Comic Genesis Forums

Chaser617 wrote:In this case it was the student had a grudge against Christianity, that and ego in beleiving that everyone should be athiest, that it was 'the most foolish of jokes that there is a god and people beleive in him (his words people).

Well, I happen to agree with him in that last part. I think religion -- particularly organized religion -- is the great folly of mankind. And I'm frustrated that such a large majority of the world's population remain under the sway of it, for no readily apparent reason.

I do not think you can force atheism on people (the Soviets tried that, it didn't work), and I don't think you can force democracy on people (remember the French Revolution?), or any other kind of virtues. They have to figure it out for themselves.

I am optimistic, however, that religion will finally fade and die out after we get the technology to control aging and disease. When we no longer have to face the prospect of growing old and dying, then the need to imagine some kind of afterlife will fade, and religion will begin to look pretty pointless.

Wanderwolf wrote:

Bengaley wrote:As for hte Pledge, I want to remove 'Under God', but because it doesn't flow right, not because of the religious bit.

--snip--

"to" was added in October of 1892, the year the Pledge was written, by the author himself.

"my flag" was changed to "the flag/of the United States of America" by the National Flag Conference of 1923-24, over the protests of the author, Francis Bellamy.

"under God" was added in 1954 by order of Congress, thanks to a campaign by the Knights of Columbus.

It's fine the way it is, folks. For crying out loud, quit fixing something that isn't broken.

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer

The pledge is a bit off, no matter what. I've always thought the whole thing should be dumped and a modified version of the military oath substituted. 'Support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.' Leaves less room for stupidity like people trashing the First Amendment because some idjit leftist decided that flag-burning was a good protest idea.

TMLutas wrote:
OK, I'll bite, why do you want to limit the influence of christianity?

Because it is starting to look like some laws are being passed to enforce Christian views on ethics with the reasoning of 'its in the Bible'.

Now, because we are a Western nation, and Western nations are ultimatly Christian nations of one kind or another, I understand that a good portion of the populace basically has the same ethics and morality that's in the bible, simply because of the Christian influence over the years.

However... I don't feel that any law that has the reasoning of 'its in the bible' has any place in civil law because we are not soley a Christian nation, we have other religions as well as non-Western cultures. Hence, a Seperation of Church and State doesn't just apply to Christianity - it would apply to Wicca, as well, either way you decide to interpret it.

For instance, I've yet to hear a single arguement that isn't backed by the bible or religion against Homosexuality...

When I see these arguments against Christianity I always ask (and have never adequately received an answer) - what is the basis for ethics in an athiestic system? All arguments ultimately boil down to some elite making the decisions or some utilitarian approach that is boiled down to might makes right.

I would say that atheism today is living on the borrowed ethics of Christianity.

Bengaley wrote:

TMLutas wrote:
OK, I'll bite, why do you want to limit the influence of christianity?

Because it is starting to look like some laws are being passed to enforce Christian views on ethics with the reasoning of 'its in the Bible'.

Now, because we are a Western nation, and Western nations are ultimatly Christian nations of one kind or another, I understand that a good portion of the populace basically has the same ethics and morality that's in the bible, simply because of the Christian influence over the years.

However... I don't feel that any law that has the reasoning of 'its in the bible' has any place in civil law because we are not soley a Christian nation, we have other religions as well as non-Western cultures. Hence, a Seperation of Church and State doesn't just apply to Christianity - it would apply to Wicca, as well, either way you decide to interpret it.

For instance, I've yet to hear a single arguement that isn't backed by the bible or religion against Homosexuality...

ya want a non religious argument, well, you've got one.

in simple atheistic terms we as human beings are animals. we are only scratching the surface of genetics, weather prediction (not even manipulation), and even the physics and chemistry that could drive us outward towards colonizing elsewhere (other planets). when we look at how much we actually control verses how much we dream of controling, one would (should) realize that we don't really have any real control over the world or how it works. we have yet to come up with a permemently stable society and the best prospect we've had within the past few hundred years (I'm talking about the U.S) has already been accused of numerous problems including organized crime, hypocracy (in a non religeous sense), undue torture, internal corruption. and the list goes on and on.

my point? simple,

until a perfect and stable society does evolve (note the society needs to evolve, not the organisms within it) we will always have a need to create a new generation, and as far as I can see it takes a male and a female to produce that next generation.

now there may be anargument against this that there are many things for which people may postpone having kids or give them up alltogether. this I would point out is usually either for the benefit of the community or society as a whole, or it is for personal gain. and unless homosexuality proves to be an asset to society it is no excuse to perform acts that frustrate the creation of the next generation.

if there is one problem with greed and pride it is that it's holder only thinks of 'me vs them' instead of 'us alltogether' like it should be.

Zobeid wrote:Well, I happen to agree with him in that last part. I think religion -- particularly organized religion -- is the great folly of mankind. And I'm frustrated that such a large majority of the world's population remain under the sway of it, for no readily apparent reason.

I do not think you can force atheism on people (the Soviets tried that, it didn't work), and I don't think you can force democracy on people (remember the French Revolution?), or any other kind of virtues. They have to figure it out for themselves.

I am optimistic, however, that religion will finally fade and die out after we get the technology to control aging and disease. When we no longer have to face the prospect of growing old and dying, then the need to imagine some kind of afterlife will fade, and religion will begin to look pretty pointless.

I think atheism is an outdated and idiotic point of view to put it bluntly. for look at it from my perspective.

facts
1) due to the laws of thermodynamics we will NEVER create either an energy producing nor a perpetual energy machine (yes machines that convert one form of energy (and I consider matter to be another form of energy) to another)

2)as energy moves throughout space it spreads out and collecting it becomes very hard to do. consider how much life the earth could have if it were instead of a planet a thin bubble with a radius the same size as earth's orbit around the sun. (I know there are some issues with this but it's the main idea that I'm getting at) it would hold many thousand times ammount of life on it and none of the sun's energy would be wasted, instead tons (and I mean that almost literally) of energy escape past earth's orbit because the earth isn't there at the time but somewhere else in it's orbit.

3) energy is energy, you can never perform an action without using some kind of energy.

4)there will always, ALWAYS be a way for energy to escape (see fact 1)

5)according to science as we understand it, the universe was created in one larvge bang, and after that everything formed from whatever energy that one bang gave off (ie, there is a limit to the ammount of energy total in the universe (the amount given off by the big bang))



now for the point.
imagine the future,
we don't age, we don't get sick, we don't die.
until the energy starts running low. durring which case we find new sources of energy. unfortuntely there is only so much energy out there, only so much matter out there. even if we learn to convert matter into antimatter and combine the two to produce energy we're still losing matter, and the longer we exist the longer there will be waste heat being given off. in the end, everyone in the future, will die of energy starvation.

but what about traveling faster then light? I mean if they can do that can't they re absorb the energy they give off?

no, as energy spreads it gets weaker and less intense, either they would spend all their time trying (and failing at it) to gather energy that they gave off earlier (and then try to collect the energy they gave off while gathering that energy (can you see the downward spiral yet?) OR they would spend their time looking for matter and energy until either the next source of energy is too far and too hard to reach with their current energy supply or there just isn't any left.

and don't pull any of that draining energy from alternate dimensions because their energy is just as limited as ours. face it with an unlimited ammount of space and a limited ammount of energy we're eventually going to run out (even with a limited ammount of space we're going to have very little energy spread out pretty thin within the space that we already know is there.

in conclusion, those athiests had better be hoping that there is something BIGGER then just science and the laws of thermodynamics or else we're all doomed to die anyway, no matter how long you live.


and that's not even WHY I believe in a GOD!

shyal_malkes wrote: *snip*

So, because it is not useful to society, we should prohibit homosexuality?

If you use that arguement, there goes the arts! No more TOTQ, because that's not useful to society! Mona Lisa? Just a distraction from work, burn it!

Never mind that even if the majority of the world population is practicing homosexuality (which it is NOT), there will always be enough people to keep a deep enough gene pool. Survival instincts are that strong.

But the majority of people are NOT homosexual. That means that the majority of people will keep breeding, and expanding the world population.

As for Atheism being stupid based on pseudo-science... You logic has too many holes for me to point out @.@

did I ever say we should prohibit homosexuality?

NO!

I merely said it shouldn't be practiced.

and your attempt at pointing to arts as having no purpose to society is ignoring the human pshcye and the human mind, you wanna know why I doodled so much for those two years durring my time in colorado? it's because I craved mental stimulation, be it factual or fictional.

to compare the uselessness of homosexuality with the use of the arts is to look at the stars and tell them they have had no use whatsoever in our history as a human race and never will (I refer to the early days of naval navigation and even the future dreams of visiting the stars)


yes, the majority of the population are not homosexual, but that does not justify homosexuality as a practice, nor does it ban it.

as for athiesm and my logic, I can't tell you how many times someone has argued with me only to say something generic like that and then turn and run or change the topic (mostly I think because they don't have a good answer so they just resort to making fun of me.)

tell me, if the future isn't as bleak as I painted it to be. how then (since we're talking athiesm now you can't use creationism, God, religion, or alternative dimensions, aliens saving us as a race (wishfull thinking in my opinion), or any other non scientific, non athiestic thing) shall we as a people avoid such a future? or is it that the only hole in my argument is that I'm looking farther into the future then you are?

in other words, I'm sick and tired of the athiests thinking that science will save them and I'm calling them out to defend their adament antireligeous attitude. I am convinced that half of the athiests out there (if not more) are only athiest because they were offended by one religion or another and most of the rest of them are really just agnostic and only 'think' they are athiest until they actually get asked about it (I can't tell you how many times I've had that actualy happen to me durring a conversation)

holes? I've found more holes in...

well, I've ranted enough, I'll wait for someone to actually make a valid argument.

Narnian wrote:When I see these arguments against Christianity I always ask (and have never adequately received an answer) - what is the basis for ethics in an athiestic system? All arguments ultimately boil down to some elite making the decisions or some utilitarian approach that is boiled down to might makes right.

I would say that atheism today is living on the borrowed ethics of Christianity.

What is the basis of ethics in Christianity? "Whatever God wants, we are obligated to do!" That's it? And different sects can't even agree on what God wants, or why. It's an absurdity.

Frankly, I find the whole "Heaven and Hell" thing vaguely insulting. It's simple sticks and carrots. That's not any basis for ethics.

My theory of ethics is practical. . . The world is a better place for all of us if we try to get along, avoid harming one another, and even possibly try to help one another once in a while. Building is more satisfying than destroying. Honesty is the best policy. Crime doesn't pay.

Humans are social creatures. Our shtick is living and working together, and it has mostly served us well. And when that strategy has failed, we've suffered for it -- such as in the many wars (including religious wars) that have caused so much destruction and misery.

shyal_malkes wrote:until a perfect and stable society does evolve (note the society needs to evolve, not the organisms within it) we will always have a need to create a new generation, and as far as I can see it takes a male and a female to produce that next generation.

I may be pointing out the painfully obvious, but right now the world is not suffering from an under-population crisis.

Experts estimate world population will peak somewhere around 9 billion and then begin gradually decreasing. By the time it gets down to what I would consider a reasonable and comfortably sustainable level, we'll probably have left sexual reproduction behind anyhow, it'll be obsolete.

imagine the future,
we don't age, we don't get sick, we don't die.
until the energy starts running low. durring which case we find new sources of energy.

Yes. . . Your point is that the universe will eventually wind down like a clock and become a cold and dead place. That will be many, many billions of years from now. It's not something that keeps me laying awake at night worrying about it.

Humans have only been on this dust speck for a paltry few million years, the blink of an eye in the cosmic scheme of things. We have NO BUSINESS contemplating our destiny millions of years in the future, to say nothing of a hundred billions of years in the future.

in conclusion, those athiests had better be hoping that there is something BIGGER then just science and the laws of thermodynamics or else we're all doomed to die anyway, no matter how long you live.

And even at the end of your pointless argument, the best you can come up with is "if your view is right, we're screwed". Well, maybe we are screwed (in the long, long, very long run). The universe does not bend to our whims.

Personally, I see a natural limit to how long one person can live. As you live and have experiences, and learn, and form new memories, and opinions, and attitudes, and also forget things, and accomplish goals, and set new goals. . . You are always changing. Eventually you will change into a different person. A new person. There is no fixed point where it suddenly happens, it'll just be a gradual thing, but someday the old you will be gone. Dead -- not in the catastrophic way that people die now, but rather by simply fading away into the past.

You could, in theory, prevent yourself from changing. You could preserve old versions of yourself, hang onto your old memories, ideas, dreams, etc. But they would be exactly that: preserved. Frozen. That's not living. That's not eternal life, that would just be. . . eternal existence, a kind of limbo. Which is pointless.

Immortality isn't possible in this universe. But indefinite life -- life without a fixed time span, without a sudden and catastrophic end -- is possible.

if I have to make a choice between being wrong but enjoying my life thinking that I'm right and believing that no matter what I do it won't change how things will end up anyway (screwed as you put it) I think I'd choose to be wrong but enjoy it anyway. just to not believe in something totally bleak.

and nobody has managed to disprove it's inevitability yet. (without putting God into the picture)

I don't mean to come off as angry or wanting to flame or anything. but I cannot get anyone to debate atheism seriously with me. they do either change the topic or cut off the conversation.

that and in the end I figure if you don't mind me I ain't gonna mind you, no matter who is right.

Zobeid, perhaps you should present an actual reason as to why you think religeon is folly. What is the actual reason that you think the world would be better off without any form of organized religeon? In exceedingly plain and simple terms (as simple as one can get without insulting another person's intelligence). Afterall, one cannot argue against, what one does not understand, and unlike Christianity, there is no book or guide to athiests, as their reasons for believing such, do tend to be a bit varied, and a bit more complex than, "I just think the other stuff is hooey." Afterall, I would hope you stated your belief in such a way on a heavily religious forum as a way to state, discuss, and defend your belief, rather than to just try to jerk the chains of the posters here for fun.

Zobeid wrote:What is the basis of ethics in Christianity? "Whatever God wants, we are obligated to do!" That's it? And different sects can't even agree on what God wants, or why. It's an absurdity.

1. If you knew the teachings of the various Christian churches you would find much more agreement than disagreement.
2. Christian ethics is based on the idea that people are made in the image of God and as such share the same basic concepts of right and good.

Zobeid wrote:Frankly, I find the whole "Heaven and Hell" thing vaguely insulting. It's simple sticks and carrots. That's not any basis for ethics.

Heaven is basically eternity in the presence of God while Hell is eternity separated from God. Basically people make that choice themselves.

Zobeid wrote:My theory of ethics is practical. . . The world is a better place for all of us if we try to get along, avoid harming one another, and even possibly try to help one another once in a while. Building is more satisfying than destroying. Honesty is the best policy. Crime doesn't pay.

Who defines crime? There are those who would disagree with you - how can you say your system is better than theirs. The followers of Ayn Rand would say that selfishness is a virtue.

Zobeid wrote:Humans are social creatures. Our shtick is living and working together, and it has mostly served us well. And when that strategy has failed, we've suffered for it -- such as in the many wars (including religious wars) that have caused so much destruction and misery.

I would agree.

Religion is essentially a child-like view of the universe.

Children want to believe that there is justice in the world. That the grown ups make everything right. Religion in essence is adults trying to believe in a higher justice to comfort them that in the end, everything works out. That even if you do evil in this life, in the afterlife there will be justice. That there is a Big Parent Up There that will in the end deal with the naughty boys and girls.

The problem is, from my viewpoint, there isn't a Big Parent Up There that will make everything right. It's up to us. There's no point in being miserable in our lives hoping for an eternity of bliss that isn't there. Instead of patiently waiting to go to Heaven, we need to do our best to make this world we live in a Heaven instead. Instead of hoping for justice in the next world, we need to focus on making justice in this world.

Christianity has elements that I find particularly unpleasant. The concept of Original Sin being one of them, especially with the misogynist undertones laying the blame on women for it. I am not my parents, I fail to see if a pair of ultimate ancestors did something bad, why every generation after that is cursed. That does not fall under any conception of justice that I care to think of, especially when God is supposed to be merciful.

I also find the idea of eternal damnation, a concept in many if not most brands of Christianity to be a concept of ultimate sadism and pointlessness. Is there no possibility for redemption in the afterlife? Why is choice only given to those who live? Why wouldn't a truly merciful God allow those in Hell a chance to repent? Saying that those in Hell are incapable of repentance begs the question of why those in life are. According to my understanding of Christianity, the flesh is less important than the soul, so why should whether or not the flesh is dead or alive make a difference in the soul's ability to repent and choose God?

Christianity strikes me as a set of virtues linked to a set of prejudices and a believe that there is a Big Parent Up There who will mete out "justice" according to the prejudices of the religion, with those who disagree with the followers of the religion, suffering for all eternity, billions upon trillions upon infinity of years of terrible torture.

I prefer the reincarnation faiths. At least those make some sense. You don't get punished forever, just a lifetime. Admittedly, there are other issues with that one, including the "justice in the next life, not in this one" syndrome but it makes a lot more sense than the concept of eternal damnation.

[quote="shyal_malkes"][/quote]

Actually, I failed to complete that post because I was heading out the door for work. *shrug* Looks like someone else took care of it for me.

But... by saying we shouldn't practice homosexuality, you are saying, in effect, we should prohibit homosexuality.

As for the arts thing, I threw that in, because they are a sink of time of a worker who could be doing something useful, like shoveling manure, and wastes time of other people who also could be doing useful shoveling of manure. They don't lend itself to a production of anything but a waste of time and effort...

...taken from the viewpoint of things that are a 'waste of time and unproductive', that is. I, for one, am glad that Ralph, Mookie, Alan Ecker, Greg Dean, and a countless host of others are doing something unproductive and not shoveling manure (despite people's claims otherwise...)

Now, I'm not saying that practicing homosexuality is the exact same as producing art and comics, I'm just using that to show the other side of the sword that shyal is using.

I'm going to Godwin myself. Nazi. There. That's done, lets not talk about that again, shall we? I'm not going to make any references.

Stalinism, on the other hand... well, I can see how they might react.

As for religion... Yes. All religion is, is the idea that there are higher beings. Most religions have some sort of judge, someone that everyone, low and high, answers to. The idea that in the end, everything balances out, is a prevailent idea.

But... do I want to squash this? Hell no. The universe is an uncaring, unfeeling, unknowing elemental force that isn't so much out to get us, so much as it doesn't even notice that we exist. But do I want to think that? Could I really get through the day knowing that, compared to the universe, I am nothing?

Religion isn't the side effect of some sort of pink pill that humans take to counteract that feeling; its a side effect of being human. There is no justice in the universe... aside from what we create. There is no honor in nature, aside from what we ascribe to it. There is no beauty in the cosmos, aside from what we decide it to be.

Now, I may come across as a hater of religion. I'm not. I think religion is fine and dandy, in its proper place. In single-religion countries, or countries were 99.999% of the people are one religion, then yes - a state religion makes sense. Not in the US.

I'm very Pratchettian.

Bengaley wrote:
But... by saying we shouldn't practice homosexuality, you are saying, in effect, we should prohibit homosexuality.

no, no I am not, from my point of view there is a large difference between prohibiting something and voluntarily not doing it. going around covered in banana pudding isn't prohibited and yet you don't see that practiced everywhere you go do you?

Bengaley wrote:
As for the arts thing, I threw that in, because they are a sink of time of a worker who could be doing something useful, like shoveling manure, and wastes time of other people who also could be doing useful shoveling of manure. They don't lend itself to a production of anything but a waste of time and effort...

...taken from the viewpoint of things that are a 'waste of time and unproductive', that is. I, for one, am glad that Ralph, Mookie, Alan Ecker, Greg Dean, and a countless host of others are doing something unproductive and not shoveling manure (despite people's claims otherwise...)

meaning that you view the arts as a waste of time (otherwise I cannot see you as using this as an argumentative point, either defend with what you believe in or don't use it as a point (it's hypocritical to use a point from someone you disagree with)

Bengaley wrote:
Now, I'm not saying that practicing homosexuality is the exact same as producing art and comics, I'm just using that to show the other side of the sword that shyal is using.

if there is another side I still fail to see it, to me it is still quite single edged. unless you truely do not believe in the power of the mind, nor in the power of creativity. (which I remind you is the force behind discovery usually, how else do we come up with new designs and ideas without creativity) (and as an anti mundane tool, arts and even comics can be anything but a waste of time so just admit it already)

Bengaley wrote: I'm going to Godwin myself. Nazi. There. That's done, lets not talk about that again, shall we? I'm not going to make any references.

I do not understand your point here, who/what is Godwin, what has it to do with Nazi's, what the blazes are you talking about?!

Bengaley wrote: Stalinism, on the other hand... well, I can see how they might react.

being the ingorant savage that I am I have barely heard of stalin (except that he had something to do with the WW2 era) so I don't understand your point here either. sorry.

Bengaley wrote: As for religion... Yes. All religion is, is the idea that there are higher beings.

for a general statement I can find this agreeable, even if for no other reason then for the sake of argument but again I can find this agreeable.

Bengaley wrote: Most religions have some sort of judge, someone that everyone, low and high, answers to. The idea that in the end, everything balances out, is a prevailent idea.

again for a general statement I could agree with it. though I personally classify even athiesm as a form of religeon (otherwise we wouldn't count the number 0 as a number) but that is probably just me. but my point here is that with all the religions there may be one or two to which your statement does not apply so, you know just be carefull.

Bengaley wrote: But... do I want to squash this? Hell no. The universe is an uncaring, unfeeling, unknowing elemental force that isn't so much out to get us, so much as it doesn't even notice that we exist. But do I want to think that? Could I really get through the day knowing that, compared to the universe, I am nothing?

Religion isn't the side effect of some sort of pink pill that humans take to counteract that feeling; its a side effect of being human. There is no justice in the universe... aside from what we create. There is no honor in nature, aside from what we ascribe to it. There is no beauty in the cosmos, aside from what we decide it to be.

here is the ultimate question about religeon, and it has not been answered for the masses in any argument I have heard : is there nothing and we merely assign something to it? (ie, no beauty except what we call beautifull) or, is there always something except where we say there is nothing? (ie, it's actually all beautifull we just aren't looking at it right.)

Bengaley wrote: Now, I may come across as a hater of religion. I'm not. I think religion is fine and dandy, in its proper place. In single-religion countries, or countries were 99.999% of the people are one religion, then yes - a state religion makes sense. Not in the US.

I'm very Pratchettian.

what's a Pratchettian?


here's my basics of belief.

there is a God,

there is man,

God has not revoked man's agency to govern himself (this I believe accounts for 90% of all the bad stuff that happens to everyone)

God created the laws of time, space, physics, and everything else I haven't got time to list

God voluntarily follows these laws he created.

man, from his beginning has been discovering these laws.

man, since discovering a few laws has constantly assumed to know all the laws.

upon this assumption man has also assumed that there was nothing more to learn or to surprise him.

man has been afflicted with a number of ailments, greed (wanting everything for himself), pride (less the belief in his own superiority and more the belief in someone else's inferiority),

there are a lot of other details but I don't want to bore anyone with doctrine or such. but let me say this...

if I believed in a bleak existance (See my earlier post on atheism) I would probably give up and feel like all laws were arbitrary anyway so it didn't matter in the end weather I followed them or not. I might try something drastic (to other people, but since it doesn't matter anyway then theoretically there is no such thing as drastic, now is there)

Bengaley wrote:
But... by saying we shouldn't practice homosexuality, you are saying, in effect, we should prohibit homosexuality.

no, no I am not, from my point of view there is a large difference between prohibiting something and voluntarily not doing it. going around covered in banana pudding isn't prohibited and yet you don't see that practiced everywhere you go do you?

Bengaley wrote:
As for the arts thing, I threw that in, because they are a sink of time of a worker who could be doing something useful, like shoveling manure, and wastes time of other people who also could be doing useful shoveling of manure. They don't lend itself to a production of anything but a waste of time and effort...

...taken from the viewpoint of things that are a 'waste of time and unproductive', that is. I, for one, am glad that Ralph, Mookie, Alan Ecker, Greg Dean, and a countless host of others are doing something unproductive and not shoveling manure (despite people's claims otherwise...)

meaning that you view the arts as a waste of time (otherwise I cannot see you as using this as an argumentative point, either defend with what you believe in or don't use it as a point (it's hypocritical to use a point from someone you disagree with)

Bengaley wrote:
Now, I'm not saying that practicing homosexuality is the exact same as producing art and comics, I'm just using that to show the other side of the sword that shyal is using.

if there is another side I still fail to see it, to me it is still quite single edged. unless you truely do not believe in the power of the mind, nor in the power of creativity. (which I remind you is the force behind discovery usually, how else do we come up with new designs and ideas without creativity) (and as an anti mundane tool, arts and even comics can be anything but a waste of time so just admit it already)

Bengaley wrote: I'm going to Godwin myself. Nazi. There. That's done, lets not talk about that again, shall we? I'm not going to make any references.

I do not understand your point here, who/what is Godwin, what has it to do with Nazi's, what the blazes are you talking about?!

Bengaley wrote: Stalinism, on the other hand... well, I can see how they might react.

being the ingorant savage that I am I have barely heard of stalin (except that he had something to do with the WW2 era) so I don't understand your point here either. sorry.

Bengaley wrote: As for religion... Yes. All religion is, is the idea that there are higher beings.

for a general statement I can find this agreeable, even if for no other reason then for the sake of argument but again I can find this agreeable.

Bengaley wrote: Most religions have some sort of judge, someone that everyone, low and high, answers to. The idea that in the end, everything balances out, is a prevailent idea.

again for a general statement I could agree with it. though I personally classify even athiesm as a form of religeon (otherwise we wouldn't count the number 0 as a number) but that is probably just me. but my point here is that with all the religions there may be one or two to which your statement does not apply so, you know just be carefull.

Bengaley wrote: But... do I want to squash this? Hell no. The universe is an uncaring, unfeeling, unknowing elemental force that isn't so much out to get us, so much as it doesn't even notice that we exist. But do I want to think that? Could I really get through the day knowing that, compared to the universe, I am nothing?

Religion isn't the side effect of some sort of pink pill that humans take to counteract that feeling; its a side effect of being human. There is no justice in the universe... aside from what we create. There is no honor in nature, aside from what we ascribe to it. There is no beauty in the cosmos, aside from what we decide it to be.

here is the ultimate question about religeon, and it has not been answered for the masses in any argument I have heard : is there nothing and we merely assign something to it? (ie, no beauty except what we call beautifull) or, is there always something except where we say there is nothing? (ie, it's actually all beautifull we just aren't looking at it right.)

Bengaley wrote: Now, I may come across as a hater of religion. I'm not. I think religion is fine and dandy, in its proper place. In single-religion countries, or countries were 99.999% of the people are one religion, then yes - a state religion makes sense. Not in the US.

I'm very Pratchettian.

what's a Pratchettian?


here's my basics of belief.

there is a God,

there is man,

God has not revoked man's agency to govern himself (this I believe accounts for 90% of all the bad stuff that happens to everyone)

God created the laws of time, space, physics, and everything else I haven't got time to list

God voluntarily follows these laws he created.

man, from his beginning has been discovering these laws.

man, since discovering a few laws has constantly assumed to know all the laws.

upon this assumption man has also assumed that there was nothing more to learn or to surprise him.

man has been afflicted with a number of ailments, greed (wanting everything for himself), pride (less the belief in his own superiority and more the belief in someone else's inferiority),

there are a lot of other details but I don't want to bore anyone with doctrine or such. but let me say this...

if I believed in a bleak existance (See my earlier post on atheism) I would probably give up and feel like all laws were arbitrary anyway so it didn't matter in the end weather I followed them or not. I might try something drastic (to other people, but since it doesn't matter anyway then theoretically there is no such thing as drastic, now is there)

Narnian wrote:1. If you knew the teachings of the various Christian churches you would find much more agreement than disagreement.

And what about the other religions? Some Jews believe God has forbidden them from writing down anything permanent on the sabbath. Some Muslims believe God doesn't want them to create any images of Muhammed. Not to mention all the things they are forbidden from eating. So who is right? Does God want us to eat pork or not?

2. Christian ethics is based on the idea that people are made in the image of God and as such share the same basic concepts of right and good.

That raises an interesting point. If we follow this logic. . .

1. God is Good.
2. Therefore, God wants what is best for us. (Seems like a pretty fair definition of 'good' to me.)
3. Because He wants what is best for us, He gave us a code of ethics which should bring about relative harmony and peace, if we follow it.

The problem with this logic is, it works just as well and is simpler if you take God out of the chain of events. If the code of ethics is good for us, then we could have figured it out for ourselves, and it makes sense to follow it even if it wasn't handed down from on high.

Who defines crime?

Who indeed? Last time I check, it was the legislature. Who do you think should define crime? The Taliban?

They made it illegal to fly a kite in Afghanistan. Reason being, it was a considered a waste of time that could otherwise have been spent in productive prayer.

Trump wrote:Zobeid, perhaps you should present an actual reason as to why you think religeon is folly. What is the actual reason that you think the world would be better off without any form of organized religeon? In exceedingly plain and simple terms (as simple as one can get without insulting another person's intelligence).

Not sure how well I can sum this up in a few sentences, but I'll try. . .

First, consider the multitude of religions the world has known. Consider Zeus and Jupiter, Odin and Amun, Marduk and Shiva. . . Consider Shinto, Hinduism, and so forth. . . Consider a thousand different religions with wildly varying beliefs, all dead set that they have the true answers to life, the universe and everything!

They can't all be right. Logically, the vast majority of them have to be wrong. From there it's only a small step further to assume they are all wrong.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 1000 times, shame on me!

If anyone really and truly does have a cosmic hotline to the Truth, they've also got to show extraordinary evidence to prove it -- just to overcome the natural skepticism planted by 1000 vanished myths of the past.

Why should I believe in Jesus any more than I should believe in Athena, or Bast, or Huitzilopochtli, or Santa Claus? I haven't seen any convincing reason yet.

shyal_malkes wrote:if I have to make a choice between being wrong but enjoying my life thinking that I'm right and believing that no matter what I do it won't change how things will end up anyway (screwed as you put it) I think I'd choose to be wrong but enjoy it anyway. just to not believe in something totally bleak.

I just don't see the "totally bleak" outcome that bothers you so much. So the universe is going to end someday. . . Is that so bad? It's billions of years in the future. There is plenty of time for our civilization (and millions of others) to achieve anything and everything that we could ever possibly dream of.

In fact, if I were not an atheist, I might be tempted to use this as an example of God's infinite mercy.

Personally, I find far more depressing the evangelicals who believe we live in the "end times" and that Judgement Day is right around the corner. Our adventure in this world has barely begun, I don't want to see it cut short so soon.

and nobody has managed to disprove it's inevitability yet. (without putting God into the picture)

Well, there's another point. We don't know for sure that the universe is going to end at all. The currently popular view among cosmologists is that entropy will cause everything to wind down eventually, but they don't know for sure. There are still supporters of the steady state hypothesis. I was just reading about a new hypothesis that Big Bangs may recur on regular intervals, creating one universe after another.

This is a subject cosmologists argue over -- a lot!

Zobeid wrote:And what about the other religions? Some Jews believe God has forbidden them from writing down anything permanent on the sabbath. Some Muslims believe God doesn't want them to create any images of Muhammed. Not to mention all the things they are forbidden from eating. So who is right? Does God want us to eat pork or not?

That is the journey, to find the truth. Is there a God and what is this being like? What is our relationship with this being? How should we then live in light of this knowledge? Just because people disagree doesn't mean they are all wrong. Look at the history of atheism and you will find as many diagreements over ethics and morals as within religion - that is part of human nature - we look to ourselves as the ultimate authority and want that to be the norm for everybody.

Zobeid wrote:That raises an interesting point. If we follow this logic. . .

1. God is Good.
2. Therefore, God wants what is best for us. (Seems like a pretty fair definition of 'good' to me.)
3. Because He wants what is best for us, He gave us a code of ethics which should bring about relative harmony and peace, if we follow it.

The problem with this logic is, it works just as well and is simpler if you take God out of the chain of events. If the code of ethics is good for us, then we could have figured it out for ourselves, and it makes sense to follow it even if it wasn't handed down from on high.

If you take God out of the chain then it falls apart - you have no starting point, no first cause. In fact you mentioned God diectly or indirecly in each step so taking God out literally leaves nothing. If it didn't come from an outside source then the highest cout of appeal you have is the individual himself - then who has what right to tell anyone anything about their ethics or behaviour?

Zobeid wrote:

Who defines crime?

Who indeed? Last time I check, it was the legislature. Who do you think should define crime? The Taliban?

They made it illegal to fly a kite in Afghanistan. Reason being, it was a considered a waste of time that could otherwise have been spent in productive prayer.

I read The Kit Runner too - excellent book. I have a neighbor who grew up in Pakistan and confirmed the accuracy of the descriptions in the story.

From your logic the Taliban has as much authority as our government. Upon what basis can you say they are wrong? I have a foundation I can argue with them but to what can you appeal as having a higher authority than them?

Without God ethics and law essentially become whatever who has the biggest gun says it is.