Ani Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 Why do religious people like to ask this question to non-religious people? Religious people and non-religious people alike can lead corrupt, immoral lives. Religion might condemn such behavior as adultery, pornography, murder, etc., nonetheless it hasn't succeeded in abolishing that behavior among its followers. True!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 It’s quite simple actually. The believer is one who trusts in his belief and can answer with eternal salvation when asked to why he acts out his belief. A believer takes personally his belief, and has grown into it, as it has become a part of him. Creating an agenda to rob one of his beliefs is the same as creating an agenda to silence those who don’t believe. The problem is that you have an AGENDA, when you speak so lowly against those who have agendas themselves, i.e. Christianity, or Islam, or any other agenda driven entities. There are problems here. First, I'm not robbing anyone of anything because people can always chose to ignore me or chose, despite the evidence, to hold onto their faith. Many do. Secondly, that presume people are always going to be better off with religion and that is not true. Thirdly, it presume that religion is always benign which is also not true. Lastly, we are talking here about epistomology. About gaining knowledge. Often people who have supernatural beliefs tout them as knowledge but it is immoral to present something as knowledge when in fact it is a concession to assumption, fear, and sentiment. The question here is not whether someone is consoled but what the truth value of a statement is. Wanting something to be true and it being true are not the same thing. Furthermore I have no moral obligation to abstain from showing people that that is in fact the way it is. Such a thing is a fallacious argument. Like I said I question you because I’m curious to how you would answer it, instead you’ve chosen to quote people I must read about to better understand what it is you’re saying. I did not quote people you must read. I answered you questions. I through in a quote to further illustrate my point. That is different. I was expecting something along the lines of; I think adultery is immoral, or the mate should consider why his spouse is no longer happy and work on fixing this problem, or , sex is a pleasure one must experience in life thru consistency, maybe even that one may love another while enjoying different sexual partners. Different people have different views; do you have any personal views outside of your agenda? I do believe that adultry is immoral and I explained why that is so. I don't know why you missed that. Keep in mind, you never actually asked me a specific question and I responded as concisely as I could. There was no reason for me to go into detail about family counseling because that has nothing to do with religion and morality. And in terms of loving one person while having other sexual partners, I don't believe that on its own is immoral. As I had suggested, it would only be immoral if one was betraying anothers trust in that regard. If two people agree to have an open relationship I cannot consider that adultry -- or if by a definition it is adultry, I would consider it an amoral instance of it. As far as prostitution goes: I think commercialized pornography deteriorates the human body, its in our television sets, the internet, and it leaves an effect on a person when he or she is exposed to this content, and considers it a norm. Those who don’t understand that sex is in human nature will not begin to understand if society jumps from one extreme to the other, and makes sex available at any time one chooses. I don't think there is any accepted scientific evidence to support those ideas. They seem to be either assumed from fallible observations or adopted to justify you pre-existing sentiments. However, assuming the such a thing is true, it would still not be a moral concern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 Wow, that's pretty interesting. I've never really met atheists such as yourself who actually have a personal agenda to promote non-theism. What motivates you? Because I don't see religion as only being wrong; I see it as a bad thing. There is no higher order of organism than humans on the planet and yet I can only describe my feeling as embarrassment. I think it holds us back and causes hatred and pain and death and is yet another instution of a corruptible nature. And let's not forget that it is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LK82 Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 First of all, Im not a religous person. Second, youre the one who claims to have an agenda to promote non-theism. Your technically the equivelant of a self proclaimed preacher accept in non-Theism. And its interesting to ask, since religion sets its foundations on these issues, would you prefer someone to ask you if you would bet your money on the Lakers winning the finals this year or not to better understand your agenda? Nice talking to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Em Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 I don't care. Some may be and some may not know that they can be. It is on my personal agenda to promote non-theism. With such an agenda I do not expect to be respected/welcomed/understood/appreciated in every environment. I am curious, have you been succesful in your attempts at "enlightening the masses"? More specifically, do you know of any individual who has given up his/her faith as a direct result of your efforts in pushing your agenda and educateing him/her? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 First of all, Im not a religous person. Second, youre the one who claims to have an agenda to promote non-theism. Your technically the equivelant of a self proclaimed preacher accept in non-Theism. And its interesting to ask, since religion sets its foundations on these issues, would you prefer someone to ask you if you would bet your money on the Lakers winning the finals this year or not to better understand your agenda? Nice talking to you. I have no problem answering your questions. I can't see why you are acting as though it has not been so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 I am curious, have you been succesful in your attempts at "enlightening the masses"? More specifically, do you know of any individual who has given up his/her faith as a direct result of your efforts in pushing your agenda and educateing him/her? One person who was fence-sitting. And I have raised doubt in peoples minds. Anyway, it is not only to convert but to gain respect for the perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LK82 Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 (edited) There are problems here. First, I'm not robbing anyone of anything because people can always chose to ignore me or chose, despite the evidence, to hold onto their faith. Many do. Secondly, that presume people are always going to be better off with religion and that is not true. Thirdly, it presume that religion is always benign which is also not true. Lastly, we are talking here about epistomology. About gaining knowledge. Often people who have supernatural beliefs tout them as knowledge but it is immoral to present something as knowledge when in fact it is a concession to assumption, fear, and sentiment. The question here is not whether someone is consoled but what the truth value of a statement is. Wanting something to be true and it being true are not the same thing. Furthermore I have no moral obligation to abstain from showing people that that is in fact the way it is. Such a thing is a fallacious argument. I did not quote people you must read. I answered you questions. I through in a quote to further illustrate my point. That is different. I do believe that adultry is immoral and I explained why that is so. I don't know why you missed that. Keep in mind, you never actually asked me a specific question and I responded as concisely as I could. There was no reason for me to go into detail about family counseling because that has nothing to do with religion and morality. And in terms of loving one person while having other sexual partners, I don't believe that on its own is immoral. As I had suggested, it would only be immoral if one was betraying anothers trust in that regard. If two people agree to have an open relationship I cannot consider that adultry -- or if by a definition it is adultry, I would consider it an amoral instance of it. I don't think there is any accepted scientific evidence to support those ideas. They seem to be either assumed from fallible observations or adopted to justify you pre-existing sentiments. However, assuming the such a thing is true, it would still not be a moral concern. Thank you for your response. I'm interested in this evidence. Please enlighten me on this issue. Assuming my interpretation of the word "evidence" is the same as yours. Aside from the fact that most sexual predators grow their desire from this? I don’t have the stats in front of me, but let me try to get as close as possible. Scientific evidence on sexual predators cannot be conducted in the conventional ways one might conduct an experiment. This is the human mind, it is very complicated. One might also note that the human mind can be healthy, ill, and trained to think in certain ways. The affect of open sexuality on adults does not interest me as much as what it does to children, and how it affects their up-bringing. For example, children believe in Santa Clause because they’re impressionable, fortunately Santa wont get them pregnant. The problem is that sexual openness and pornography is looked at as another form to make money. Its not on your screen because someone out there believes that you should understand sex and accept it as human nature. It’s there because someone wants you to become a client, and spend your money on their product. That alone should show how much immoral the degree of pornography and sexuality is today. Edited April 7, 2008 by LK82 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 Thank you for your response. Aside from the fact that most sexual predators grow their desire from this? I don’t have the stats in front of me, but let me try to get as close as possible. Scientific evidence on sexual predators cannot be conducted in the conventional ways one might conduct an experiment. This is the human mind, it is very complicated. One might also note that the human mind can be healthy, ill, and trained to think in certain ways. The affect of open sexuality on adults does not interest me as much as what it does to children, and how it affects their up-bringing. For example, children believe in Santa Clause because they’re impressionable, fortunately Santa wont get them pregnant. The problem is that sexual openness and pornography is looked at as another form to make money. Its not on your screen because someone out there believes that you should understand sex and accept it as human nature. It’s there because someone wants you to become a client, and spend your money on their product. That alone should show how much immoral the degree of pornography and sexuality is today. I can agree that children should not be exposed to certain things before a certain age in their development. However that is still not a case for general moral implications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 Many of us the "Believers" use as much, if not more, logic, reasoning and the use of scientific methods. Wait wait wait wait wait ... no one else found this statement questionable? Come on Ashot ma man ... tell me how believing in God is logical or how you can get to it scientifically. I would really like to hear this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LK82 Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 There are problems here. First, I'm not robbing anyone of anything because people can always chose to ignore me or chose, despite the evidence, to hold onto their faith. Many do. Secondly, that presume people are always going to be better off with religion and that is not true. Thirdly, it presume that religion is always benign which is also not true. Lastly, we are talking here about epistomology. About gaining knowledge. Often people who have supernatural beliefs tout them as knowledge but it is immoral to present something as knowledge when in fact it is a concession to assumption, fear, and sentiment. The question here is not whether someone is consoled but what the truth value of a statement is. Wanting something to be true and it being true are not the same thing. Furthermore I have no moral obligation to abstain from showing people that that is in fact the way it is. Such a thing is a fallacious argument. Im interested in this evidence. Please enlighten me on this issue. Assuming my interpretation of the word "evidence" is the same as yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 Arvestaked: have you considered switching your motivation from non-theism to non-religious doctrine? I see a big difference between the two. People wanting to believe in some sort of higher power, creator, or whatever you want to call it, I consider to be quite harmless. I'm sure you know that many philosophers, to this day, continue to argue for the existence of a god or creator. On the other hand, people following a certain religious doctrine and coercing others to follow this doctrine too, I see as a violation of basic human rights and as a serious problem for the well-being of mankind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 Arvestaked: have you considered switching your motivation from non-theism to non-religious doctrine? I see a big difference between the two. People wanting to believe in some sort of higher power, creator, or whatever you want to call it, I consider to be quite harmless. I'm sure you know that many philosophers, to this day, continue to argue for the existence of a god or creator. On the other hand, people following a certain religious doctrine and coercing others to follow this doctrine too, I see as a violation of basic human rights and as a serious problem for the well-being of mankind. The mere act of undermining logic with supernatural beliefs in a greater population opens doors to corruptible religion. People do not stay completely silent because beliefs such as those are escorted by passion and irrational beliefs in conjuction with passion is dangerous. And hypothetically, whether or not something is harmless has nothing to do with its "truth value" The greatest issue here education vs. delusion. Is x true? There is only one process to go through to answer such a question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 Wait wait wait wait wait ... no one else found this statement questionable? Come on Ashot ma man ... tell me how believing in God is logical or how you can get to it scientifically. I would really like to hear this. You can be sure I did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 Im interested in this evidence. Please enlighten me on this issue. Assuming my interpretation of the word "evidence" is the same as yours. You may not be satisfied with this response but unfortunately you are asking me to reproduce many volumes worth of study. I can only summarize by saying that the evidence I mentioned is that which shows there is no logical reason to believe in anything supernatural and evolutionary biology, statistics, and logic reveal this. That said, this evidence is actually rebuttal evidence because the burden of proof really lies with those making the original assertion which in this case is all supernatural assertions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashot Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 Sip, read my post 10 more times, then when you understand the meaning of the sentence come back and ask me the same question again, they I will turn around and ask you "how are you using your logic on the sentence you just read"... Frankly I can see you change the whole meaning of the original sentence, hence you think that believing in god is supposed to be proven by logic or scientific methods, there are thinks that even you can't prove, and thinks that I can't prove... so this pointless explanations of everyone trying to prove something is wrong... You go do your thing, I do mine... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 Sip, read my post 10 more times, then when you understand the meaning of the sentence come back and ask me the same question again, they I will turn around and ask you "how are you using your logic on the sentence you just read"... Frankly I can see you change the whole meaning of the original sentence, hence you think that believing in god is supposed to be proven by logic or scientific methods, there are thinks that even you can't prove, and thinks that I can't prove... so this pointless explanations of everyone trying to prove something is wrong... You go do your thing, I do mine... If one presents an idea as knowledge of the nature of the universe, it must be proven through logic reason and the scientific method. Otherwise it cannot be considered true. It connot be considered a fact. It cannot be considered knowledge. At best, it is a guess in which there is no reason to believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LK82 Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 Just me thinking out loud here. If all the believers of this site voiced their disgust to your intellectual badgering of their belief and, voted to ban you from this site how would you feel about their logical reasoning then? I don’t believe in any religion either, and if there was a priest who constantly tried to prove a point and make others believe it, that would be insulting to the majority who don’t want to believe. The question of this topic is, “Do you believe in god”. Voice your opinion on why you do or don’t believe in God and move on. People should stop trying to convince others that any one belief, whether it’s logical or biblical is the true belief. This is the reason for wars dating back centuries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garmag Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 Arvestaked, Your non-theic advocacy bears some responsability if you wish to propagate a new approach for our (so called higher organisms on earth) through logic and scientific proofs, explaining in simple terms... how did life begin? Please, not the usual chemistry and given the optimum coditions theory. If this was so why have we not been able to create life from nothingness? My question is childish... but children often leave us dumbfounded with innocent queries. I will be very interested to know your views, as to how a society should function with a non-theic approach. What legal forms should be enacted... Built on what credos? I am fully aware of the multiple ...isms that were created to control and exploit the masses by rulers/powermongers! Would not a non-theic authority of logical/scientific humans, in time, become fully corrupted as well. Who or what should be an impartial director of Earth? In order to change what we have now, not very appetizing in itself, what should the new order according to your advocacy be? So far all scientific beleifs have not been able to logically proove "WHAT IS THE PRIMORDIAL ENERGY GOVERNING THE UNIVERSES ? Big Bang? Who/what started the big bang? ad-infinitum... Theoretically many views have been advanced by logical scientists in the history of our world... only to be refuted by newer views). No sarcasm is intended in the above. Another seeker of meanings. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 I believe in God because I believe the Bible to be the truth and the Bible states that God exists. Grace and Peace, Roger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zartonk Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 Okay, time for a twist. Does God believe in you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zara Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 wow. that's a real head scratcher of a question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashot Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 Zartonk jan, God needs no believing, as God knows the facts!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 I believe in God because I believe the Bible to be the truth and the Bible states that God exists. How so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashot Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 Anoushik jan, you will never accept it because you do not beleive in God, no matter what we say it is going to sound rediculous to you as your explanation on how God does not exist will sound rediculous to us... Why must we constantly question one another if we are not even going to understand or beleive in the answers!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.