Respect towards atheists

[Silent Hunter]

Can love be explained using the Scientific Method? Attraction can... desire can... but can actual LOVE. So based upon your understanding of the world, love isn't real either.

Yeah it can so pretty much the rest of your post falls through.

What proof would you need to prove God exists?

Testable proof that is verifiable. I can now envision the "What if he exists outside our version of the universe and understanding?". Well OK, that is a fair question but now you basically admitted that your own proponant for such a God is (in Xianity's sense) a 2000 year old book written by men who probably did not get past 50 which has been altered so many times. I guess If I have a pink unicorn and have scripture for it then I can have as much respect as most religions. I mean hey, you cannot disprove me.

In response to your comments on agnosticism as being an irrational "golden mean fallacy"....I find this offensive. How is it irrational, or a fallacy, that I support logical analysis (i.e. the scientific method) of the observable universe, yet acknowledge that we cannot make conclusions of the unobservable?

If the existence of a deity outside the observable universe is unobservable currently... and remember, theoretically the currently observable universe is only the tip of the iceberg.... then you cannot prove the existence of ANYTHING in that realm by scientific method. This includes proving AND disproving the existence of any thing you could consider a higher power. Thus pretending to know either way is the irrational view if we're going to pull that card.

I am only saying it is a golden mean fallacy as that's what it is:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... round.html

It fits like a glove. You see two extremes and you go for the middle one as the most reasonable.

Besides I will again say that most "proof" that god exists is either A. Not proof at all. B. From some sort of holy book written by HUMANS. C. Is so vague that it can be anyone's guess. Again, I have a pink unicorn and it cannot be disproved as it's beyond our understanding. I guess agnostics would have to respect it as they cannot disprove it and there may always be a chance I am right. See why I find it irrational?

Please try to not accuse religious folk of beastiality. That's just low. This is blatantly offensive, and will lead to flaming.

Twas a joke but whatever.

This comment is completely unnecessary for anything except insulting my country and instigating an argument.

Sorry, I was a bit too broad in saying American, a lot of countries have bias but things with Heritage in when trying to prove things often do. It was just a warning.

@UTS: Your post is basically like Howls so see my comments to Howlitzer.

Atheism is to organized religion what anarchy is to organized government; a title that could have had significant meaning, but which is tragically adopted instead as an outlet for feelings of angst or to validate any feelings of egocentricity or resentment towards order and authority.

Massive generalization there mate. You will get a lot of 14 year old agnst atheists but that is natural. Teenagers will often to cling to certain things. This does not weaken what Atheism is. On top of that it still has meaning even if not direct. For example Tony Blair, our last PM was afraid to admit he had prayed with Bush. This has showed progress in the fact that no one wants someone strong with the church in power here. We have had atheist bus campaigns too. Maybe it's weaker in the US (No surprise) but it's strong and people are using it for more than something to whine about on LJ.

In other words, a lot of atheists are not believers in the true absence of higher powers but instead just hold deep feelings of resentment towards organized (or even structured) religion of any kind. The very fact that we have to debate whether or not Atheism counts as a religion at all might suffice to indicate such.

Generalizations just keep coming. A lot of Atheists resent organised religion for various reasons. Some see it as irrational, soem see them as crooked morally bankrupt organizations (IE the Catholic Church). Many Atheists can live fine with religious people anyway. I mean my mum is a Catholic but I respect her and don;t hold her faith against her. You will get some teen- theists but as said, Teens will jump on anything that they want to belong to and that can include religion.

Also I am amazed that you are using proof of a web debate as an example about how atheists hate religion. People will debate how a imaginary creatures foot works, the workings of a man in politics, Star Wars vs Star Trek and this is the one you use as proof? People online will argue about anything and this is a rather good example of this.

And for the record, Atheism does count as a religion. Religion is a product of faith, and faith is the belief in things without proof. Christians believe in the existence of God, while Atheists believe in the lack thereof. Neither the existence nor nonexistence can be proven, therefore believing in either can only be done as an act of faith.

Actually your getting it totally wrong as your mangling faith and belief. Christians have faith in god which is trust while atheists believe there is not god which is an opinion/conviction. I believe that the sun will rise again tomorrow, the sky can be blue and the moon can be yellow. Does that mean that I have faith in those things? Does that mean it is part of a a religion?

No offence but your coming off really thick headed with this.

No offense Morkulv, but all you've effectively done is played right into my assessment that atheists tend to be more anti-establishment than believers. When I said "Atheism = religion," that wasn't supposed to be an insult.

Pray tell how did you come to that conclusion.

What's more, this is your thread Morkulv. Did it ever occur to you that maybe you get no respect as an atheist because people might be getting the impression that you're using atheism to pretend you're different -- maybe even better -- than they are?

Or maybe his talking people that will botch many Scientific laws not just limited to evolution and who will try and say that the world was made in 6 days? I don't think it's much to say that most people are better then they are, regardless of faith.

You're the one who started this thread complaining that you got no respect as an atheist Morkulv. Maybe the reason you're not getting any respect is because you're not giving anyone any either.

Oh wow. Are you implying that he has to respect a load of Scientifically illiterate, sheltered morons who will often use the tricks Mov described? Creationists are the village idiots of religion like people who believe the Earth is flat. Even religious people find them to be stupid.

Really Ter please your being irrational.

[alphanubilus]

Silent Hunter... Oh Silent Hunter...

Firstly, Love or Hate, CAN NOT be proven scientifically nor in essence analyzed scientifically because they are relative, such as Good and Evil. What love is to one person, might be different to another, the same with hate. They are terms, names... ect ect. We can study behaviors and the phsycosis behind those behaviors, but that is all...

You keep stating that the Bible was written by HUMANS. How is this a valid point? Almost every Christian that I know, knows the Bible was written by human hands. We believe it was inspired by God, though written by human hand. We don't believe that God handed down the Bible Himself or wrote the Bible with His own fingers. There is a difference. Secondly by continuously restating that the text of the Bible is old and written by human hands, are you stating that all texts written by human hands can't be valid? Or if that text is ancient it can't be valid?

While, in your own words, you state that the existence of God can't be proven, we can prove if the Bible is really valid or not. Also note, the Bible wasn't written 2000 years ago, as some of its books were written probably during the reign of King Solomon, of which would have put the oldest texts at about 3000 years ago. Before hand, the stories and laws were passed down by oral tradition... the Pentateuch, to be exact. The Jews, by nature, were a stickler for copying each line of text to the numbers of spaces, a practice that has not changed, so in actuality if one version of the Bible is disagreable or inaccurate, there are a number of versions you can compare it to.

Again much of your agrument relies heavily on assumptions that the Bible is complete invention, or that it has indeed been so manipulated through out the ages that the texts can no longer be credible... and in both cases, you are wrong.

With the mindset that HUMAN writing disqualifies authenticity, is laughable, as this would disqualify every written work on the face of the earth. We wouldn't be able to trust anything.

The Bible has checks and balances just like any written text. Again folks, it is because of human error that we do have checks and balances for written works, however if that written work, ancient or new, passes the validation tests, then it can be trusted.

Secondly, science and scientists, as we've seen of late, can't always be trusted at giving valid information, such as with "Global Warming", where some folks straight up lied or manipulated evidence to help push their own agendas. This is terrible on every level, and this is why scientists have to have their own checks and balances. It's sad, but its true.

I do, however, agree with you on 6 Dayer Creationists. Most of which believe that the Earth is ONLY 6000 years old and that Dinosaurs either lived with men or that in some instances, were the creations of Satan to trick people. Again, this ALL comes down to a general lack of education. Sometimes "Christians" get hung up on the exact wording of the Bible, as opposed to the "context". This has caused several problems through out Christian history. We live in a wonderful day where educational tools are prevelent. We live in a wonderful day where archeology is growing with new and wonderful insites, but if people reject it simply because it doesn't fit into "their" concept, EVEN if it has NOTHING to do with the Bible itself, it is at their own peril.

[Morkulv]

[Uniform Two Six]

No, atheism is the lack of a belief in god, not a belief in the lack of god.

Uh, sorry dude, but you're totally talking out of your a** there. You've got it exactly backward.
Atheism is the affirmative belief that there is no such thing as God.
Agnosticism is the belief that any entity such as God is inherently unknowable (and by extension, the knowledge of the existence or non-existence of same, is likewise unknowable).

[Chris]

No, atheism is the lack of a belief in god, not a belief in the lack of god.

Uh, sorry dude, but you're totally talking out of your a** there. You've got it exactly backward.
Atheism is the affirmative belief that there is no such thing as God.

Should probably look that up. "Atheism can be the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2]. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]"
Affirmative belief in no god is only one of multiple stances an atheist can take. It is not the defining attribute of atheism.

Agnosticism is the belief that any entity such as God is inherently unknowable (and by extension, the knowledge of the existence or non-existence of same, is likewise unknowable).

That doesn't stop people from being agnostic atheist or agnostic theist.

[alphanubilus]

[Uniform Two Six]

Should probably look that up.

I did.

Atheism:
1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. Disbelief in the existence of God or gods.

Athiest: One who denies or disbelieves the existence of God or gods.

Agnostic:
1. One who holds that the ultimate cause (God) and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. One who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary trumps Wikipedia.

[Terastas]

Atheism is to organized religion what anarchy is to organized government; a title that could have had significant meaning, but which is tragically adopted instead as an outlet for feelings of angst or to validate any feelings of egocentricity or resentment towards order and authority.

Massive generalization there mate. You will get a lot of 14 year old agnst atheists but that is natural. Teenagers will often to cling to certain things. This does not weaken what Atheism is. On top of that it still has meaning even if not direct. For example Tony Blair, our last PM was afraid to admit he had prayed with Bush. This has showed progress in the fact that no one wants someone strong with the church in power here. We have had atheist bus campaigns too. Maybe it's weaker in the US (No surprise) but it's strong and people are using it for more than something to whine about on LJ.

Except that I didn't overgeneralize atheists (or anarchists) by saying that all were the case. Only the most vocal of atheists tend to fit that stereotype.

It's not much different from the way Christians are often stereotyped as fanatical bigots and Muslims as terrorists. Of course these are unfair generalizations, but still, what members of which groups do you believe show up on the news most often?

I wasn't trying to generalize atheists. I was just trying to illustrate how they can be generalized as such.

And frankly, I don't think the Blair connection is entirely relevant. . . The two key words in it being "with Bush."

Actually your getting it totally wrong as your mangling faith and belief. Christians have faith in god which is trust while atheists believe there is not god which is an opinion/conviction.

So what? A lack of belief in God is not unique unto atheists. Where is God in Neopaganism, Shintoism, Zen Buddhism or Native American ancestral traditions? Since they don't have a designated "God" figure, does that mean they are atheists too?

And you're still doing exactly what I just lectured Christians and Atheists about: trying to one-up one side by declaring your opinion to be born out of logic or conviction instead of faith.

I believe that the sun will rise again tomorrow, the sky can be blue and the moon can be yellow. Does that mean that I have faith in those things? Does that mean it is part of a a religion?

Minus four respect points S.H. You should have been able to poke through this statement yourself.

No. No that does not count as religion. Know why? Because the sun rose yesterday, and I have seen a blue sky and a yellow moon. I don't have faith that the sun is going to come up tomorrow -- I KNOW it will come up tomorrow. Because it came up today, yesterday, the day before -- every day since the day I was born and beyond. Why should tomorrow be any different? That's not religion; that's a certainty established from experience.

And just for my own sake, I'll throw it out there that I too found the description of agnosticism as fence-sitting to be offensive as well. I'm not agnostic purely out of a desire to avoid pissing people off (would I have participated in this thread if that was my intent?) or having the "best of both worlds." I have plenty of ideas about God, karma and the afterlife, but I declare myself agnostic because I recognize that the only real inherent truth (and BTW, what I'm about to say is not unique unto agnosticism -- my father's "Zen-2-Go" tapes said something to this effect as well) is that there is more to the universe than could ever be contained in a single book or comprehended by a single human brain. I aspire myself to a system of beliefs that makes sense to me, but I still recognize that there is absolutely nothing I can do to validate those beliefs as potentially being truth.

You don't have to like what I've chosen to believe, and as an agnostic, I'm still free to respect or silently resent whatever titles you've chosen to apply to yourself as well. But trying to prove one religion true and the other false is pointless, so I refrain from any attempt to do so.

Believe whatever you want, but don't act surprised if the rest of the world doesn't sing along with you. No religion is above any other in any regards -- Christians, atheists and pink unicornists will ultimately all have to make the same decision: to either become missionaries, fanatics and "scientists" trying to push their faith as truth, or learn to live faithfully in the presence of the unknown as best they can.

And that includes Atheism. You might want to believe Atheism is above that kind of behavior, but when organized religion or the existence of God is debated against, all I see is the work of atheistic missionaries.

[Sharfan]

I would like to interject into this discussion. I really don't have much to say, as I am not as adamant on these things as some of you seem to be. I was just wondering why everyone gets so caught up on the details. Who really cares about the specifics? Does it really matter if atheism is a religion or not? Personally, if I were atheist, I really wouldn't care either way. Also, as a former christian, I may not believe in the bible, but I respect it. Mostly for the lessons it teaches. While I don't believe it tells of a single, all-powerful god, I believe that it teaches good morals. I'm not going to spend my time trying to point out its flaws. The whole point isn't what it gets wrong, but what it gets right. I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes, because I see everyone's point of view. I understand where everyone's coming from. I just wanted to let you all know that I can see this will be a losing battle for most everyone. I know there are going to be a few that ignore me, and continue to argue their side. If you do, then, oh well. At least I tried. Thanks for your time.

[Morkulv]

[alphanubilus]

Morkulv... to simply answer your first question...

Yes... If I didn't believe the Bible to be an accurate representation of God, I wouldn't be a Christian.

Secondly violence is always a result of human wickedness. Our history is marked with brutal violence, and death is usually the end result. Death is always the final evolution of sin. Skeptics always tear apart the Bible because there is violence in it, but as it was following the historical conquests and the conquering of Israel, there IS going to be violence. Skeptics raise hell about Israel's sometimes brutal conquests of other tribes around them, but of course they overlook the fact that these same tribes brutally attacked Israel. The whole concept was to take them so low, they won't be able to back build and cause problems. This wasn't because God desired so, but because of the wickedness of those tribes and Israel itself.

Of course the Satanic Bible is going to candy coat things, but it ain't reality. Since the dawn of time, our history has been blood soaked with violence. Any religion or belief that states otherwise is only fooling itself and its adherents.

Lastly, there is a difference in Scientific errors and blantant lies. As Scientists are human, they are going to make mistakes. That is understandable, but what many of the Pro-Global Warming folks were doing was purposely manipulating the data in order to push their own agenda, of which was that of some of those of whom were backing them. It goes down to money and power. They wanted to force the world to accept their view, and that is wrong. It is one thing to make a miscalculation, but it is another thing to entirely falsify data.

If you went to the police and blantantly lied to them that a person you didn't like, shot you, robbed you, or whatever, once the police find out the truth you're in big trouble and I mean jail time trouble. Blantant lies in the science world costs people, governments millions if not BILLIONS of dollars. The gravity of this lie is yet to be felt, but it will be. Because of this lie, creating greener fuels, more energy effencent devices and transport will be knocked back by 20 to 30 years. Now, most people aren't going to take it seriously, and by the time we do take it seriously, it will be too late, because of one obnoxious white lie. Lies are lies...

[Morkulv]

Morkulv... to simply answer your first question...

Yes... If I didn't believe the Bible to be an accurate representation of God, I wouldn't be a Christian.

Secondly violence is always a result of human wickedness. Our history is marked with brutal violence, and death is usually the end result. Death is always the final evolution of sin. Skeptics always tear apart the Bible because there is violence in it, but as it was following the historical conquests and the conquering of Israel, there IS going to be violence. Skeptics raise hell about Israel's sometimes brutal conquests of other tribes around them, but of course they overlook the fact that these same tribes brutally attacked Israel. The whole concept was to take them so low, they won't be able to back build and cause problems. This wasn't because God desired so, but because of the wickedness of those tribes and Israel itself.

Of course the Satanic Bible is going to candy coat things, but it ain't reality. Since the dawn of time, our history has been blood soaked with violence. Any religion or belief that states otherwise is only fooling itself and its adherents.

Lastly, there is a difference in Scientific errors and blantant lies. As Scientists are human, they are going to make mistakes. That is understandable, but what many of the Pro-Global Warming folks were doing was purposely manipulating the data in order to push their own agenda, of which was that of some of those of whom were backing them. It goes down to money and power. They wanted to force the world to accept their view, and that is wrong. It is one thing to make a miscalculation, but it is another thing to entirely falsify data.

If you went to the police and blantantly lied to them that a person you didn't like, shot you, robbed you, or whatever, once the police find out the truth you're in big trouble and I mean jail time trouble. Blantant lies in the science world costs people, governments millions if not BILLIONS of dollars. The gravity of this lie is yet to be felt, but it will be. Because of this lie, creating greener fuels, more energy effencent devices and transport will be knocked back by 20 to 30 years. Now, most people aren't going to take it seriously, and by the time we do take it seriously, it will be too late, because of one obnoxious white lie. Lies are lies...

If you think that the bible is an accurate representation of god, then you are contradicting yourself. We already agreed that human are not flawless , but somehow according to you the bible is. There are just so much questions that I can raise about this.

Sceptics are not tearing the bible apart just because of the violence, but mostly because it COMMANDS violence. It straight-up commands people to perform selfmutilation (if a man looks at a women lustfully, he should gouge out his eye) and stoning (if you have a rebellious son you should stone him to death), and that is what people in the 21 century are considering morally wrong. You might say like alot of other christians I debated on this issue that its a part that you shouldn't take litterally, but as we established you DO think the bible is an accurate representation of god so to me this tells me that the god that you believe in is a repulsive and violent being that does not deserve praise. Let alone serve as a standard for what is morally right and wrong.

Candycoat? Where did the Satanic Bible do that? Please explain this to me. I never said that the Satanic Bible isn't violent, because it is to a certain degree, but its certainly not as violent as the christian bible (just look at my two examples above to see what I mean). Like I said, there is a difference between just violence and commanding violence.

[JoshuaMadoc]

So I'm getting a headache reading everyone's convoluted replies, and I think I should be tactless for a second here:

How and why should I respect someone who refuses to reveal himself for me to see with my own eyes? And this is the same someone who made seraphims who had 6 wings covering their faces and genitals, is constantly on fire, chants their creator's true name, and screams "fear not" everytime they appear in front of humans. And is probably a vain, humorless, apathetic and self-centered bastard.

And for the record, this is coming from the only muslim in this forum.

[alphanubilus]

So I'm getting a headache reading everyone's convoluted replies, and I think I should be tactless for a second here:

How and why should I respect someone who refuses to reveal himself for me to see with my own eyes? And this is the same someone who made seraphims who had 6 wings covering their faces and genitals, is constantly on fire, chants their creator's true name, and screams "fear not" everytime they appear in front of humans. And is probably a vain, humorless, apathetic and self-centered bastard.

And for the record, this is coming from the only muslim in this forum.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Allah didn't appear even to Mohammed, so how can you be a Muslim, as I'm sure you haven't seen Allah.
Secondly the Holy Qu'ran explicitely dictates that Muslims follow what would be the first five books of the Bible. The major difference is that instead of the Hebrews recieving the convenant through Isaac, it was through Ishmael (the Arab bloodline). Allah according to the Qu'ran is the same god as the God of the Hebrews and the Christians, only that the Jews and Christians became apostates.

Remember, there is but one god, and He is Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet. Every Muslim has to admit and accept this passage. Mohammed is the ONLY man who recieved the visions of Allah, of which came the Qu'ran. No other Muslims have "seen" Allah, nor recieved new Surah's from Allah. So in short, I don't get your point. And if you aren't willing to believe in a god without seeing him, then you either aren't really a Muslim, or a VERY liberal one.

As for Morkulv:

I don't see how I am being contradictory. Yes human beings are faulty, but that doesn't stop them from writing accurate histories. If you're analysis was correct, we couldn't trust anything written by human hands. We of course are able to judge historic written works, based upon physical evidence, in archeology, as well as cross-reference other sources, if available, that was also written in the time periods. In short their are checks and balances. By and large the Bible has had more rigerous checks and balances than any other known written work, and yet, by and large, its histories are quite sound.

What makes the Bible special is that its writing spans over 3000 years and was written by several writers, but yet has one coherent message about God. If the Bible was chalk full of errors and historic mistakes, this wouldn't be possible. Again, if the writing can be deamed valid... it is valid, no matter how "bad" humanity is.

As for violence in the Bible, Skeptics are simply reaching for straws.

The "Laws" that you are referring to of which are both contained in the book of Exodus as well as in Leviticus, have to taken in regards to the context, by which they were written. YES these laws are going to seem barbaric by today's standards, but then again, you dealing with a time period where Hitites, also had festivals where babies were sacrificed on a normal basis. In many religions of that time period, human violence was a part of the religious practice itself.

With ancient Judiasm, violence wasn't a part of the practice, meaning that El didn't call His followers to butcher themselves, murder themselves, or sacrifice themselves, for His own vanity, as was with Molech or Astaroth, but violence was the unfortunate consequence to sin. Was the stoning of a son who cursed God and his family, harsh... yes...but again, that is by today's standards. Not just with the Hebrews, but with any ancient tribe, the act of cursing the tribe's god and cursing the parents, WAS, a death warrant. Reason is, a person who was willing to do that, had no respect for the god or his parents...or the tribe itself. In all cases, this was seen as an act of high treason, because the said individual could envoke the wrath of God, or gods or goddesses.

If you READ through out the Bible, you hardly ever hear of anybody doing this... BECAUSE they took the law seriously.

As for the "mutilation of self"... again... reaching for straws... Folks there are a number of religions around the world where body piercing, self mutilation, even to the extreme, is a part of the actual practice... this again, isn't so with Christianity. If you're not going to bother with taking the entire passage into context, then please stop quoting the Bible.

In no way, is God, nor later on with Jesus Christ's proclomation in the NT, literally stating that men should cut off their genitals, cut out their eyes, ect. ect. Both passages both, OT and NT, are in relation to avoiding temptations. In short, if you have a weakness that would cause you to do wrong, avoid things that would cater to that weakness. The idea of "cutting off" is simply saying... REMOVE... SEVER all ties... In short... if you are a recovering alcoholic, then it would behoove you to stay away from bars, and folks who wouldn't tempt you to drink. The addition of important organs to the statement, reinterjects the level of importance. Again you have to consider context.

[Morkulv]

[Silent Hunter]

I will get to the other points raised later but for now, on the question of Biblical violence:

If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.

Then the LORD said to Moses: "Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him."

Are you going to argue that the OT is not a valid part of the Christian religion? Are you also going to argue that this is not accurate to what God send? I mean if God is such a moral being, why would he have such murderous commands like this?

I mean:

Yes... If I didn't believe the Bible to be an accurate representation of God, I wouldn't be a Christian.

Are these actions not accurate?

[JoshuaMadoc]

So I'm getting a headache reading everyone's convoluted replies, and I think I should be tactless for a second here:

How and why should I respect someone who refuses to reveal himself for me to see with my own eyes? And this is the same someone who made seraphims who had 6 wings covering their faces and genitals, is constantly on fire, chants their creator's true name, and screams "fear not" everytime they appear in front of humans. And is probably a vain, humorless, apathetic and self-centered bastard.

And for the record, this is coming from the only muslim in this forum.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Allah didn't appear even to Mohammed, so how can you be a Muslim, as I'm sure you haven't seen Allah.
Secondly the Holy Qu'ran explicitely dictates that Muslims follow what would be the first five books of the Bible. The major difference is that instead of the Hebrews recieving the convenant through Isaac, it was through Ishmael (the Arab bloodline). Allah according to the Qu'ran is the same god as the God of the Hebrews and the Christians, only that the Jews and Christians became apostates.

Remember, there is but one god, and He is Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet. Every Muslim has to admit and accept this passage. Mohammed is the ONLY man who recieved the visions of Allah, of which came the Qu'ran. No other Muslims have "seen" Allah, nor recieved new Surah's from Allah. So in short, I don't get your point. And if you aren't willing to believe in a god without seeing him, then you either aren't really a Muslim, or a VERY liberal one.

I'm born a muslim, since I came from Indonesia, my friend. And yes, I'm an extremely liberal muslim, due to being extremely jaded after finding out that there's other muslims who make it an entire culture to treat women like objects, so don't treat me like as if I'm someone of some other race pretending to be something I'm not.

[alphanubilus]

[Morkulv]

Yes, the bible was written in primitive times, and thats also why I think that the bible has no place in modern society. Thank you for confirming this. Furthermore I'm not 'chasing straws', I'm posing very valid arguments, and it seems like your having trouble defending your god's lack of morality. Again I know that the bible was written in a primitive age, but is this really something you want your kids to grow up with? Think about it, why would anybody worship something when you know that your own morality is superior?

Those texts contain simularities because they all came from the same template. Seems very simple to me.

Oohh so not everything on an internet-website is correct but some book at the library is? I'm sorry but your posts are getting more and more contradicting.

[Silent Hunter]

As you seem to have no intention of answering my questions..

Concession Accepted.

Edit: On reflection this may look petty but to be honest, I just asked a question and Alpha dodged it and just repeated what he said before. I wish he would actually asnwer my questions rather than go off topic and go into vivid detail over something different.

[alphanubilus]

As you seem to have no intention of answering my questions..

Concession Accepted.

Edit: On reflection this may look petty but to be honest, I just asked a question and Alpha dodged it and just repeated what he said before. I wish he would actually asnwer my questions rather than go off topic and go into vivid detail over something different.

Hum...I thought I was answering your questions...

Well Morkulv I don't think there is any Christian, well... unless they are one of those "occult" types, that I know are out there, who states we should still live by those Levitical laws. They are out of place, but then again, Jesus Christ presented this during His ministry. Christianity isn't Judiams, and most Jews don't follow those old laws either, as reason for at least some of then, no longer applies. It is the same principle as animal sacrifice. It was practiced in the OT, but that doesn't mean we still do it. Jesus Christ was the ultimate sacrifice according to the NT...

So with that rationalle... I don't see how I am being contradictory? But then again... after reading my own posts... ugh... I think my lack of grammar and spelling capabilities are dwindling... I thought we were suppose to Evolve... At the rate I'm going I'll be neanderthal by midnight.

Thanks for the daily brain exercise ya'll... I'm out...

[Chris]

ALSO as for the violence of the Bible... AGAIN... oh gosh... you people... You are chasing straws because you are again taking things out of their context. You are basing very liberal laws of today vs. laws for a time and period that is NOT like ours. Think about it this way. 80 years ago, if a man raped a women, he was put to death in the state of Oklahoma. Today a rapest becomes a registered sex offender and gets jail time between 4 to 8 years... (if that). Yesteryear's death penalty would seem really extreme by today's standards, even though I'm pretty sure those commiting the crimes still deserve that more severe punishment.

The difference is, those laws were created by man, and changed by man, according to the will of man.

AFAIK, god's law is supposed to be supreme. If god says to do something, you do it, and god said to act certain ways as a response for certain actions. The societal-standards and laws we have built up today were created by man, but god's commands are supposed to supercede that. We're quite effectively ignoring what god told us to do because we don't want to do it anymore. It's as simple as that. God never said to behave differently, did he?

Here's a comparison. If you had a young kid, and he did something bad, so you told him to go in his room until you called for him. After a little while he comes out on his own, without you calling for him, because he felt it was long enough. Is that proper behavior of someone who's supposed to respect you and your commands? Or would he be in even more trouble?

[Chris]

Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary trumps Wikipedia.

Okay, FWIW I'll concede the point on atheism's definition since I can't be bothered to look for anything else of some authority. However, the definition of agnosticism you gave doesn't preclude a person still believing or disbelieving in god.

[Gevaudan]

Aren't there two types of atheism? I thought that weak atheism involved a lack of belief in God, while strong atheism involved a belief in the lack of God.

[Uniform Two Six]

the definition of agnosticism you gave doesn't preclude a person still believing or disbelieving in god.

Hmmm... Well, I suppose that could technically be true (albeit sort of splitting hairs on a sub-atomic level), but generally if one were to take the view that they believed in a specific religion, but also stipulated that such belief didn't rise to the level of knowledge that the religion in question were right, said person would probably still be identified as a member of that faith, rather than an agnostic. I mean, if that's your belief why even make the distinction? Or, I suppose that someone could believe in the concept of God, but not follow any specific religion because of uncertainty regarding the nature of God, and thus claim agnosticism. Truthfully, I don't think I've ever heard of that philosophy being termed agnosticism in practice. But, yes, I think I can see your point. Generally, though I think it's a more representative description of agnosticism to say it's the skeptical "eh, maybe, maybe not."