Fundies say the darnest things

[Gonz013]

You should take a sociology course, Gonz013. Social norms, mores, and taboos are far, far stronger than you give them credit for.

I have studied Sociology, and Anthropology, and a few other 'ologies'.

All atheism means is "the belief that a God or Gods do not exist; the rejection of Theism (belief in a God or Gods)."

My argument is that a true Atheist also needs to be a Nihilist.
A true Atheist doesn't believe in an afterlife/ spirituality- humans are essentially animals that reproduce and die. There is no anchor/ reason for any morality beyond what might be regarded as crucial to survival.

Just because someone thinks there's no such thing as a God, that doesn't mean they have nothing to base their morals on, and it doesn't mean they see no consequences in committing wrongs.

I know and Atheist is perfecty capable of saying WHAT is right, WHAT is wrong- but that's an incomplete understanding, as they have nothing to base WHY something is right or wrong. -This is especially pertinent to the discussion, if as you claim, it is the critical, logical thinkers that reject the idea of God.

 

[Joey D]

Yes they do, society dictates what people see as right or wrong.

In American we don't see it as right to ban women from doing certain things, while parts of the middle east women have zero freedom. It's all a matter of the culture and the society. There are cultural universals yes, but not everything is the same in all societies.

 

[Wolfe]

I have studied Sociology, and Anthropology, and a few other 'ologies'.

I see. I myself have taken semesters of sociology, anthropology, psychology, and a class called east/west worldviews which examined religions.

Yes, I agree, but those values are almost always tied to religious beliefs.
The belief in some sort of God/ Gods/ Higher power has also been central to all societies, and this is clearly reflected through anthropological and biological writings.

Actually, the real issue at hand is that people just need some sort of higher power, regardless of whether it's superhuman. They can't handle the thought of taking care of themselves.

By the time organized governments came along, the only real reason why religion continued to be practiced is because of tradition. Of course, when governments fail to do their job (or just displease groups of people), that's when you see surges in religious activity and/or the creation of new religions.

Then again, this is more true for western religions like Christianity than it is for eastern religions, which focus more on one's own spirituality than the governing of a higher power.

My argument is that a true Atheist also needs to be a Nihilist.
A true Atheist doesn't believe in an afterlife/ spirituality- humans are essentially animals that reproduce and die. There is no anchor/ reason for any morality beyond what might be regarded as crucial to survival.

I know and Atheist is perfecty capable of saying WHAT is right, WHAT is wrong- but that's an incomplete understanding, as they have nothing to base WHY something is right or wrong. -This is especially pertinent to the discussion, if as you claim, it is the critical, logical thinkers that reject the idea of God.

Here's your "WHY" -- because everyone inherently desires human contact and communication, wants to be seen as a valued member of their community, and doesn't want to do anything that would jeopardize that, such as breaking established social norms, mores, or taboos.

It's only when personal wants/needs exceed the importance of social bonds (which happens from time to time, and can be heavily affected by emotion) that people commit crimes and such. But this can happen to anyone, regardless of their faith/nonfaith.

 

[Swift]

There's really only one questions about Christianity. Is Jesus the messiah? We all know that Jesus was an actual person that did live on earth. So the only thing left is wheter or not he was the Christ.

All the other questions fall away when you can answer that for yourself.

And no, I don't think it's annoying for someone to continually try to save you. Do you think it would be annoying if they continually offered your tickets to your favorite band or sports team? No? Why? Because it's something you like a lot. But you still had to TRY it first at some point to figure out if it was for you or not. To say that Christians that try to get you saved are annoying is all about perspective.

Anyway, I know non religious people that say things much more stupid then this and THEY are in political office!

 

[Gonz013]

There's really only one questions about Christianity. Is Jesus the messiah? We all know that Jesus was an actual person that did live on earth. So the only thing left is wheter or not he was the Christ.

That's one of many questions to consider IF you believe there is a God in the first place. If you don't, why would you care if Jesus is the Messiah or not?

And no, I don't think it's annoying for someone to continually try to save you. Do you think it would be annoying if they continually offered your tickets to your favorite band or sports team? No? Why? Because it's something you like a lot. But you still had to TRY it first at some point to figure out if it was for you or not. To say that Christians that try to get you saved are annoying is all about perspective.

I'm sure that if someone kept trying to 'save' you by telling you that what you believed was wrong, and that the only way to go to heaven is to believe what they do, you would be pretty pissed.

You can't expect others to be open to the possibility that they are wrong about their beliefs when you are not prepared to do the same.

 

[Wolfe]

And no, I don't think it's annoying for someone to continually try to save you. Do you think it would be annoying if they continually offered your tickets to your favorite band or sports team? No? Why? Because it's something you like a lot. But you still had to TRY it first at some point to figure out if it was for you or not. To say that Christians that try to get you saved are annoying is all about perspective.

I'm not following the Christianity = my favorite band or sports team thing. That would imply that being saved and/or believing in Christ is something that I not only have experience with, but enjoy. I know you said I would have to try it first, but what is there to try?

I could recite the Nicene Creed right here and right now and it wouldn't change anything. No offense to anyone who's gone through a religious conversion in their adult life, but I can't imagine trading my own morals, principles and beliefs about the world for those prescribed by a book and the people who consider it to be the holy writing of a supreme being that I can't see.

I don't consider that to be a matter of being foolishly stubborn, either. I consider it to be a matter of believing strongly in my own morals, principles and beliefs. Otherwise I wouldn't believe in them.

Edit: Darn, tree'd by someone who explained it in shorter words than I could. I agree with Gonz013's post. 👍

 

[Gonz013]

Here's your "WHY" -- because everyone inherently desires human contact and communication, wants to be seen as a valued member of their community, and doesn't want to do anything that would jeopardize that, such as breaking established social norms, mores, or taboos.

Your anthropological/ historical assessment is a nice nutshell.
But its missing the point I was making:

-Those very social norms, morals, taboos etc. themselves need a 'why'. They are not at end in themselves.

For instance, take murder. Why is it wrong?
Lets ignore all circumstances as to why a murder might occur, or concequences that might arise out of it. Lets reduce it right down and focus just purely on the act of X killing Y.

Like I mentioned above- assuming there was nothing outside the act itself, there were no negative concequences at all from X murdering Y: the Athiest cannot say that murder is bad, as no bad came of it. You might say "murder is bad in itself"- and you come back to why is it bad in itself?
The argument can't proceed any further.

On the other hand, if you follow that path of reasoning, a christian could take it one level further, and say "because God said it is wrong".

Or consider this: what if the murder of Y by X resulted in nothing but GOOD concequences. How would an Atheist argue that the murder was wrong? If anything, a true Atheist would have to admit that in this case, murder was a good thing.

You could convincingly argue this is a good thing, as it allows a society/ person enough flexibility to allow what is normally seen as wrong. eg Killing someone like Hitler would be a good thing to most people.
The problem is the "slippery slope" - where does this subjective reasoning end?

To a true Christian, even the murder of someone like Hitler would be immoral.

This fundamental flaw in Atheism (the lack of a fundamental moral framework) is what fuels the stupid opinions of Fundamentalists- there are great examples of this line of thinking gone too far in the link of the original post on this thread.

Yes, society has decided over time that it is inconvenient/ irresponsible/ dangerous etc. to allow murder, but this doesn't answer why it is fundamentally wrong/ immoral- that's typically where religion steps in to give the 'why' that humans crave.
The point of difference in our arguments I suspect has more to do with wether the religious beliefs stem from the necessity to create common understandings of what is right and wrong, or if religion informs the laws of society to begin with.

It's in danger of becoming a chicken or the egg argument I'm afraid, and one that is grey rather than black or white.

This is similar to science, in that you could possibly explain everything right back to the big bang, and even if science could explain how and when exactly the big bang came to occur, it would never be able to explain why it occurred in the first place. Again, God steps in to fill that void.

The greatest minds of our time, including Newton, Einstein and Hawking all allowed for/ believed in God.

I say let's focus on what I think (I hope) we can agree on - that fundamentalists of any kind are fools.

 

[Swift]

That's one of many questions to consider IF you believe there is a God in the first place. If you don't, why would you care if Jesus is the Messiah or not?

No, any historian regardless of religous background will say that Jesus was a person and did exist on this planet. So again the question is, do you take it to the next level or is he just a guy that split time?

I'm sure that if someone kept trying to 'save' you by telling you that what you believed was wrong, and that the only way to go to heaven is to believe what they do, you would be pretty pissed.

You can't expect others to be open to the possibility that they are wrong about their beliefs when you are not prepared to do the same.

Yes, they did and yes it was a bit annoying, but you know what, it was for my own good and I'm glad they did. But they didn't say, you're wrong, you're stupid, you're going to hell! They invited me to church, to meet their friends and to have a good time. Being saved was a product of that friendship. So not all Christians are "Holier then thou"

Also, you're not open to the possibility that you're wrong. You didn't even acknowledge my point about Jesus. If you were really "open" to the possibility wouldn't you research everything you could about the life, death and "supposed" ressurection of Jesus? As I said, he WAS here. So the question is is he God?

I know I'm right, I don't shove it down people's throats or call them stupid. But I know I'm right, hence I try to save those that I can. Not by constantly talking down to people, but being friends with others and inviting them to become friends with Jesus.

I'm sorry some of you have had not so pleasant experiences with Christians. But that doesn't mean all the people in the faith are going to talk down to you.

 

[Gonz013]

No, any historian regardless of religous background will say that Jesus was a person and did exist on this planet. So again the question is, do you take it to the next level or is he just a guy that split time?

I'm not arguing that Jesus existed, there is plenty of evidence there. What I said was that if you didn't believe in God in the first place, you would no bother to ask if Jesus was the Messiah.

Split time? WTF are you talking about?

I know I'm right, I don't shove it down people's throats or call them stupid. But I know I'm right, hence I try to save those that I can. Not by constantly talking down to people, but being friends with others and inviting them to become friends with Jesus.

That's great, I can respect that. I'm happy you found Jesus. What I can't stand is Fundamentalists judging others, which is what this whole thread is about.

I'm sorry you've had some not so pleasant experiences with Christians. But that doesn't mean all the people in the faith are going to talk down to you.

Don't feel sorry for me, I'm perfectly happy. I know all christians aren't like that. I just don't like the ones that are.
I was born and raised Catholic myself, but I am happy to let people believe in other things, Gods, whatever, and I don't feel the need to condemn them for not believing what I do (I'm not referring to you).

 

[Zrow]

Split time? WTF are you talking about?

BC ---> AD

 

[Gonz013]

BC ---> AD

oh, ok. I like that. 👍

 

[Loon]

I went to look up the definition of Atheist, all it says is someone who doesn't believe in God or Gods, not that they don't have morals.

 

[Swift]

I'm not arguing that Jesus existed, there is plenty of evidence there. What I said was that if you didn't believe in God in the first place, you would no bother to ask if Jesus was the Messiah.

I get you with everything else. But you specifically said that others should be open to being wrong. If you're open, wouldn't you check out if Jesus was a fake or not? Or are you saying that you're not open at this time?

 

[Diego440]

I get you with everything else. But you specifically said that others should be open to being wrong. If you're open, wouldn't you check out if Jesus was a fake or not? Or are you saying that you're not open at this time?

Yes, we're closed. We'll be open tomorrow at 8:00am

 

[Swift]

Yes, we're closed. We'll be open tomorrow at 8:00am

Cool, I'll call back later.

 

[Wolfe]

Your anthropological/ historical assessment is a nice nutshell.
But its missing the point I was making:

-Those very social norms, morals, taboos etc. themselves need a 'why'. They are not at end in themselves.

For instance, take murder. Why is it wrong?
Lets ignore all circumstances as to why a murder might occur, or concequences that might arise out of it. Lets reduce it right down and focus just purely on the act of X killing Y.

Like I mentioned above- assuming there was nothing outside the act itself, there were no negative concequences at all from X murdering Y: the Athiest cannot say that murder is bad, as no bad came of it. You might say "murder is bad in itself"- and you come back to why is it bad in itself?
The argument can't proceed any further.

On the other hand, if you follow that path of reasoning, a christian could take it one level further, and say "because God said it is wrong".

Or consider this: what if the murder of Y by X resulted in nothing but GOOD concequences. How would an Atheist argue that the murder was wrong? If anything, a true Atheist would have to admit that in this case, murder was a good thing.

You could convincingly argue this is a good thing, as it allows a society/ person enough flexibility to allow what is normally seen as wrong. eg Killing someone like Hitler would be a good thing to most people.
The problem is the "slippery slope" - where does this subjective reasoning end?

To a true Christian, even the murder of someone like Hitler would be immoral.

This fundamental flaw in Atheism (the lack of a fundamental moral framework) is what fuels the stupid opinions of Fundamentalists- there are great examples of this line of thinking gone too far in the link of the original post on this thread.

Yes, society has decided over time that it is inconvenient/ irresponsible/ dangerous etc. to allow murder, but this doesn't answer why it is fundamentally wrong/ immoral- that's typically where religion steps in to give the 'why' that humans crave.

I see what you're getting at now, and you make a good point, but the part where you brought up Hitler illustrates exactly how this "flaw" can be a positive. The only problem, as you said, is determining what circumstances are appropriate, determining when someone has done something so heinous that they no longer deserve the basic right to live. But by the time you get to that point, you've already reintroduced the social influence that you sought to exclude to begin with.

Furthermore, although your situation is an intriguing one, it contains one flaw that renders it rather useless in justifying the "need" for religion's moral framework -- if all outside factors are excluded from this hypothetical X->Y murder, particularly the circumstances, consequences, and social influence, how will religion help at all?

Regardless of whether or not God or any other deity is real, religion is and has always been propagated by mortal men, and very, very few people have ever had independent contact with a higher power they had not been formerly introduced to (thus excluding the visions and spiritual experiences many claim to have, having already professed their faith long before).

Keeping this in mind, it is extremely unlikely that person X would have a religious experience and realize that God says "killing is wrong." Just like the social norms, mores, and taboos that atheists can and do live by, religion depends on social contact.

The point of difference in our arguments I suspect has more to do with wether the religious beliefs stem from the necessity to create common understandings of what is right and wrong, or if religion informs the laws of society to begin with.

It's in danger of becoming a chicken or the egg argument I'm afraid, and one that is grey rather than black or white.

I believe you're right.

This is similar to science, in that you could possibly explain everything right back to the big bang, and even if science could explain how and when exactly the big bang came to occur, it would never be able to explain why it occurred in the first place. Again, God steps in to fill that void.

The greatest minds of our time, including Newton, Einstein and Hawking all allowed for/ believed in God.

I say let's focus on what I think (I hope) we can agree on - that fundamentalists of any kind are fools.

I can agree on that, certainly.

 

[Swift]

Regardless of whether or not God or any other deity is real, religion is and has always been propagated by mortal men, and very, very few people have ever had independent contact with a higher power they had not been formerly introduced to (thus excluding the visions and spiritual experiences many claim to have, having already professed their faith long before).

So, what you're saying is that if someone that has previously been exposed to the notion of God/Jesus/Allah/Buddah or whoever, their claim to having contact with said deity is automatically false?

Keeping this in mind, it is extremely unlikely that person X would have a religious experience and realize that God says "killing is wrong." Just like the social norms, mores, and taboos that atheists can and do live by, religion depends on social contact.

Premeditated murder is certainly wrong. But killing someone in self defense, as a soldier in battle or policeman on duty is a completely different thing. That to me is where moral differences clash between belief systems.

 

[Wolfe]

So, what you're saying is that if someone that has previously been exposed to the notion of God/Jesus/Allah/Buddah or whoever, their claim to having contact with said deity is automatically false?

That would depend not only on whether or not you think those deities exist, but also whether or not you think those deities ever communicate directly with humans, be they prophets or ordinary people.

Either way, if some white Christian housewife claims to have spoken with God, that event is far less supportive of God's existance than if someone who had never been exposed to Christianity before had a vision of a man who clearly called himself Jesus Christ.

 

[3-Wheel Drive]

click and laugh..

I didn't so much laugh, so much as I felt the urge to hurt these people. Holy crap, some of them are 🤬 up in the head.

[Note: the boy eventually took his own life.]"

I sincerely hope that guy comes to realize he was pivotal in his son's death.

 

[Swift]

That would depend not only on whether or not you think those deities exist, but also whether or not you think those deities ever communicate directly with humans, be they prophets or ordinary people.

Either way, if some white Christian housewife claims to have spoken with God, that event is far less supportive of God's existance than if someone who had never been exposed to Christianity before had a vision of a man who clearly called himself Jesus Christ.

Hmmm...exactly how is that more convincing? Someone who has being doing all the tenants of a particular faith hearing from that deity is less likely to be in communication then someone who never heard of the notion of said deity? That really goes against the notion of a lot of religions in the world today.

If you say you don't want to believe in God, that's fine. But how can you then say what qualifies as a convincing contact with God?

 

[Wolfe]

Hmmm...exactly how is that more convincing? Someone who has being doing all the tenants of a particular faith hearing from that deity is less likely to be in communication then someone who never heard of the notion of said deity? That really goes against the notion of a lot of religions in the world today.

If you say you don't want to believe in God, that's fine. But how can you then say what qualifies as a convincing contact with God?

You're missing the point entirely, I'm afraid.

What I'm saying that to a secular observer like myself, someone who has never even heard of Christianity before claiming to have spoken to Jesus Christ is more convincing of God's existence than a Christian claiming the same thing. Not that the ignorant one's experience is more likely to be true than the Christian's, but that the ignorant one's experience is far less biased evidence that such experiences happen to begin with, and that they're genuine.

But that wasn't even the original point.

What I was trying to do was to demonstrate that in Gonz013's hypothetical situation, a complete lack of outside factors and social influences would also mean a complete lack of a religious moral code. Religion is propagated between humans, so person X wouldn't even know who God is or what he stands for. The only reason why I brought up the point of non-believers vs believers communicating with God was to point out that there have been very few instances of people claiming to have spoken with a deity/deities they've never heard of (all I can think of are the people who created the religions we know today), so it would be very unlikely for person X to be contacted by God on a completely independent basis, circumventing the lack of social influence.

 

[Swift]

Yeah, that's certainly hypothetical. Since I don't think there is a person alive with communication skills that hasn't heard of a god.

But I see your point now. Though I still don't really agree with it.

 

[Duke]

Hmmm...exactly how is that more convincing? Someone who has being doing all the tenants of a particular faith hearing from that deity is less likely to be in communication then someone who never heard of the notion of said deity? That really goes against the notion of a lot of religions in the world today.

If you say you don't want to believe in God, that's fine. But how can you then say what qualifies as a convincing contact with God?

It's like the aliens (no offense intended).

People who claim to have been abducted by aliens almost always describe them as small, thin, large-headed beings with giant eyes. This is because that's how they've always seen and heard aliens described, and it's the picture that their subconscious has in its slot marked "an alien".

Organized religion is the same way - the organization and its related scripture defines what adherents see or claim to see, because it's what they've been conditioned to see.

It would be more convincing if some tropical aborigine walked out of the forest for the first time in his life, claiming that a man with oddly pale skin calling himself Jesus had appeared to him one day. There'd be no chance for him to have been pre-conditioned with Christianity.

 

[Joey D]

Well said Duke 👍. Plus rep for that.