Religious Beliefs

[shipper hannah]

The New Scientist is not a Peer Reviewed work.

that's irrelevant i wasn't trying to provide peer reviewed work to prove my point it was just something which outlines my point of view.

I emphasize the word "might" and emphasize the fact that altruism is a rather modern notion-interestingly based mainly in Christian thought-at least Western Altruism.
Think about the Romans- Who slaughtered animals in droves for fun.
The Romans- Who brutally treated many people.
The Greeks.
Ect.
The many nations who commited child-sacrifice.
The presence of torture, sadism, masachism, ect.
Altruism is not a notion that exists in all cultures, and wasn't derived by some process-specifically-the attempts to explain morals and beliefs by evolutionists is based on one thing:
Naturalist Atheists like Richard Dawkins want to have morals in spite of the logical extension of his own philosophies.
He wants the cake on a pedestal and to eat it too.

The logical extension of naturalism is that morality is relative and subjective.
There is no truth or good, there is no morality.

This logically dictates that such evils as Naziism is not wrong-as there is no wrong. There is no basis to be against racism, sexism, or any thing considered wrong becaues there is no wrong.

Rape, murder, ect. are all just natural expressions of animalistic tendencies.

Richard Dawkins and others can not stomach such a conclussion so they desperatly try and create an absolute morality of sorts without an absolute anchor-God. This is immpossible.

what i'm trying to say is that morality arises naturally as a result of evolution of intelligent social species. morality is a useful adaption in that it increases the fitness of the group by providing a selective advantage. it is not impossible to create morality without god.
you'll find that although some of those people you mentioned did treat some people or animals badly, they treated people within their own social group well.

[jenks]

i'm pretty sure we're all born Agnostic, to be Atheist you still have to believe in the non-existence of God or a higher power, and when you are born, you really don't have an opinion either way yet.

No, you're wrong. That's my whole point, Atheism isn't a belief system, it's a lack of a belief system. Agnosticism isn't about not knowing whether there's a 'god', it's about believing that we can't know.

[shipper hannah]

What we are saying is dumb is that something that had a beggining and exists in a temporal form (IE: our universe) and thus must have had a cause (begginings have causes) came from nothing.
God isn't nothing. He is spiritual. That is not nothing. He caused and created.

that's just circular logic, god doesn't have a beginning because he's spiritual?

Evolution (at the very least non-theistic evolution) and naturalism sounds just like a mythical fairytail to me.
As demonstrated a page back was just a few of the points against naturalism.

that's so ignorant! its a mythic fairytale only because you don't understand it!

A begining requires a cause.
The universe had a begining and thus requires a cause.

God had no begining and exists outside of time... thus has no cause.

time is just a dimension of the universe. if the universe requires a creator so does god.

There is no theory that the universe just "was".
There are only hypotheses that state such.
The big bang theory demonstrates the exact opposite.
The Universe by all indication had an exact beggining.

A begining demands logically a cause.

the oscillating universe theory implies that the universe could have been expanding and contracting forever.
there are other theories such as ones in which there are many universes which can smash together like cymbals.
the list goes on. they might seem a little.. outlandish, but they're still so much simpler than adding a god into the equation.
there is still so much we don't know about the universe.

There were laws in the Old Testament about how legally bound servants were to be treated, and that countrymen who had been put into servitude were to be freed every 7 years.

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
around the time this part of the old testament was written, it was acceptable to treat people like cattle, but not those in your social group.

[AvatarIII]

No, you're wrong. That's my whole point, Atheism isn't a belief system, it's a lack of a belief system. Agnosticism isn't about not knowing whether there's a 'god', it's about believing that we can't know.

No you are wrong, like i said before, you are talking about Apatheism, a subset of Atheism, which is the lack of a belief system, Pure Atheism is the belief in the Non-existence of God.

[jenks]

No you are wrong, like i said before, you are talking about Apatheism, a subset of Atheism, which is the lack of a belief system, Pure Atheism is the belief in the Non-existence of God.

No, you are wrong. An apatheist is just someone who couldn't care less whether there's a god or not. There's no such thing as 'pure' atheism, you're talking about explicit atheism as opposed to implicit atheism, one being a lack of belief and the other being disbelief. All atheists lack the belief in 'god', only some of them consciously believe that there is no 'god'.

[Gibsnag]

An-Alteran. According to the universe, there is nothing 'wrong' with rape. There is no fundamental particle of Evil, nor is there one of Good. According most modern morality systems (including my own) there is a lot wrong, based on among other things the physical and emotional harm that it does to a person. According to some modern morality systems (not mine, but I assume the ones held by rapists) and many old ones rape by modern standards wasn't wrong in certain circumstances.

Morality is not absolute by definition. Mostly because no-one agrees on the exact definition of morality, nor what is moral. I think that homophobia and racism are both wrong. Some people disagree and think that gays are un-natural and/or that black people are worth less than white people. Does the universe care? No, there is no morality exchange particle for human interactions.

Uh, no. Rejecting a particular form of the idea of god is not rejecting the entire concept. You are conflating two different things here.

Atheists have to reject on a case by case basis. Without providing explicit attributes that a deity holds then there is nothing to reject. From my understanding of the term 'Theism', the major attributes that all Theistic deities must adhere to are:

Creator of the Universe
Can and has interacted with the Universe

Now, based on this definition I make the statement that there is no evidence to suggest that there exists a deity with those two attributes. The ability and will to interact with the universe, makes the statement of existence an inherently synthetic proposition and must therefore be proven empirically.

However, theoretical atheism that explicitly posits arguments against the existence of any and all gods, rather than a specific God of a specific religion, is by necessity a belief system, as it is founded on the prior assumption, whether overt or implicit, that nothing supernatural can exist. This is not a passive denial of the unproven, but an active proposition.

I disagree, my position makes no positive statements.

And the problem with that is...?

Its a logical fallacy. The burden of proof stands on the person making a positive statement of existence. I can claim anything exists, but you are free to disbelieve me automatically until I provide some evidence to support my claim.

Almost everyone adheres to this principle without thinking about it in their daily lives. And yet people seem to ignore it when going about their spiritual dealings.

Besides, in the case of God we aren't dealing with the absence of evidence, but rather with evidence which one side finds sufficient while the other does not.

Once again I disagree, we are dealing with one side which claims to have evidence and the other side which claims that the proposed evidence is not in fact, evidence. Not that it is insufficient.

No, you are wrong. An apatheist is just someone who couldn't care less whether there's a god or not. There's no such thing as 'pure' atheism, you're talking about explicit atheism as opposed to implicit atheism, one being a lack of belief and the other being disbelief. All atheists lack the belief in 'god', only some of them consciously believe that there is no 'god'.

Exactly. Also known as Strong ("I believe God doesn't exist.") and Weak ("I don't believe God exists.") Atheism. I think I've met around two Strong Atheists as opposed to hundreds of Weak Atheists.

[AvatarIII]

No, you are wrong. An apatheist is just someone who couldn't care less whether there's a god or not. There's no such thing as 'pure' atheism, you're talking about explicit atheism as opposed to implicit atheism, one being a lack of belief and the other being disbelief. All atheists lack the belief in 'god', only some of them consciously believe that there is no 'god'.

so you are saying an apatheist does not consciously believe in the non-existence of God?

a·the·ist (?'th?-?*st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
http://www.answers.com/atheist&r=67

this is the official meaning however Atheism can be split into Strong and Weak Atheism

Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any type of non-theism which falls short of this standard. Because of flexibility in the term "god", it is understood that a person could be a strong atheist in terms of certain portrayals of gods, while remaining a weak atheist in terms of others. The term "weak atheism" is sometimes used interchangeably with "agnosticism."
http://www.answers.com/topic/weak-and-strong-atheism

What i called pure Atheism is Strong Atheism, defined by the fact it is the opposite of Theism, having the Prefix A meaning Not, or Without, (http://www.learnenglish.de/grammar/prefixtext.htm) and

the·ism (th?'?*z'?m)
n.
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.
http://www.answers.com/theism&r=67

therefore, Atheism is the opposite of the belief in God, and as far as i know there are only a handfull of stances around belief

Belief (Theism)
Dis-Belief (Atheism (Strong))
Actively Undecided/Believe it is unknowable (Agnosticsm)
or Inactively Undecided/Not Caring either way (Apatheism)

And as stated before Weak Atheism could be interchangable with both agnosticsm or Apatheism, but if you are not either of those then you must be a stong atheist.

Apatheism

Apatheism (a portmanteau of atheism and apathy), also known as pragmatic or practical atheism, is a subset of atheism. An apatheist is someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that God, or any other supernatural being, exists or does not exist.
http://www.answers.com/topic/apatheism

And Agniosticsm

ag·nos·ti·cism (?g-n?s't?*-s?*z'?m)
n.
The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

[jenks]

so you are saying an apatheist does not consciously believe in the non-existence of God?

I'm saying that apatheists might not consciously believe a god doesn't exist, but a lack of belief in a god doesn't make you an apatheist.

this is the official meaning however Atheism can be split into Strong and Weak Atheism

Strong and weak = implicit and explicit.

What i called pure Atheism is Strong Atheism, defined by the fact it is the opposite of Theism, having the Prefix A meaning Not, or Without, (http://www.learnenglish.de/grammar/prefixtext.htm) and

Bingo.

therefore, Atheism is the opposite of the belief in God, and as far as i know there are only a handfull of stances around belief

No, it's just a lack of theism.

[Gibsnag]

From the wiki definition of Apatheism: "Apatheism (a portmanteau of apathy and atheism), also known as pragmatic or practical atheism, is a subset of atheism (when atheism is defined as lack of belief in deities, rather than specific disbelief in deities)."

Would show that Apatheism is a subset of Weak Atheism, rather than a subset of simply Atheism. The brackets are the all important part. Not that I necessarily agree 100% with wiki philosophy entries... but this one certainly seems to be accurate imo.

Atheism = {Strong, Weak}

The statement that Weak Atheism is often used interchangeably with Agnosticism is 100% philosophically incorrect. Agnosticism is entirely concerned with whether it is possible to know (as in knowledge) whether claims (in this case Theological claims) are true. It should be kept very separate from statements of belief, or lack of belief.

Tbh I think that Theism should be separated into Strong and Weak as well. Clearly an Theist who thinks the evidence supports his opinion and would change opinion based on evidence is quite different from a Theist who would believe in their god no matter what. I think that early in the God Delusion Dawkins gives his personal seven point scale in belief.

[starshineRoxie]

This isn't meant to be a theological debate, but go ahead if you want to. I was at work today and for some reason or other a thought popped into my head: If you were involved with the Stargate program and discovered that an extremely advanced race of aliens, not too dissimilar from us physiologically, which I suppose is debateable, seeded life on here on Earth, and the galaxy(s) for that matter, would that alter your belief in God, whichever one that may be?

Also, after making this discovery would you be able to do your job effectively.

Personally, I would have no problem with it. I have never been the most faith driven individual, but I do respect that many are, more power to you. It has also been an idea I have had for a while, that we are a big alien experiment and they like to mess with us.

Have a nice day, now I need to put my tinfoil hat back on so they can't read my thoughts.

If there was actual real proof that we were created by advanced beings instead of a God or a pantheon of Gods, then yeah, I would have to say I'd change my beliefs, because if anyone could offer scientific evidence of where we came from, they should get recognition for what no one else could do before!

And I would probably continue to believe in what I can see and reason then, until somebody actually disproved that theory.

[Ltcolshepjumper]

so you are saying an apatheist does not consciously believe in the non-existence of God?



this is the official meaning however Atheism can be split into Strong and Weak Atheism



What i called pure Atheism is Strong Atheism, defined by the fact it is the opposite of Theism, having the Prefix A meaning Not, or Without, (http://www.learnenglish.de/grammar/prefixtext.htm) and



therefore, Atheism is the opposite of the belief in God, and as far as i know there are only a handfull of stances around belief

Belief (Theism)
Dis-Belief (Atheism (Strong))
Actively Undecided/Believe it is unknowable (Agnosticsm)
or Inactively Undecided/Not Caring either way (Apatheism)

And as stated before Weak Atheism could be interchangable with both agnosticsm or Apatheism, but if you are not either of those then you must be a stong atheist.

Apatheism



And Agniosticsm

But when it comes down to every day life, most agnostists, and apathists live their lives just like Atheists. So, really, if one were to look at their lives, and I ,mean specifically just their actions, and not their beliefs, they'd be no different than atheists. If you don't care that there is a God, or if you don't think there is one, you will live your live as though He does not exist. So, why does it matter what you call yourself? When you look at it, either you belief there is a God, or you don't. It's not that hard. Those who belief there is a god will carry out their lives as if there is one; those who don't think there is a god won't behave as though there is one.

[An-Alteran]

Atheism from ignorance or from indifference is not a belief system, that much is a given. Rejecting a particular form of an idea of God is not a belief system in and of itself, but there's certainly a belief system behind it on which the rejection is founded. However, theoretical atheism that explicitly posits arguments against the existence of any and all gods, rather than a specific God of a specific religion, is by necessity a belief system, as it is founded on the prior assumption, whether overt or implicit, that nothing supernatural can exist. This is not a passive denial of the unproven, but an active proposition.

Excatly what I was saying and way more concise and eloquent! Well done.
I agree entirely.

Besides, in the case of God we aren't dealing with the absence of evidence, but rather with evidence which one side finds sufficient while the other does not.

Inded. Well said.

that's irrelevant i wasn't trying to provide peer reviewed work to prove my point it was just something which outlines my point of view.

Which isn't peer reviewed to my knowledge.

Dude, I could assert that Pink Unicorns are actually running on treadmills and powering all nuclear forcess... and I could use amazing and convincing arguments... but if there is no real evidence, only speculation, it isn't relavent. You are asserting information as an authority that is dubious in its accuracy at best.

what i'm trying to say is that morality arises naturally as a result of evolution of intelligent social species.

Which is not substantiatable.

morality is a useful adaption in that it increases the fitness of the group by providing a selective advantage.

Then rape is not wrong. It gives the rapist a greater chance top reproduce and is thus a selective advantage to be good at raping.

it is not impossible to create morality without god.

It is immpossible. Morality is by deffinition exclussivistic and absolute. Oppinions can arise without God. Morality can not.

you'll find that although some of those people you mentioned did treat some people or animals badly, they treated people within their own social group well.

Nazis treated people within their own social group well also.

An-Alteran. According to the universe, there is nothing 'wrong' with rape.

I love how you personify the universe.

There is no fundamental particle of Evil, nor is there one of Good. According most modern morality systems (including my own) there is a lot wrong,

What is wrong?

based on among other things the physical and emotional harm that it does to a person.

What is ewrong with that?

According to some modern morality systems (not mine, but I assume the ones held by rapists) and many old ones rape by modern standards wasn't wrong in certain circumstances.

Ok. Then according to you, it is a valid belief that one can forcibly assault aw woman and force her into sexual intercourse against her will.
The only thing stopipng that is the oppinion of those around them.

Thank you for your clearity.

Morality is not absolute by definition. Mostly because no-one agrees on the exact definition of morality, nor what is moral.

Morality is absolute.
Oppinions are not.

Oppinions hide actual morality. Or actual morality does not exist.
If God doesn't exist then there is no morality. Only oppinion.

I think that homophobia and racism are both wrong.

Do NOT compare racism and beliefs that homosexuality is wrong. They can not be compared. It is dishonest to do so.

Some people disagree and think that gays are un-natural and/or that black people are worth less than white people.

Do NOT compare racism and beliefs that homosexuality is wrong. They can not be compared. It is dishonest to do so.

No, there is no morality exchange particle for human interactions.

Oh speak enbglish and be clear "moral exchange particle", that is just hot air to sound intelligent.

[jenks]

Then rape is not wrong. It gives the rapist a greater chance top reproduce and is thus a selective advantage to be good at raping.

You're forgetting empathy, and the fact that we evolved as social creatures, rapists would obviously have been rejected from our social groups or even killed, thus making it even less likely they'd be able to pass on their genes.

It is immpossible. Morality is by deffinition exclussivistic and absolute. Oppinions can arise without God. Morality can not.

False. Morality is a human construct, and it's relative.

Nazis treated people within their own social group well also.

The nazis were corrupted with false information, this is the way so many generally good people have done such evil things over the years, as religion shows us every day.

[SoulReaver]

Animals do not have reason. What they do cannot be considered empathy. because empathy is an act of concern and care, which requires reason and a soul

also, goats are heathen pigs are impure & wolves are the devil incarnate :|

you'll find that although some of those people you mentioned did treat some people or animals badly, they treated people within their own social group well.

somehow I'm not sure hitler treated even his own people well..


then again one could say he at least treated his own family members well

hey how about that kinda morality : be nice only to oneself ^_^

[Gibsnag]

I love how you personify the universe.

My point is that there is no absolute morality built into the universe.

What is wrong?

Rape, if you take a look at my post the previous sentence was referring to that.

What is ewrong with that?

Because my personal moral belief is that every individual has rights, rights which include not being viciously attacked by other members of society.

Ok. Then according to you, it is a valid belief that one can forcibly assault aw woman and force her into sexual intercourse against her will.
The only thing stopipng that is the oppinion of those around them.

Thank you for your clearity.

Your attempts to try and paint me as a rape supporting monster are really quite transparent. Choosing a particularly unpleasant act in order to try and make me feel uneasy about my naturalistic view of the universe.

It is a moral viewpoint. I don't think its a valid one, obviously a rapist must do otherwise they wouldn't do it. And to be quite frank, if we look at societies around the world then morality is almost entirely based on social context. I'm not saying that I agree with another society's moral viewpoint, nor that I'll even accept it as valid.

Now lets turn this around, if God told you. Actually spoke to you in your head and told you that rape was fine. In fact that you should go and rape someone, would you? Would you accept his divine mandate?

Or if God didn't exist and if like me you think that there is no absolute moral system in the universe and that our morality is gained entirely through biological and societal evolution then would you go around raping people? Do you need God sitting up in heaven waggling his finger at you to keep you on the straight and narrow?

Morality is absolute.
Oppinions are not.

Oppinions hide actual morality. Or actual morality does not exist.
If God doesn't exist then there is no morality. Only oppinion.

Oh... I see. Your morality is the one true absolute morality. Of course, I see it now. Everyone else's is simply opinion.

Do NOT compare racism and beliefs that homosexuality is wrong. They can not be compared. It is dishonest to do so.


Do NOT compare racism and beliefs that homosexuality is wrong. They can not be compared. It is dishonest to do so.

Haha. Yeah, whatever dude. Being gay isn't a choice, being black isn't a choice. Homophobia and racism are directly comparable. I didn't decide to be attracted to girls when I was in my early teens. Nor could I decide that I actually find men quite attractive. Sexuality isn't a choice.

Oh speak enbglish and be clear "moral exchange particle", that is just hot air to sound intelligent.

Its a reference to my starting statement about fundamental particles of morality. Its not just hot air to sound intelligent, its making a point that the universe does not distinguish between moral, amoral actions and immoral actions. Exchange particles, or Virtual particles are part of (iirc) Quantum Mechanics which allow for the existence of Forces between other particles (E.g: Weak / Strong Nuclear Force).