World without Religion: Better or Worse? page 19

656 posts

Flag Post
In other words, wanna see “world without religion”?
Imagine living with true savage barbarians, with RIFLES and LASERS.

With this world we have “with religion”, we have… The Crusades, and I highly believe that’s only the tip of the iceberg given my lack of desire to pursue religion studies.

What’s your point?

As I pointed out:

As to the topic, I think a world where religion is viewed as a social construct would be perfect. People can believe whatever the hell they’d like. As long as their beliefs are not overstepping on the beliefs of others, but we all know (and can largely agree) that that will never happen.

Believe all you want. Stop forcing it down my throat like it is the pill of immortality. I rather strangle myself.

 
Flag Post

@ai
No, I was talking about a “what if”, with no (biblical, cause this is the general issue anyways) religion to BEGIN WITH.
So, all the atrocities made “in the name of religion”, would be as possible, if not more, without it too!
Just it would be more “natural” for the “society”, the norms would just be more jungle-based.
The world where everyone believes what he wants, without forcing the others, is unreal, and btw, atheists ARE forcing others to ACCEPT some anti-religious things as NORMS of society.
So, either you must include atheists in your “not forcing” definition as well, or you’re not being honest.

 
Flag Post

So, all the atrocities made “in the name of religion”, would be as possible, if not more, without it too!

Atrocities “made in the name of religion” would not exist “without religion” because its very definition of “made in the name of religion” precludes the fact that a religion exists. Atrocities can exist without religion, but atrocities “made in the name of religion” will not exist without religion. And hence The Crusades. I don’t see your point other than you contradicting yourself over and over.

The world where everyone believes what he wants, without forcing the others, is unreal

Are you admitting to shoving your beliefs down my throat? I’ll give you that.

atheists ARE forcing others to ACCEPT some anti-religious things as NORMS of society.

Anti-religious != Objective fact
Anti-religious things != Scientific Theory
Anti-religious things != Basic Human Rights

You are forcing others to accept religious things as norms of society. Are you seriously claiming that you are better than atheists while doing the exact same thing? Pot, meet kettle.

So, either you must include atheists in your “not forcing” definition as well, or you’re not being honest.

Of course I’d include atheists, when all they do is preach about how religion will end the world and blame religion for all the causes of all misery seeing that religion itself is a social construct.

However (and naturally, the caveat), an atheist talking about scientific theory like the Big Bang and Evolution is not forcing any belief on you. They are talking about scientifically justified theory. It is not a belief corroborated by one single source. Get that right.

You can choose not to accept it, or believe it, for that matter. Yet, arguing against scientifically justified theory is futile. I’m not saying you must accept it, not like I have to accept your religious fanaticism. Nonetheless, the atheist that demands you to accept is no better than you are. That is arguably true. When an atheist is systematically discrediting the Bible’s science and doing nothing but that, it is not shoving anything down your throat.

Systematically proclaiming Evolution as a sham and insinuating anyone who disagrees is the harbinger of evil? That, is forcing.

or you’re not being honest.

Don’t talk to me about honesty when you yourself uphold hypocrisy. I’m a hypocritical person. Everyone is. There are, of course, 2 types of people in the world, those who willingly admit their hypocrisy and those who blissfully ignore it if only to reduce their cognitive dissonance.


Once again, I don’t (and won’t) stop you from being religious. In exchange, please admit that it is a social construct (and by its very nature, an impossibility to lead to truth). Practice religion all you want. Stop using it as the justification for discourse against scientific advancement. Stop using it as a “social right”. A social construct is a social construct. It holds value socially, not legally, morally, scientifically, or to other social groups.

Do I have to repeat myself ad nauseum just for you to get my point?

 
Flag Post
Explain the GOP actively proclaiming for reducing Social Security, Welfare, Healthcare, Medicare and encouraging tax cuts.

Because tax cuts stir economic growth and SS, Medicare/caid aren’t financially solvent?

However (and naturally, the caveat), an atheist talking about scientific theory like the Big Bang and Evolution is not forcing any belief on you. They are talking about scientifically justified theory. It is not a belief corroborated by one single source. Get that right.

Most who are religious don’t force their beliefs on other people – they, I mean we, get a bit tired of the rhetorical garbage from some atheists just as atheists get tired of some of the rhetorical garbage that religious zealots throw at them.

You can choose not to accept it, or believe it, for that matter. Yet, arguing against scientifically justified theory is futile

So we should have accepted the Earth is flat and that the Earth is the center of the Universe? Cause, I mean, those were ‘scientifically justified theories’ too – or do you just pick and choose those that fit your argument best?

When an atheist is systematically discrediting the Bible’s science and doing nothing but that, it is not shoving anything down your throat.

Except they aren’t and they haven’t. Again, if you have found the proof that there is no intelligent creator, get writing that paper and win yourself some awards!

Systematically proclaiming Evolution as a sham and insinuating anyone who disagrees is the harbinger of evil? That, is forcing.

Because you can’t have evolution and an intelligent creator… oh wait, you can.

Once again, I don’t (and won’t) stop you from being religious. In exchange, please admit that it is a social construct (and by its very nature, an impossibility to lead to truth). Practice religion all you want. Stop using it as the justification for discourse against scientific advancement. Stop using it as a “social right”. A social construct is a social construct. It holds value socially, not legally, morally, scientifically, or to other social groups.

So religion is a social construct and social constructs hold no value legally? Interesting. I seem to recall in the First Amendment of the Constitution grants a right to practice religion – that is, it has legal value. So either A) You just completely fucked up your definition of a social construct or B) you completely contradicted yourself in one paragraph, something Romney would be quite proud of. Well said!

 
Flag Post

Somebody, it is hard not to call you out on your trolling when you spout bullcrap such as “atheists have no morals”. I honestly don’t think there’s much else to argue on with you. You live in the biased assumption your discriminating attitude is holy, and anyone who doesn’t agree is an immoral, atheist dog. If you could work on those flawed premises, perhaps an actual discussion could take place.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MrRubix:

Obviously better without

Obviously better with

 
Flag Post

First Amendment of the Constitution grants a right to practice religion – that is, it has legal value

Legal protection to practice != legally valid in court.

Are you telling me that if my religion says “I can murder anyone I wish” is a rational defense against murder?


I’d respond to the rest of your post, but the very act of knitpicking at what I’m saying is, as you rightly stated:

just pick and choose those that fit your argument best?

 
Flag Post

First Amendment of the Constitution grants a right to practice religion – that is, it has legal value

I’m getting a bit scared by this bit as well. If it means you can do whatever you want as long as you say it was due to being part of a certain religion, all laws are useless. If it means you can do whatever rights you have within the limits of the law, then this particular right is useless. Yes, you won’t be imprisoned if you’re religious, you’ll be imprisoned if you’re doing things against the law. Regardless of the nature being religious or not.

 
Flag Post
Are you telling me that if my religion says “I can murder anyone I wish” is a rational defense against murder?

In Iran, yes.

I’d respond to the rest of your post, but the very act of knitpicking at what I’m saying

Feel free to point out anything I’ve misrepresented.

 
Flag Post

In Iran, yes.

Good job! Context is apparently unimportant to you!

Feel free to point out anything I’ve misrepresented.

Why should I? Context doesn’t matter to you, you’re hypocritical by calling my statements contradictory (with an added personal insult I might add) and calling me a hypocrite.

Now, yes, my posts are hypocritical. Are you saying yours’ aren’t? Or that someone else’s isn’t? Good job being hypocritical there too.

So, what is it? If you claim I’m contradictory and subsequently invalidate my arguments on that stance, what is your point of presenting anything again?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

First Amendment of the Constitution grants a right to practice religion – that is, it has legal value

I’m getting a bit scared by this bit as well. If it means you can do whatever you want as long as you say it was due to being part of a certain religion, all laws are useless. If it means you can do whatever rights you have within the limits of the law, then this particular right is useless. Yes, you won’t be imprisoned if you’re religious, you’ll be imprisoned if you’re doing things against the law. Regardless of the nature being religious or not.

No, that’s not what it means since our courts don’t accept any form of sharia law – that is, religious justification. The government doesn’t have the right to either enforce a state religion (in response to the Church of England) and can’t prevent anyone from practicing their own religion as long as you aren’t harming others.

 
Flag Post

Of course, but you’re already allowed to act within the limits of the law, and you’re already not being prosecuted for being religious. It is somewhat silly to specifically state you’re allowed to practice your religion. Any way, perhaps I’m just misreading into it. What I believe was being said is that it shouldn’t be allowed to halt science just because you’re religious.

 
Flag Post
It is somewhat silly to specifically state you’re allowed to practice your religion.

The nation of Israel would beg to differ since they are bombarded simply because of their religion. Christians in Iran would also disagree since converts from Islam to Christianity are sentenced to death.

What I believe was being said is that it shouldn’t be allowed to halt science just because you’re religious.

If you’re talking about embryonic stem cells, that’s more a moral, pro-life/pro-choice question than a religious question – Christianity is just the most outspoken critic of aborition. You can be atheist and pro-life or Catholic and support pro-choice rights (IE, Pelosi).

 
Flag Post

The nation of Israel would beg to differ since they are bombarded simply because of their religion.

Bombarding doesn’t seem like something that’s not against the law. If killing people for being religious isn’t allowed, then you’re allowed to practice your religion. It’s not against the law.

If you’re talking about embryonic stem cells, that’s more a moral, pro-life/pro-choice question than a religious question – Christianity is just the most outspoken critic of aborition. You can be atheist and pro-life or Catholic and support pro-choice rights (IE, Pelosi).

The point is that certain religious people use their power to halt certain advancements. Atheists can agree, theists can disagree, but it doesn’t change the fact. I would say abortion wouldn’t be illegal anywhere if there wasn’t any religion. And let’s not start with homosexual marriage.

 
Flag Post

@DR
You either misunderstand me constantly, or simply play with words.
I never said “atheists are immoral”.
I always say “(western culture’s) atheists don’t have morals NOT based on biblical values”.
Feel the difference?
And yes, it’s true, cause the very laws and societal agreements are more than definitely based on such BIBLICAL principles like:
Don’t murder. (obvious)
Don’t steal. (obvious)
Marry a wife. (institution of marriage)
Love your neighbor. (charity and pensions)
Don’t torture animals. (greens) (yes, it’s one of the Noahide laws, if you didn’t know)
Law system. (obvious)
Honor your parents. (obvious)
Etc etc etc…
I’d really like you to name ONE social construct, that YOU think is NOT based on biblical values – I’m sure, you’ll be wrong.
Challenge begins! :D

BTW, saying “atheists can have just the same morals as theists, but without religion” – is really like re-inventing the wheel, cause the society already has it implemented, so you can’t “invent” the same morals twice.

 
Flag Post

Of course those moral standards are based on the bible. The biblical ones totally were not cultural over-accentuations of unwritten rules needed for social interaction. No, no, no. Surely not. Not in the least…

Because if that was the case that would mean that the Christian moral values would just be a re-invention of already existing moral values, which – as you said – is impossible.

 
Flag Post

@EPR
How do you know?
The “chicken or egg” question in the case of morals/culture (atheistic) in unsolvable to the same extent.
And solvable by the same answer – GOD (THE Creator of both the first chicken and original morals).

 
Flag Post

How do I know? I don’t make a claim.
How do you know?

What I know is that there were social groups long before the organised, scripture based religions we have today (i.e. before biblical morals). That’s why I would say that biblical morals are a form of cultural over-accentuation, like most religious tenets.

 
Flag Post

@EPR
According to the Bible – not quite.
Adam KNEW GOD, so he was already “biblically religious”.
So, from the Bible’s point, you’re wrong.
And no way to know it archaeologically, cause HOW would you know, what the ancients really believed?
There’s no way to actually find out from the MUTE structures.
(Also, the Jewish view on how idolatry began, as a mistake and quite soon after the creation, makes it even harder to find out what the really first humans believed or knew.)

 
Flag Post
Bombarding doesn’t seem like something that’s not against the law. If killing people for being religious isn’t allowed, then you’re allowed to practice your religion. It’s not against the law.

For someone who likes to complain about nitpicking, you did a good job of completely ignoring my comments about Iran.

The point is that certain religious people use their power to halt certain advancements.

Who exactly?

I would say abortion wouldn’t be illegal anywhere if there wasn’t any religion.

Is abortion illegal anywhere?

And let’s not start with homosexual marriage.

So let’s not start with it, but you bring it up out of nowhere…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

@EPR
According to the Bible – not quite.
Adam KNEW GOD, so he was already “biblically religious”.
So, from the Bible’s point, you’re wrong.
And no way to know it archaeologically, cause HOW would you know, what the ancients really believed?
There’s no way to actually find out from the MUTE structures.
(Also, the Jewish view on how idolatry began, as a mistake and quite soon after the creation, makes it even harder to find out what the really first humans believed or knew.)

And we are back to:
“We don’t know for sure… Let’s assume that the most complicated explanation that makes the most vague and un-testable claims is true!”

We can only follow religious morality so far back as the records go. I’m not an expert on that field, so I’ll keep it superficial and say that the records probably date back a few thousand years. The records of social interactions and even cultures date back way further. And you can actually also see some of these moral features in a not culturally over-accentuated version in many other animals that live in social groups. Due to that I find it nonsensical to assume that they are based on religion and that religion was the start of morality.

 
Flag Post

@EPR
Key word: Assume.
You don’t know either.
But to accept a self-sufficient system, like religion, NO WAY, “I’m smarter than that”. Suuuure…
Whatever.
AMALEK in its prime.
Don’t pay attention – just wailing over futility of reasoning with an assumption.

 
Flag Post

I hereby assume that morality is based on the tooth fairy. the tooth fairy is a mighty respectable woman and I think that she has single-handedly given us morality in order to make us giver her our teeth, the foundation of her diet. In order to sustain a this source of food she gave us morality in order to enable our species to survive in social groups.

Just as valid as your claim. It’s absolutely self-sufficient, so you can’t just go around not accepting it because I have no evidence for it.

 
Flag Post

@EPR
That’s the failure of the Pizza Monster (or whatever was it?).
You say “let’s assume”, while I say “billions already are using it for millennia”.
You are SUGGESTING – I’m poking my finger AT. :D

 
Flag Post

I’d really like you to name ONE social construct, that YOU think is NOT based on biblical values

Is this is “haha, we were here first, so we get to say we invented all of this!”? As EPR is pointing out to you, you’re just assuming “religion” made up those rules first. I can’t say it’s anything more than a stupid assumption and merely used to discriminate against atheists more.

Issendorf,

You seem more focused on ranting against how I discuss than the actual issues. Let me just state in honesty, I don’t want to offend you and neither do I hope you’ll do the same against me. This is a discussion, people get heated up.

For someone who likes to complain about nitpicking, you did a good job of completely ignoring my comments about Iran.

My reply to you about bombarding was pointing out that if people are killed over their religion, the law could still say that’s not allowed. It was part of the discussion about how it’s silly to actually point out you have a right to practice a religion. If it’s not illegal, then it’s illegal to stop you from doing it. If the law actually states you don’t have a right to practice a religion, naturally they’ll punish you for it. Is that a good thing for society? Not really.

Who exactly?

Are you saying that there’s no correlation between the number of theists and people opposed to issues such as abortion? Or, in more simple words, do you think there’s no more relative amount of theists opposed to issues such as abortion compared with the relative amount of atheists opposed to issues such as abortion? Once again, you’ll always find people on the opposite side of the spectrum agreeing with those they normally disagree with. This doesn’t disprove the correlation. But if you disagree, that’s fine.

Is abortion illegal anywhere?

Yes. Did you search it up? In many countries it’s illegal except in certain circumstances, and in some it’s even illegal without exception.

So let’s not start with it, but you bring it up out of nowhere…

You don’t understand what that saying means? No offense, but is English your third language? Saying “let’s not start with” means you think that’s bad in addition to what you’ve already been saying. The bans on homosexual marriage are stopping social advance (scientific advancements aren’t the only important things), and I’m quite certain the majority of people opposing homosexual marriage are religious.