Root of Christian/Atheism disagreement

[Maryjane]

As in religious value should hold no place nor any right in America?

Nope. Nada. There we go with that superior morality stand again.

If the religious don't want drinking, drugs, abortion, divorce, porn, homosexuals, death with dignity, ....what ever offends them, they can police themselves. (in theory... Not that they actually do) They have no right to tell others how to live.

[Maryjane]

Quote by: HelioPrime Logic and principle don't belong unless were talking about strict objective law. In that case, well yes, then if Muslims suddenly outnumbered everyone else in every state, and had massive political influence in every level of government then YES the nation should embrace a new type of law. Because at that point its now an Islamic nation. However it's not going to happen to doing what if questions holds no meaning. A nation is determined by the people living in it, not the age old decrees of a bunch of dead men. Nations are people, not law. Law only serves as an method of control, and parts of our constitution now serve to only help promote an agenda of secularization. If the majority of a populace desire something they get what they desire.

WOW! Just wow! So you don't believe in the constitution? While we are suggesting reading lists...here's one. The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom - Religious Freedom Page

[Morality Games]

Logic and principle don't belong unless were talking about strict objective law. In that case, well yes, then if Muslims suddenly outnumbered everyone else in every state, and had massive political influence in every level of government then YES the nation should embrace a new type of law. Because at that point its now an Islamic nation. However it's not going to happen to doing what if questions holds no meaning. A nation is determined by the people living in it, not the age old decrees of a bunch of dead men. Nations are people, not law. Law only serves as an method of control, and parts of our constitution now serve to only help promote an agenda of secularization. If the majority of a populace desire something they get what they desire.

You are under the mistaken impression the United States is a popular government, where the will of the majority is the 'end' and not a 'means' to a wider aim. However, the United States is a democracy in the style of a republic.

As pointed out by Aristotle, popular governments tend to be pathetic and are quickly replaced with the rule of one (tyranny) or rule of the few (oligarchy).

The aim of democracy is equality, where rights are distributed evenly among the populace. Popular government as you have described is not democracy, as it exalts a majority above the rest of the community (which could very well be substantial, not to mention dangerous if provoked).

It is true democracy gives great power to the majority, but not for the same reason as popular government -- in popular government, power is given to the majority for the sake of making the majority powerful, whereas in democracy, power is given to the majority for the sake of preventing one or a few from having the lord's share control over the distribution of rights. However, in case you haven't noticed, democracies have special features which put checks on the power of the majority, just as the majority puts checks on the power of the few.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Zhavric Ever since I learned the truth, I've found this sentiment equally if not more frustrating. Nevermind that proving Jesus didn't exist unhinges the dominant religion of western culture. Nevermind that it's glaringly simple to deduce this. Nevermind that there are actually some Christians out there ready to start listening. Let's just let them have their fairy tale.

I daresay not believing in God does far more to unhinge religion. Beyond that, I have no interest at all in unhinging the dominant religion of western culture. I just want it kept out of my business.

Quote by: Helio Winter, I don't really see a secular society as a bad thing except if it denies any amount of faith based thinking. To demand everyone vote, and act, and think in accordance with the same absolute linear logic is just as offensive as demanding a christian nation.

No, Helio, it doesn't demand that at all.

By design, this country was meant to be a pluralistic society, where "All men are created Equal". It was enshrined in the original national motto... E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, One. Out of many states, one state. Out of many nationalities, one nation. Out of many races, one people. And out of many religions, an equal acceptance of all.

Unfortunately, the promise of that design has been blinded by a variety of "Traditional Values". For example, for almost a century of this country's existance, it was a "Traditional Value" in many parts that slavery was perfectly moral. And until about 50 years ago, "Traditional Values" held that it was perfectly moral, and legal, to discriminate against people simply because of their race. And until about 40 years ago it was a "Traditional Value" that women could be discriminated against - by law - and keeping them subjugated was perfectly moral. And until about 30 years ago it was a "Traditional Value" that gays were abominations and perversions, morally deserving of whatever scorn and repression we could heap on them.

So now the remaining "Traditional Value" standing in the way of America's promise is the "Traditional Value" that, while we can pay lip service to the concept of freedom of religion, everyone should accept that Christianity is, de facto, the one true 'official' faith of the U.S. and everyone should be willing swallow their pride and accept it as such.

All we're asking is for Christians to get over themselves.

.

[Morality Games]

All we're asking is for Christians to get over themselves.

That is, overcome your egos and the sense of importance that accompanies them. Strangely this is consistent with the teachings of Christ. Since you can reason how evolution stacks well with the Bible (somehow), it should be easy to think up a way to be democratic in spirit and still be in synch with your religion.

[Jack]

A nation is determined by the people living in it, not the age old decrees of a bunch of dead men.

Yet you advocate rule based on the age old teachings of another bunch of dead men. When it comes to establishing guidelines for a nation that is free for all its citizens, I'll give heed to the framers of the Constitution any day over the writings of the authors of the Bible or Koran.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Helioprime A nation is determined by the people living in it, not the age old decrees of a bunch of dead men.

Quote by: Isherwood Yet you advocate rule based on the age old teachings of another bunch of dead men. When it comes to establishing guidelines for a nation that is free for all its citizens, I'll give heed to the framers of the Constitution any day over the writings of the authors of the Bible or Koran.

Jeez, how many times has he circled that point without answering?


This is why I only attempt to point out the obvious hypocrisy in the poster, or the reasoning, because there is no reasoning with the person any more.



Face it, his dead philosophers are better than yours.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Sonart . By design, this country was meant to be a pluralistic society, where "All men are created Equal". It was enshrined in the original national motto... E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, One. Out of many states, one state. Out of many nationalities, one nation. Out of many races, one people. And out of many religions, an equal acceptance of all. Unfortunately, the promise of that design has been blinded by a variety of "Traditional Values". For example, for almost a century of this country's existance, it was a "Traditional Value" in many parts that slavery was perfectly moral. And until about 50 years ago, "Traditional Values" held that it was perfectly moral, and legal, to discriminate against people simply because of their race. And until about 40 years ago it was a "Traditional Value" that women could be discriminated against - by law - and keeping them subjugated was perfectly moral. And until about 30 years ago it was a "Traditional Value" that gays were abominations and perversions, morally deserving of whatever scorn and repression we could heap on them. So now the remaining "Traditional Value" standing in the way of America's promise is the "Traditional Value" that, while we can pay lip service to the concept of freedom of religion, everyone should accept that Christianity is, de facto, the one true 'official' faith of the U.S. and everyone should be willing swallow their pride and accept it as such. All we're asking is for Christians to get over themselves. .

How is it a pluralistic society when you deny select people a right to place their values into effect in their local community.

So in a "free and equal" society we have to default to secular views for everything? I can't be opposed to abortion for religious reason, I can only submit and allow secular objective reasoning tell me abortion is only a women's choice?

If you ask me thats far greater hypocrisy. Allowing "religious" freedom yet separating it and forcing people to accept conflicting opinions and laws because only a secular society is allowed.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Isherwood Yet you advocate rule based on the age old teachings of another bunch of dead men. When it comes to establishing guidelines for a nation that is free for all its citizens, I'll give heed to the framers of the Constitution any day over the writings of the authors of the Bible or Koran.

I don't know how you wouldn't see the difference here.

200 year old dead men vs words from divine.

No contest.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Morality Games That is, overcome your egos and the sense of importance that accompanies them. Strangely this is consistent with the teachings of Christ. Since you can reason how evolution stacks well with the Bible (somehow), it should be easy to think up a way to be democratic in spirit and still be in synch with your religion.

Not possible. Only possible if on the local level people are still allowed to exercise their beliefs. In a local town wants to ban alcohol sales on Sunday then that should be their right. If a few atheists in that town object as MB would say when it comes to local vs local issues you can always move.

[Jack]

So in a "free and equal" society we have to default to secular views for everything? I can't be opposed to abortion for religious reason, I can only submit and allow secular objective reasoning tell me abortion is only a women's choice?

Substitute "secular" with "neutral" and see if it makes sense then. And until you need an abortion yourself, when you can decide for yourself, it should remain an option for those who want or need it while those who don't can abstain from getting one. What's more American, the right to choose or having the choice legislated on you by a theistically influenced government? If you don't want one, don't get one. But quit trying to tell everyone else they have to live by your standards.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: helioprime Not possible. Only possible if on the local level people are still allowed to exercise their beliefs. In a local town wants to ban alcohol sales on Sunday then that should be their right. If a few atheists in that town object as MB would say when it comes to local vs local issues you can always move.

Laws much emanate from the Constitution, which protects the rights of it's citizens. If a town passes such law in clear violation of the Constitution, then the atheists have the right to sue. Also, people shouldn't have to move because people don't like what they believe.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Isherwood I'm a little disappointed. I was expecting the last sentence to say that I wasn't a "troo atheist".

Hey, you were the one who, when we got involved, insisted "no pet names"

You have your opinions and interests, I have mine. I don't have to call yours into question to validate mine.

LOL Like I need validation from you. My arguments stand on their own.

I'm not out to prove anything.

What a strange thing to declare on a debate forum? Self-defeating, isn't it? "Here I am trying to prove that I'm not proving anything."

I hope to get the religious to question their presumptions because I know from experience that critically examining faith can lead to freedom from that restrictive and fantastic mindset.

For Christians, you can't do that without challenging their faith which is rooted in the false assumption that Jesus existed. If you allow that their godman came and went, then you're pandering to their delusion.

I find the concept of "truth" to be too compromised to be useful. But good luck with your quest. I hope you understand it's not the only way to debunk religion.

And I hope you eventually realize how useless it is to attempt to shake Christian faith and allow Christians to claim that Jesus existed without challenge.

[Morality Games]

Not possible. Only possible if on the local level people are still allowed to exercise their beliefs.

It's not possible to be humble, not judge, and see to your own inner tranquility? Okay, so do you think you get into Heaven for faking it and banning alchohol sales on Sunday (LOL)? I remember there was a time in history where Christians were expected to actually work for it (and usually not get in anyway).

In a local town wants to ban alcohol sales on Sunday then that should be their right. If a few atheists in that town object as MB would say when it comes to local vs local issues you can always move.

First of all, I would note that banning alchohol sales has more to do with their own collective psychological weaknesses than the well-being of the community. A manifestation of their own insecurity and lack of confidence. I would suggest a simpler solution, this being that they simply not buy alchohol on Sunday. Hopefully God will look favorably upon them for their personal abstinence, both from alchohol and from tyranny.

Moreover, they don't, as you claim, "have the right" -- if they think they do, then they misunderstood the rules concerning the governance of this country from the very beginning.

How is it a pluralistic society when you deny select people a right to place their values into effect in their local community.

There are dimensions to a community other than public law to express values -- people can have religious-motivated events all they want, just not legally mandated ones.

Anyway, each person's values are embodied in their own actions. However, when their "will to dominate" grows too strong and they decide they need to inflict these on other people who reserve the same right (Radical Islam and the Christian Right fall, in varying degrees, into this category), then they become tyrants (and there is no harm great enough for that type of being).

It is true 'inflicting your values unto others' is an action, and demanding abstinence from that is a restriction on expression of values, but that's the price you pay for enjoying the conveniences of a modern democracy. No community can exist without regulations.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Morality Games

Morality Games... putting the O in Pwn3d.

[Morality Games]

Morality Games... putting the O in Pwn3d.

What can I say? I really like democracy.

[Jack]

Quote by: Zhavric LOL Like I need validation from you. My arguments stand on their own.

As do mine, which was the point of my comment.

What a strange thing to declare on a debate forum? Self-defeating, isn't it? "Here I am trying to prove that I'm not proving anything."

The key word is "prove". Ignoring your nonsensical rewording of my statement, I'm not offering atheism as an alternative religion to theism. I try to get theists to critically view their faith and question their assumptions. That's what led me to the conclusion of atheism. Religions are internally inconsistent and contradictory. For many that's all that needs to be exposed. If you think you can "prove" Jesus never existed as a person to a degree that Christians will abandon their beliefs, go for it. I suggest that the historical record is too incomplete to "prove" such a thing.

For Christians, you can't do that without challenging their faith which is rooted in the false assumption that Jesus existed. If you allow that their godman came and went, then you're pandering to their delusion.

I didn't, so why do I need to accept your word that it's necessary? Jesus existing as a man and existing as a god are two entirely different degrees of existence.

And I hope you eventually realize how useless it is to attempt to shake Christian faith and allow Christians to claim that Jesus existed without challenge.

Will atheists then need to "prove" Joseph Smith never existed, or Ron Hubbard, in order to debunk the religions that were founded around them?


Morality Games, nicely composed post. Very good rebuttal.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: HelioPrime How is it a pluralistic society when you deny select people a right to place their values into effect in their local community.

Because it's not THEIR community... it' everyone's community, therefore everyone is asking for you... er, for them ... to politely keep their values to themselves.

Quote by: HelioPrime So in a "free and equal" society we have to default to secular views for everything?

Has anyone even hinted at that? That's like leaping from, "They've asked us to conserve water" to "They're demanding that we stop drinking water!"

You're being absurd. "Waaah, how dare you cruel meanies try to stop us from imposing our views on everyone!"

If you ask me thats far greater hypocrisy. Allowing "religious" freedom yet separating it and forcing people to accept conflicting opinions and laws because only a secular society is allowed.

Only a secular GOVERNMENT is allowed, Helio, not a secular society. You're the ones forcing people to accept conflicting opinions everywhere we go, helio. We're asking you to stop and, at least in the public funded square, EVERYONE keep their religious beliefs to themselves.

If that means a secular public arena, then so be it, but it's certainly not as if anyone is ADVOCATING or preaching atheism. Secular means the absence of all beliefs, not the presence non-belief.

LIke I said, get over yourselves.

200 year old dead men vs words from divine. No contest.

What divine? The one written about by 2,000 yr-old dead men?

.

[gela]

*delayed reply to posts on page 2*

Ouch. where do I fall?

I am generalizing, Im not accusing individuals.

Well that means Buddhists are just as hypocritical as Christians, but this is just a depressing argument.

The Bible doesn't directly say 'violence is a sin' or 'war is against gods will'.
So christians can still start wars whilst staying true to their religion.

The buddhist war is directly contradicting their text.

But don't forget, just as there is a bad side to Christianity and Buddhism, there is also the moral side to it. The kind side to it. (and maybe only in my dreams) an intellectual side to it. Both need to be recognized by both theists and atheists.

I agree with you.
The bad side of christianity needs to be recognised as bad. Not blindly followed and believed to be all true.
The same applies to buddhism.

My issues are not with believing in a god - its in blindly following a text.

I know. I don't really represent the whole of Christian thought. However, I think I can show that Christianity itself may not be the problem, rather that the people who follow it can and will be flawed. It's like an exclusive club, and being snide to those who aren't a part of it. That's human's problem, not the religions.

Religion (supposedly) dictates our morals.
Idealy, it should allow for human nature, and it should preach against intolerance, and for understanding.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: gela The Bible doesn't directly say 'violence is a sin' or 'war is against gods will'. So christians can still start wars whilst staying true to their religion.

Not necessarily a bad thing. America was criticized for entering WWII too late, and rightfully so.

It's just people wage war far too often to be justified.

My issues are not with believing in a god - its in blindly following a text.

Not even just blindly following a text. Blindly following a single view of the text, or even just what they believe is in the text.

The best example of this is how the Christian right is so for family values, when Jesus was a strong proponent against most of the values.

Religion (supposedly) dictates our morals. Idealy, it should allow for human nature, and it should preach against intolerance, and for understanding.

Now if we could just get both Atheists and Theists to realize that...