Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Threat of Atheism

Options
1…457910

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    blinding
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,466 ✭✭✭blinding


    Athiests seem less likely to form a gang(religion) and go off and kill some other gang(religion) that does not believe in the same makky uppy god as them.
    Historically there is ample evidence of different religions trying to convince themselves that their makky uppy god is real by forcing other people to convert or die.
    A lot of this is from their own lack of belief and the need of converts or even their religion doing powerful things to strenghten their own belief.

    History shows us to be wary of religion as it often does perverse things in trying to cope with its own lack of genunine faith.


  • Options
    #183
    Matt Holck
    Registered Users Posts: 9,706 ✭✭✭Matt Holck


    It's not a threat
    humans must learn to respect each other as humans


  • Options
    #184
    smidgy
    Registered Users Posts: 122 ✭✭smidgy


    Ok
    Im not quite sure how to address the previous 13 pages but ill try to give some response and thank you for taking time to respond to my initial post. Some of you may have considered the original post as a 'troll' or that it was somehow insincere- let me tell you that it was most definitely not.

    As long as there are stones people will throw them at each other, knives they will stab each other and guns they will kill each other. Religion has been abused in the past by people (and not the other way round). The problem has always been people and not the writings about Christ. You can not blame the goodness in the bible for its being abused, twisted and warped. People will use whatever means necessary to usurp and exercise power, that does not mean the tool itself is inherently destructive or evil. If you look around at society today it is definitely in need of adopting and believing in some moral code that has withstood the ages. You see the danger to society is not in a group of people that believe that God is love, the danger is in atheists deciding whether love is a principle they wish to live by, whether they rate love as a worthwhile and aspiring ideal. Christianity is a constructive force in society, it binds people. teaches people to love and get along with their neighbour, atheism on the other hand with its enhanced 'moral' freedom is more destructive to society because people will say 'I dont have to love my neighbour, I don’t have to love anyone, and that’s ok'. Can you not see the outcome from a society that adopts that perspective?

    On my other point, mentioning abortion.

    The pro-choice movement in society most certainly does not have a Christian backing. It is absurd to deny that the majority of atheists are not backing this position. Also to highlight the atheists weak (self accommodating) morals, they look at an unborn child and have to decide whether the entity is alive or not. It is moral to give the benefit of doubt to the entity assuming that it is alive and to keep it alive than to assume its not alive and then progress to make sure that is the case, but more often than not atheists just decide on their own moral position. (I understand there may be many exceptions but I need to highlight the fragility of people establishing their own moral code)


  • Options
    #185
    Thomas_S_Hunterson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,151 ✭✭✭Thomas_S_Hunterson


    So your concern is not about truth? Just about keeping people well behave and quiet?

    "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
    Stephen F. Roberts


  • Options
    #186
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    smidgy wrote: »
    Ok
    Im not quite sure how to address the previous 13 pages but ill try to give some response and thank you for taking time to respond to my initial post. Some of you may have considered the original post as a 'troll' or that it was somehow insincere- let me tell you that it was most definitely not.

    As long as there are stones people will throw them at each other, knives they will stab each other and guns they will kill each other. Religion has been abused in the past by people (and not the other way round). The problem has always been people and not the writings about Christ. You can not blame the goodness in the bible for its being abused, twisted and warped. People will use whatever means necessary to usurp and exercise power, that does not mean the tool itself is inherently destructive or evil. If you look around at society today it is definitely in need of adopting and believing in some moral code that has withstood the ages. You see the danger to society is not in a group of people that believe that God is love, the danger is in atheists deciding whether love is a principle they wish to live by, whether they rate love as a worthwhile and aspiring ideal. Christianity is a constructive force in society, it binds people. teaches people to love and get along with their neighbour, atheism on the other hand with its enhanced 'moral' freedom is more destructive to society because people will say 'I dont have to love my neighbour, I don’t have to love anyone, and that’s ok'. Can you not see the outcome from a society that adopts that perspective?

    On my other point, mentioning abortion.

    The pro-choice movement in society most certainly does not have a Christian backing. It is absurd to deny that the majority of atheists are not backing this position. Also to highlight the atheists weak (self accommodating) morals, they look at an unborn child and have to decide whether the entity is alive or not. It is moral to give the benefit of doubt to the entity assuming that it is alive and to keep it alive than to assume its not alive and then progress to make sure that is the case, but more often than not atheists just decide on their own moral position. (I understand there may be many exceptions but I need to highlight the fragility of people establishing their own moral code)
    Dude Atheism doesn't imply any of that.
    It just mean a lack of a belief in Gods.

    There might be an atheist who does everything you claim,and there might be an atheist who agrees with every single one of your morals.
    Atheism isn't a belief system, it's one stance on one subject.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    mewso
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 8,884 Mod ✭✭✭✭mewso


    smidgy wrote: »
    As long as there are stones people will throw them at each other, knives they will stab each other and guns they will kill each other. Religion has been abused in the past by people (and not the other way round). The problem has always been people and not the writings about Christ.

    Thats a terrible acceptance of the way humanity will behave when they see a stone. You are excusing religion and blaming the people who abuse it when religion was created by these same people.
    smidgy wrote: »
    You can not blame the goodness in the bible for its being abused, twisted and warped. People will use whatever means necessary to usurp and exercise power, that does not mean the tool itself is inherently destructive or evil.

    Would you like to explain the death and destruction God reigns down on people in the bible? Are people ignoring this or adhering to it when they get their hands on this tool.
    smidgy wrote: »
    If you look around at society today it is definitely in need of adopting and believing in some moral code that has withstood the ages. You see the danger to society is not in a group of people that believe that God is love, the danger is in atheists deciding whether love is a principle they wish to live by, whether they rate love as a worthwhile and aspiring ideal.

    God is love? Except when he is sending people to burn in hell I suppose. Love is a natural instinct. You'll see it in animals protecting their young. They haven't read any books let alone a work of fiction from 2000 years ago. You mistakenly think Christians have some kind of copyright on Love. Would you hate your parents without God? Would you never meet someone you want to spend your life with without God? Would you hate any children you have without God?
    smidgy wrote: »
    Christianity is a constructive force in society, it binds people. teaches people to love and get along with their neighbour, atheism on the other hand with its enhanced 'moral' freedom is more destructive to society because people will say 'I dont have to love my neighbour, I don’t have to love anyone, and that’s ok'. Can you not see the outcome from a society that adopts that perspective?

    A Man Utd. supporters club binds people together. Atheism is not a belief system. It is not a religion. I chose not to believe in God. I also chose to have respect for my fellow man because to me it makes sense. If I decide that I need to hate my neighbour I need to see a shrink not find God. Your idea of what it means to be an Atheist is seriously flawed and if you continue to believe that an Atheist society means an uncaring society then there is zero chance of a constructive discussion here. I learnt love and respect from my parents and living/working/meeting other good people who set the right example not from a book.
    smidgy wrote: »
    The pro-choice movement in society most certainly does not have a Christian backing. It is absurd to deny that the majority of atheists are not backing this position. Also to highlight the atheists weak (self accommodating) morals, they look at an unborn child and have to decide whether the entity is alive or not. It is moral to give the benefit of doubt to the entity assuming that it is alive and to keep it alive than to assume its not alive and then progress to make sure that is the case, but more often than not atheists just decide on their own moral position. (I understand there may be many exceptions but I need to highlight the fragility of people establishing their own moral code)

    I would recommend you discuss abortion elsewhere. It's a subject for another thread. It's an insult to use it here. You think Atheists have a different moral code and only Atheists are pro-choice. Thats just wrong. I think Abortion is a discussion beyond religion. It's a difficult discussion and you'll find many Atheists are not pro-choice and as such the same arguments on this issue would probably be going in a non-religious society. The idea of protecting life is not exclusive to religion. You seem to think it is but it's not.

    I will say that Catholicism, a religion that preaches love, is telling South Africans not to use contraception which is putting living people's lives in direct danger. It's not something you want to address obviously.

    Finally how about loving your neighbours? Your Atheist neighbours. Stop misrepresenting them with some misguided and unfounded impression you have of the way they might chose to live their lives.


  • Options
    #188
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Legitimate divine punishment does not make God a bad person, it makes Him just.


  • Options
    #189
    Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,132 ✭✭✭Dinner


    smidgy wrote: »
    As long as there are stones people will throw them at each other, knives they will stab each other and guns they will kill each other. Religion has been abused in the past by people (and not the other way round). The problem has always been people and not the writings about Christ. You can not blame the goodness in the bible for its being abused, twisted and warped. People will use whatever means necessary to usurp and exercise power, that does not mean the tool itself is inherently destructive or evil.

    So the bible gets to take credit for all the good things, yet when something bad happens it gets blamed on people? I'm sick and tired of that arseways logic.
    smidgy wrote: »
    If you look around at society today it is definitely in need of adopting and believing in some moral code that has withstood the ages.

    We are living in by far the most peaceful and safe time since humans started walking this planet. The only thing that has changed is because of the news we hear about it more. That's it. There is no big eruption in violence or rape that correlates to a decline in church visits.
    smidgy wrote: »
    You see the danger to society is not in a group of people that believe that God is love,


    You're right, that is not the danger. The danger is when people use god as a tool to segregate people, as means to justify murder and as a reason to bring misery to people. Which is what happens everyday. All you have to do is look at the middle east. If there was no religion, then there would be one less reason to fight. Remove the tool, remove a problem.


    As a matter of interest, is religion the only thing from stopping you from going on a murderous rampage? If you stopped believing in good would you abandon your morals too.


  • Options
    #190
    mewso
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 8,884 Mod ✭✭✭✭mewso


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Legitimate divine punishment does not make God a bad person, it makes Him just.

    See we have a slight problem in discussions between Atheists and Religious people. We don't believe the book is the word of God. You do. So we tend to end up on a merry-go-round where we try to make a rational argument and you quote or refer to a book. And the book is the word of God because?...it says so.


  • Options
    #191
    ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI
    Closed Accounts Posts: 760 ✭✭✭ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Legitimate divine punishment does not make God a bad person, it makes Him just.

    "Legitimate Divine Punishment"

    "makes him just" (sorry, I'm not going to capitalise 'him', it looks tacky and stupid.)

    Are you actually for real? If you look through the Bible, assuming God exists (which he doesn't) he's one of the biggest ***** to have ever existed, smitings and jealousy and if you don't follow every single one of my insipid moral rules I'm condemning you to an eternity of pain etc. etc. etc.

    It boggles the mind that you could actually worship this guy, the only real reason to do so is out of fear.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    mewso
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 8,884 Mod ✭✭✭✭mewso


    O.k. heres an explanation of where we get our morality. Only 2 minutes long.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5J4vZTxYEI


  • Options
    #193
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    musician: You're missing the point.

    People are discussing God's character on this thread (which I think it's a bit weird for an atheist to do), the only way to discuss this is to assume His existence. Rather straight forward no?

    Therefore my means of discussion is entirely appropriate.

    ZWEI VIER ZWEI: Yes, I am for real. God has authority over this world in my belief. Therefore He has the right to punish you for your sins and His punishment was entirely just. He created life and He has the right to take it away and only He has this right. The Israelites violated His law, they were invaded by the Assyrians, the Judeans violated His law, they were invaded by the Babylonians. God waited entire generations in those cases. He warned them through prophets. They are without excuse, just as people will be on the Day of Judgement.


  • Options
    #194
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    smidgy, I don't see how you can blame atheism for the ills of the world, when the majority of the planet believe in some sort of deity.

    World_religions_pie_chart.png

    The world's problems are not with the 2.32% of atheists in the world but with the religious who all supposedly have a valid prescribed moral code, but choose to ignore it.

    In a nutshell, people will live the way they choose, whether or not they believe in a god. There are good Christians, bad Christians; good atheists and bad atheists but none of them are the sole product of their belief - they are just who they are.

    btw, In some forums you might have expected a reprimand, but I've chosen to ignore some of the more insulting generalisations in your second post as they are clearly borne of ignorance. It remains to be seen if you will learn anything from the responses you get here.


  • Options
    #195
    ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI
    Closed Accounts Posts: 760 ✭✭✭ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI


    Jakkass wrote: »
    People are discussing God's character on this thread (which I think it's a bit weird for an atheist to do), the only way to discuss this is to assume His existence. Rather straight forward no?
    We could discuss Harry Potter's character without assuming his existence.

    Jakkass wrote: »
    ZWEI VIER ZWEI: Yes, I am for real. God has authority over this world in my belief. Therefore He has the right to punish you for your sins and His punishment was entirely just. He created life and He has the right to take it away and only He has this right.

    In a sense, my parents created my life. Do they have the right to take away my life because I break one of their laws, like slamming a door? Obviously not. And in defense of my parents, at least a law like that has some reasoning behind it, unlike your god's ****ty laws.

    So why should your god have any authority over me, just because he created me? I don't think that gives the ****er carte blanche to do whatever he wants. Good luck with your life jumping through hoops to please the petty **** though. The biblical god reminds me of Queenie from Blackadder II.


    (Before pedants hop in, I'm not suffixing every statement with "assuming he exists", because it would make my argument tedious to write, and tedious to read.)


  • Options
    #196
    mewso
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 8,884 Mod ✭✭✭✭mewso


    Jakkass wrote: »
    musician: You're missing the point.

    People are discussing God's character on this thread (which I think it's a bit weird for an atheist to do), the only way to discuss this is to assume His existence. Rather straight forward no?

    Therefore my means of discussion is entirely appropriate.

    Sorry Jakkass no we don't have to assume his existence just to address the way he is described in the bible. I'm not denying the existence of the bible just the events contained within. I could have a discussion about Robin Hood if you like. There are enough books about him to talk about the character described in these books.

    The question posed in this thread is how could society function without a moral code, a moral code given to us by the "word of God" as contained in the bible. There is a fear from the OP that an Atheist society would have no moral code. I was making an observation about the unfortunate merry-go-round that ensues when one side quotes a book to the side that doesn't believe the book is the word of God or that there is a God at all.

    I just think it's a pity we can't discuss things without someone posting the veritable full-stop that is scripture.


  • Options
    #197
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    musician wrote: »
    I just think it's a pity we can't discuss things without someone posting the veritable full-stop that is scripture.
    I agree. Don't you have enough battles going on here Jakkass? ;)


  • Options
    #198
    Overblood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Legitimate divine punishment does not make God a bad person, it makes Him just.

    ****.

    Is it just to murder children?


  • Options
    #199
    kiffer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    Overblood wrote: »
    ****.

    Is it just to murder children?

    Are these evil children we're talking about? Or just the tasty kind?


  • Options
    #200
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Dades wrote: »
    I agree. Don't you have enough battles going on here Jakkass? ;)

    In fairness Dades, if I am asked to clarify Scriptural references from other users, you should ask them to stop if you don't want the Bible being quoted in this forum.

    Same with musician, deal with the root cause if you don't want me to explain any Biblical references in here.

    I don't aim for battles I aim for fair discussion.


  • Options
    #201
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Jackass'post count has 666 in it :pac:
    (yeah I'm immature)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    mewso
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 8,884 Mod ✭✭✭✭mewso


    Jakkass wrote: »
    In fairness Dades, if I am asked to clarify Scriptural references from other users, you should ask them to stop if you don't want the Bible being quoted in this forum.

    Same with musician, deal with the root cause if you don't want me to explain any Biblical references in here.

    I don't aim for battles I aim for fair discussion.

    Nothing wrong with clarifying scriptural references but quoting it to answer an argument is what I'm talking about. Maybe I misunderstood your line "Legitimate divine punishment does not make God a bad person, it makes Him just." If you were clarifying an earlier question fair enough.


  • Options
    #203
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    musician wrote: »
    Nothing wrong with clarifying scriptural references but quoting it to answer an argument is what I'm talking about. Maybe I misunderstood your line "Legitimate divine punishment does not make God a bad person, it makes Him just." If you were clarifying an earlier question fair enough.

    Christianity is based on the Bible. If you are going to discuss it you should expect Biblical reference. Particularly if you are going to discuss God's character. The Bible is the main way we can know this. So apologies, but if you are going to speak about Christianity, expect this.


  • Options
    #204
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    smidgy wrote: »
    Christianity is a constructive force in society, it binds people.

    Unless you're gay, a woman, non-religious or a different religion.

    You can say how you'd like things to be til the cows come home, but the fact remains that Christianity to this day is a massive source of discrimination and divisiveness.
    atheism on the other hand with its enhanced 'moral' freedom is more destructive to society because people will say 'I dont have to love my neighbour, I don’t have to love anyone, and that’s ok'. Can you not see the outcome from a society that adopts that perspective?

    Yes, we can see the outcome. That article uses UN sources to analyse the correlation between rates of atheism in a society and compares it to dozens of other factors such as infant mortality, income per capita, literacy rates, crime etc and it shows that consistently the less religious a society is, the higher the quality of life. Scandinavia has the most utopian nations in the world and are barely religious at all. (Original thread is here)

    The crucial error that you are making is that you fail to realise that just because someone realises they do not have to be a good person does not mean that they will not be a good person. The point at which we generally consider a child to have grown up is the point at which they start doing things that they ought to because they know it's the right thing to do, rather than having to be told to do it. You still need God to tell you what to do apparently.

    Atheists are perfectly capable of choosing to be good people even though they don't believe they have to be.

    You can make all the ignorant predictions you like about the consequences of atheism but you simply contradict the facts.
    The pro-choice movement in society most certainly does not have a Christian backing. It is absurd to deny that the majority of atheists are not backing this position. Also to highlight the atheists weak (self accommodating) morals, they look at an unborn child and have to decide whether the entity is alive or not. It is moral to give the benefit of doubt to the entity assuming that it is alive and to keep it alive than to assume its not alive and then progress to make sure that is the case, but more often than not atheists just decide on their own moral position. (I understand there may be many exceptions but I need to highlight the fragility of people establishing their own moral code)

    I think forbidding abortion is immoral. Let me explain why with a metaphor:

    You wake up one day to find that another human being has been surgically attached to you so that their blood is being filtered by your kidneys and liver. They gain nourishment from the food you eat and your lungs supply their oxygen needs. I think it is deeply immoral to demand that you remain in such a state even though the other person is most certainly a living being. You have the right to control your body, and you have the right to refuse to allow another person to use it in such a fashion, even if it means their death.

    We do not have the right to force a woman to allow another creature to grow inside her.


  • Options
    #205
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Zillah wrote: »
    Unless you're gay, a woman, non-religious or a different religion.

    All these people are welcomed to come and believe in Christ. Women have had a role in Christianity from the start. Non-religious have rejected Christianity due to their own free will. Homosexuals have also been welcomed to be a part of the church.
    Zillah wrote: »
    You can say how you'd like things to be til the cows come home, but the fact remains that Christianity to this day is a massive source of discrimination and divisiveness.

    He's pretty much correct. Christianity has encouraged a lot of unity in the world.
    Zillah wrote: »
    Yes, we can see the outcome. That article uses UN sources to analyse the correlation between rates of atheism in a society and compares it to dozens of other factors such as infant mortality, income per capita, literacy rates, crime etc and it shows that consistently the less religious a society is, the higher the quality of life. Scandinavia has the most utopian nations in the world and are barely religious at all. (Original thread is here)

    Nonsense. There are also reports which show that people who go to church on a regular basis live longer, and people who are a part of an active church community are less likely to be depressed or commit suicide. There are real tangible benefits to religion to adherents.
    Zillah wrote: »
    The crucial error that you are making is that you fail to realise that just because someone realises they do not have to be a good person does not mean that they will not be a good person. The point at which we generally consider a child to have grown up is the point at which they start doing things that they ought to because they know it's the right thing to do, rather than having to be told to do it. You still need God to tell you what to do apparently.

    I see a good person as something radically different to what you see as a good person. Hence why I think it's really a non-point to discuss because we will be in continual contradiction about it. I believe one can only be truly good if they have their sins forgiven by Jesus Christ and come to faith in God.
    Zillah wrote: »
    Atheists are perfectly capable of choosing to be good people even though they don't believe they have to be.

    Whose standard of good?
    Zillah wrote: »
    You can make all the ignorant predictions you like about the consequences of atheism but you simply contradict the facts.

    Good point. I'd like you to remember this when you speak about Christianity too.
    Zillah wrote: »
    I think forbidding abortion is immoral. Let me explain why with a metaphor:

    You wake up one day to find that another human being has been surgically attached to you so that their blood is being filtered by your kidneys and liver. They gain nourishment from the food you eat and your lungs supply their oxygen needs. I think it is deeply immoral to demand that you remain in such a state even though the other person is most certainly a living being. You have the right to control your body, and you have the right to refuse to allow another person to use it in such a fashion, even if it means their death.

    We do not have the right to force a woman to allow another creature to grow inside her.

    No they don't have the right to. Just because a child is dependent on you doesn't mean you have the right to kill it. Children are dependent for their parents outside the womb as well as inside. Your argument can be argued equally in this respect.

    Check out the abortion thread in AH however, theres been a lot of clarification of points like these.

    We don't have the right to kill the unborn. That's my stance on it anyway.


  • Options
    #206
    Matt Holck
    Registered Users Posts: 9,706 ✭✭✭Matt Holck


    ...


  • Options
    #207
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Jakkass wrote: »
    All these people are welcomed to come and believe in Christ. Women have had a role in Christianity from the start. Non-religious have rejected Christianity due to their own free will. Homosexuals have also been welcomed to be a part of the church.

    Oh yes everyone is welcome as long as gay people accept that their love is unnatural and immoral and that they're not allowed to get married, that women aren't allowed to become priests, must make babies and are subservient to their husbands.

    It's all bark, no bite. Christians constantly go on about how great and unifying their religion is, but you'll only be welcomed if you submit and conform, which is not tolerance at all.
    He's pretty much correct. Christianity has encouraged a lot of unity in the world.

    Christianity has encouraged a lot of unity in the world amongst Christians. After all Jakkass, let's be honest, how much unity can Christianity spread when people such as yourself maintain that, by definition, unless you're a Christian you can't be a good person?
    Nonsense. There are also reports which show that people who go to church on a regular basis live longer, and people who are a part of an active church community are less likely to be depressed or commit suicide. There are real tangible benefits to religion to adherents.

    Yes, being actively engaged in life increases quality and duration of life. Church can provide such benefits. What the hell does that have to do with the discussion on whether atheists and atheistic societies are moral?
    Whose standard of good?

    Well for the purposes of the discussion let's define a good person as one who does not murder, rape or steal. According to the statistics, atheistic societies are more good than religious societies.
    No they don't have the right to. Just because a child is dependent on you doesn't mean you have the right to kill it. Children are dependent for their parents outside the womb as well as inside. Your argument can be argued equally in this respect.

    Check out the abortion thread in AH however, theres been a lot of clarification of points like these.

    We don't have the right to kill the unborn. That's my stance on it anyway.

    Jakkass, I have just been hit by a truck. My boyfriend, in desperation, brings my failing body to your house during the night and surgically attaches me to your body so that I am using your body to live just as I have outlined in the metaphor above. Do you have the right to sever the connection, even if it kills me?


  • Options
    #208
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Zillah wrote: »
    Oh yes everyone is welcome as long as gay people accept that their love is unnatural and immoral and that they're not allowed to get married, that women aren't allowed to become priests, must make babies and are subservient to their husbands.

    Problem: Your post isn't based on Christianity in general, but Catholicism. Women can serve in the church in various forms of Christianity.

    Just because Christianity has laws and conditions to follow doesn't mean that it encourages division. Rather people encourage division and I'd be the first in saying that is wrong.
    Zillah wrote: »
    It's all bark, no bite. Christians constantly go on about how great and unifying their religion is, but you'll only be welcomed if you submit and conform, which is not tolerance at all.

    You only join if you want to. That's the idea with every group. There are conditions attached, God wants you to follow His plan for your life. That's fair enough to me.
    Zillah wrote: »
    Christianity has encouraged a lot of unity in the world amongst Christians. After all Jakkass, let's be honest, how much unity can Christianity spread when people such as yourself maintain that, by definition, unless you're a Christian you can't be a good person?

    Nonsense. Christianity has been the focus of a lot of inter-faith groupings and Christianity united many former pagan tribes in England to form a nation. There are records of this continually where Christianity as described in the Biblical text has helped people to form connections with one another.

    I do say that you cannot be a truly good person without God. By truly good I mean that your sins must be atoned for. People can do beneficial or positive things without being truly good.
    Zillah wrote: »
    Yes, being actively engaged in life increases quality and duration of life. Church can provide such benefits. What the hell does that have to do with the discussion on whether atheists and atheistic societies are moral?

    I'm responding to your ludicrous claim that the less religious a society is the better quality of life it has. There are reports to contradict this. It has everything to do with your last post.
    Zillah wrote: »
    Well for the purposes of the discussion let's define a good person as one who does not murder, rape or steal. According to the statistics, atheistic societies are more good than religious societies.

    Nonsense again. Problem is though you won't man up and say that many of these acts did take place in athieistic societies in the 20th century. You impose one standard on Christians and when someone imposes another on you you cower away and get all defensive.

    I'll define good as I please however.
    Zillah wrote: »
    Jakkass, I have just been hit by a truck. My boyfriend, in desperation, brings my failing body to your house during the night and surgically attaches me to your body so that I am using your body to live just as I have outlined in the metaphor above. Do you have the right to sever the connection, even if it kills me?

    You're not comparing like with like.

    An foetus isn't injured, it's doing just fine.
    Foetuses are not surgically attached to the body.
    The foetus isn't using your body to live but rather using it to develop.

    No you shouldn't have the right to abort. The foetus is biologically a human life and as such it should have the same rights conferred to it as with the mother. Where such rights contradict, a compromise needs to be made. That compromise for me would be adoption. I see abortion as nothing more than mere barbarism which is a regression in society.

    There is a decision to be made before pregnancy even begins. People should be more careful, or abstain until they are in a safe position to have a child.

    As for your analogy however. I could keep the connection until you recover and regain health. That would be a good thing to do right? (It's also more relevant to development).


  • Options
    #209
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Problem: Your post isn't based on Christianity in general, but Catholicism. Women can serve in the church in various forms of Christianity.

    Just because Christianity has laws and conditions to follow doesn't mean that it encourages division. Rather people encourage division and I'd be the first in saying that is wrong.

    Let's not quibble over the specific brands of Christianity in relation to women. Through Christian history women have had a subservient position and that has yet to change.
    You only join if you want to. That's the idea with every group. There are conditions attached, God wants you to follow His plan for your life. That's fair enough to me.

    Yes, and if I choose not to join then I'm an immoral person, as you have said yourself. It doesn't unify, it conquers and discriminates.
    Nonsense. Christianity has been the focus of a lot of inter-faith groupings and Christianity united many former pagan tribes in England to form a nation. There are records of this continually where Christianity as described in the Biblical text has helped people to form connections with one another.

    If you consider annihilating the tribal cultures of Europe and replacing them with Christian hegemony as "unifying" then yes, Christianity has been a powerful, relentless unifying force. Like the Mongols.
    I'm responding to your ludicrous claim that the less religious a society is the better quality of life it has. There are reports to contradict this. It has everything to do with your last post.

    It's not my ludicrous claim...it's a simple fact made apparent by the UN Human Development Index. Atheistic societies are more successful. There's less crime, better income levels, higher literacy etc.
    Nonsense again. Problem is though you won't man up and say that many of these acts did take place in athieistic societies in the 20th century. You impose one standard on Christians and when someone imposes another on you you cower away and get all defensive.

    Well of course bad things happen in atheistic societies! There's rape and murder and theft and all sorts of stuff. But according to the statistics, there's less rape, murder and theft in non-religious nations than in religious nations. You can keep stating the opposite all you like but that doesn't make it so.
    You're not comparing like with like.

    An foetus isn't injured, it's doing just fine.
    Foetuses are not surgically attached to the body.
    The foetus isn't using your body to live but rather using it to develop.

    Meaningless details. In both scenarios a human being finds that, against their will, another human being is using their body as a life support system. In both scenarios I believe the person has the right to end this arrangement even if it costs the other person their life.

    Apparently you're fine with enforcing it as long as it's not your womb-less body that's being used in such a fashion. What was that you were saying about women not being discriminated against in Christianity?
    As for your analogy however. I could keep the connection until you recover and regain health. That would be a good thing to do right? (It's also more relevant to development).

    You...could. Yes. Would you? Honestly? Take the hypothetical seriously, you would allow me to remain dependent upon the functioning of your body for the nine months it would take me to recover? You would in fact legislate against people ending such arrangements?


  • Options
    #210
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Zillah wrote: »
    Let's not quibble over the specific brands of Christianity in relation to women. Through Christian history women have had a subservient position and that has yet to change.

    This isn't a "quibble". This is a Catholic point of view. I'm personally a Protestant I'm not going to hold myself liable to what happens in other denominations and I shouldn't be. There are 500 million Protestants worldwide, and they account for 5% of the Republic's population. It's a rather sizable chunk of Christians you are excluding.
    Zillah wrote: »
    Yes, and if I choose not to join then I'm an immoral person, as you have said yourself. It doesn't unify, it conquers and discriminates.

    Well you are sinning. That's not discrimination you have opted yourself out. Christianity has unified several different groups of people throughout history. If you want to deny the truth feel free, I will uphold it however.
    Zillah wrote: »
    If you consider annihilating the tribal cultures of Europe and replacing them with Christian hegemony as "unifying" then yes, Christianity has been a powerful, relentless unifying force. Like the Mongols.

    No I don't consider that unifying. However, there have been numerous incidents when violence hasn't been used. Like say, when the Apostles spread Christianity from Jerusalem. I uphold true Christianity as in the Bible if people want to violate it that's fine but don't put it across as being in anyway Christlike. These attacks were motivated by greed not by Christ or His teachings. Just like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc were motivated by greed and power not atheism. I will however continue to use that example if you and other atheists use fallacious examples concerning Christianity however.
    Zillah wrote: »
    It's not my ludicrous claim...it's a simple fact made apparent by the UN Human Development Index. Atheistic societies are more successful. There's less crime, better income levels, higher literacy etc.

    It's still ludicrous.
    Zillah wrote: »
    Well of course bad things happen in atheistic societies! There's rape and murder and theft and all sorts of stuff. But according to the statistics, there's less rape, murder and theft in non-religious nations than in religious nations. You can keep stating the opposite all you like but that doesn't make it so.

    I seek that you provide statistics from atheist majority nations including China, North Korea, and other rogue states in the Far East. Otherwise you are being dishonest.

    Zillah wrote: »
    Meaningless details. In both scenarios a human being finds that, against their will, another human being is using their body as a life support system. In both scenarios I believe the person has the right to end this arrangement even if it costs the other person their life.

    It isn't irrelevant they are two totally different scenarios. The mother has had sex she should have known the risk, I don't consider that to be totally "against their will". There was will involved in that, and there was knowledge of the risk.
    Zillah wrote: »
    Apparently you're fine with enforcing it as long as it's not your womb-less body that's being used in such a fashion. What was that you were saying about women not being discriminated against in Christianity?

    I'm fine with supporting human rights and protecting lives which are not anyone elses to decide on. You are the one who is fine with enforcing death on the unborn. This is an entirely secular argument, there are atheist pro-lifers.
    Zillah wrote: »
    You...could. Yes. Would you? Honestly? Take the hypothetical seriously, you would allow me to remain dependent upon the functioning of your body for the nine months it would take me to recover? You would in fact legislate against people ending such arrangements?

    Yes, I would. I would support you for 9 months. It would be a lot easier if you didn't yabber on about atheism 24/7 for 9 months which is the difference between having a militant atheist attached to you rather than an unborn child, but maybe that would make it more equivalent to pregnancy :). No doubt it would be very difficult to go to church if I had to bring you along. I feel it would be the right decision if you were attached to me to protect your life.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Jakkass wrote: »
    This isn't a "quibble". This is a Catholic point of view. I'm personally a Protestant I'm not going to hold myself liable to what happens in other denominations and I shouldn't be. There are 500 million Protestants worldwide, and they account for 5% of the Republic's population. It's a rather sizable chunk of Christians you are excluding.
    So you're definitely not Catholic and you believe not allowing women to become priests is wrong?

    But Christianity unifies people right?


Advertisement