? Greed and power is the main source.. So, u should blame that instead of religion..At least some religion discourage ppl to be greedy and obsess with power.. 😉

I hope u guys understand my points..(sorry for bad grammar >.<)

"If god exist but i does not believe in god, im a dead man.."
So, you fear God? I think that if God does exist, and he is as people say, he wouldn't strike down on his own creation, because God is supposed to be the source of all good. To live in fear of something that might not even be real doesn't make much sense to me.

As for religion being coupled with violence, it should be. But like someone said earlier, if you take the good parts out of the bible, you can learn something nice, but not everyone takes away something nice. I'm scared to death of religious people, and I practically go into a panic attack when those religious shows are on, and it's like an American Idol audience. What percent of those people would hurt me if I was alone in a room with them because of my beliefs?

I guess that's ridiculous, but having such a large number of people be so cult-like is scary. Sorry if I offend anyone, don't take it personally 😐 You're never safe when you're in the minority, my friend.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/B400485.jpg[/img]

@shade 449

Well, you took the meaning of the mother too literally. Maybe I put it wrongly. What I wanted to say through it was you don't need a higher power watching you or religion to so called educate you to perform deeds of kindness.

Also if Common sense is innate as you believe, then how does religion fit in the argument ? It is in favour of natural selection. The experiences and other stuff of the parents are genetically embedded into the offspring ( or something down that line )

Out of topic but Descartes proof is not only flawed but very pathetic from the very first line.
The point is most probably the christian Philosophers you know are delusional by the fact that everything written down in holy books is the truth and they are the ones at fault for not interpreting it correctly.
Well, that is what I interpreted from your argument.

All I can say is there are good religious men and there are bad atheists. But religion in fact is not necessary at all and is just a means in most cases to grab power and gather people to ones cause no matter what that cause is.

morality does not need religion. following with what nashnir said. Einstein once said "if people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed"
(also Einstien was not religious just incase anyone was curious)

and i love this quote by michael shermer, "if you agree that, in the absence of god, you would 'commit robbery, rape, and murder', you reveal yourself as an immoral person, 'and we would be well advised to steer a wide course around you'. If, on the other hand you admit that you would continue to be a good person even when not under divine surveillance, you have undermined you claim that god is necessary for us to be good."

if people got their moral code from the Bible alone, i truly believe they would be screwed up in the head. yeah i will admit there are some story about good in it, but there are just as many if not more about the ugly side of religion.

^^^^
Also my favorite Quote:

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. – Steven Weinberg