[Codo]

helene_t, on Aug 24 2007, 05:36 PM, said:

But Mikeh did not accuse you or other non-dogmatic believers for being arrogant. I don't think you should feel targeted.

Maybe I overeract and did read something in these words which was not written and not meant: So sorry Mike for being too harsh in my answer.

Quote

[Well, Mike777 said he felt sorry for us non-believers. Now I can somehow appreciate his compassion. Feeling sorry for me is very different from saying that I will burn in hell, or "either you or with us or you are against us", or whatever the rhetoric of a more militant Christian may be.

Indeed, as you I hate any statement like "you are with or against us" or "you will burn in hell if you don´t follow our church". Militant christians is a contrdiction in itself- but still they exist.

Quote

However, Mike777 seems to assume that the fact that he would find it difficult to live without God somehow extrapolates to others.

I must have missed this second part, I read as a very clear: this is true for me but must not be for all. I cannot put it in words, at least not in english, but I share his view, I`m sorry too.

Quote

...Taken together, those two statements imply that religion can be good or neutral, but cannot be bad. If religion has the power to turn some people good, it probably also has the power to turn people bad, don't you think?

This is excactly what I think, yes religions (at least the common ones) cannot be bad. But I think we agree, that religion and their power were used (abused) for much too many horrible things and that the abuse of religion had made much too many people really bad.
I hope I was able to make this clearly: In theory religions should be good or at least neutral. But in practice they had been abused to some of the most violent crimes in history.

Quote

Maybe a religion/atheism-neutral statement would be "some people need authorities to be good, some need authorities to be cruel, some are just cruel or good by their unchangeable nature, and whether those authorities are religious or secular may not be important".

100 % my thoughts. It is just my believe that religion authorities should use their authority for something good. And my knowledge that some/most (put in your believe) abuse their power.

Quote

AFAIK Mikeh lives in a country where exactly that is claimed or implied very often and where it can be difficult to be an atheist. I think it's understandable if he reads slightly differently between the lines than you do

I live in a real free part of the world and I am very happy about this.
I have just heard from some news that there are a few very dogmatic ministers in parts of the USA. But it was not to my knowledge that they are so strong and that it had become so difficult to be an atheist. I may had become an atheist too if my priest would make so silly statements.

[helene_t]

Codo, on Aug 24 2007, 12:53 PM, said:

And I still stand by my point that there are many conflicts where someone claims to fight for god. But I believe that this is ALLWAYS a lie brought to the masses to make them fight. But it seems to me that I am the only one who believes this, so I won´t argue with this again.
I just do not understand why someone do believe that George Bush will lie about god for his purposes but can state that Hussein really became a muslim. They all lie for their purposes. And they all will abuse religion.

It seems unlikely that Sadam suddenly became religious. But whether Bush actually thinks that God commanded him to invade Iraq, is hard to tell.

Maybe we don't disagree but we're just talking about different things. If I were a moslem myself I would probably say that "true" Islam is a religion of peace and that those who use Islam for promoting war are abusing Islam. I might or might not call them liars depending on whether I thought their perverted interpretation of Islam was a deliberate distortion or a delusion. But as an atheist I have no opinion about which of the interpretations of Islam is the "real" one. I suppose the question is not even meaningful.

Would there be less violence in Northern Ireland, Iraq and Bosnia without religion? I donno about Iraq but with respect to Northern Ireland and Bosnia, there were some social tensions between groups that happened to subscribe to different religions, but might not (in Belgium and Rwanda, the population is similarly divided in although the division is not confounded by religion).

To make one person a murderer you just need him to be sufficiently sick - you don't need a victim with a specific label since the murderer can just a kill a random person. But to make a large group of people commit genocide you need some way of labeling the victims. Skin color, geography and language are the easiest labels to use. In the absense of those, religion may be the 4th choice. Especially if one or both groups have a sacred book like the old testament which is full of stories about the good guys killing the bad guys because of their religion.

I don't think that religion was the root cause of the genocide in Bosnia. But it is possible that the religious divide made it easier for the killers to define their victims.

[Al_U_Card]

Moral codes, like humans, are not perfect and are subject to evolving. This is how continuing improvement can be achieved. If we are already perfect then this must be heaven. Man was a consciously un-self aware animal who became a consciously self-aware animal. The animal part is a support for the conscious part and it too is continuously evolving, just more slowly as it is subject to different laws and the changes occur at a much slower rate.

[Codo]

helene_t, on Aug 24 2007, 08:21 PM, said:

Helene,

I like your words much more then mine and we agree as an atheist and a believer.
The world can be so nice.

[mike777]

pbleighton, on Aug 24 2007, 06:12 AM, said:

Quote

ok so you break your moral code of ethics or integrity that you create yourself and if so there is no punishment or sentence?

To use your example you carry out an unneccessary animal experiment that is against your morals or pick some other example where you break your own moral code...no punishment or sentence.

You break your word of honor or do not keep a promise you make..no punishment or sentence. If these are not good examples of you breaking your moral code feel free to pick your own.

When you repond to a post, please read it more carefully. I did not claim that I never broke my moral code, or that there were no consequences when I do. If you think I did, please supply the quote.

The *punishment or sentence* I incur varies by situation. I always have to live with myself. I may suffer from the alienation of people i have mistreated. I may lose a job, or go to prison.

Quote

Again just speaking for myself and no one else I would find living a life such as this difficult if not impossible. I feel sad for those that do punish themselves when they must be the sole judge, jury and executioner if guilty by their own standards of morality.

Well, as I said, it's not that difficult. Personally, I am not attracted by the prospect of confessing all of my sins to an All Powerful Imaginary Friend, who would then forgive me. I prefer to accept responsibility for my own actions.

But then, that's just me.

Quote

I feel sad for those who feel they can break their own moral code of integrity but feel no need for punishment or guilty sentence of consquences.

Do you know anyone who fits this description? This is a straw man, or, to put it another way, a sociopath or psychopath (categories not restricted to or even primarily composed of nonbelievers BTW).

Peter

What are you talking about. This was all in response to Helene's post not yours?
None of this is in response to anything you said.

"I do not believe in sentences. OK, a system of punishment can be a practical thing in large social groups and maybe for people who train dogs (I wouldn't know), but I see no moral necessity of punishment."



Helene said she did not believe in imposing a sentence if she breaks her own moral code. I was asking her if that is what she truly meant or did she mean something else?

Amazing how what I write clearly and and I see time and time again my stuff cut out and misinterpreted or twisted into something I do not recognize or say or mean and then attacked. Even the questions I ask to clarify someones post are attacked.

[mike777]

helene_t, on Aug 24 2007, 04:48 AM, said:

mike777, on Aug 24 2007, 07:09 AM, said:

Winston said:

Mike,
My brother now believes that the nature of god is non-punishing.  He does not believe in an altered human condition of "grace" or "sanctification".   He also says that reading the original language makes it obvious that the old testament is simply stories meant to teach a morality lesson, more in line with moral myth, and should not be construed as history or basis for theology.

Interesting, what then was the purpose of Christ's horrible suffering and death on the Cross if not Justice?

I'm no bible scholar (to say the least) but AFAIK the story about the crucifixion is part of the new testament, not the old one

"My brother now believes that the nature of god is non-punishing. He does not believe in an altered human condition "

You totally miss the point. Reread Winston's Brother's first sentence. That is the whole point of the entire discussion again and the question I am asking. We are discussing the Nature of the Christian/Hebrew God.

For those that may misunderstand in some part. This goes to the very heart or foundation of what the Christian religion is founded on. The suffering and death of Christ on the Cross, to what purpose or end?

People may not fully understand that Jesus dying a painful, horrible death by going to the Cross and his resurrection is the key event of Christianity. IF none of this happened then the Christian religion is really the most cruel and awful hoax and delusion.

That is why I asked Winston for further clarification.

[pbleighton]

Quote

Amazing how what I write clearly and and I see time and time again my stuff cut out and misinterpreted or twisted into something I do not recognize or say or mean and then attacked.  Even the questions I ask to clarify someones post are attacked.

You might consider putting a quote from the post you are responding to. I thought you were responding to a similar post of mine:

Quote

If I've condemned myself as guilty by not accepting Christianity, how can it be a *nonissue*? I'm going to hell, do I console myself with memories of my flawless behavior while I'm buring eternally?

which was in response to your:

Quote

I do feel sadness for those that condemn themselves as guilty.

OF course if you never break your moral or ethical code of conduct or integrity by some action or nonaction this is a nonissue.

Peter

[Fluffy]

Codo, on Aug 24 2007, 10:53 AM, said:

And I still stand by my point that there are many conflicts where someone claims to fight for god. But I believe that this is ALLWAYS a lie brought to the masses to make them fight. But it seems to me that I am the only one who believes this, so I won´t argue with this again.

You are not alone Roland, you are not alone.

[Gerben42]

Quote

I don't think that religion was the root cause of the genocide in Bosnia. But it is possible that the religious divide made it easier for the killers to define their victims.

Very possible. I for one cannot tell a Serbian from a Bosnian. What I found horrifying about the Yugoslavian war was that people who were living in peace in the same street were suddenly fighting eachother to the death.

I must admit that it was the first war that remained in my mind, also possibly because of the role of the Dutch army in this war.
Gulf War 1 looked more like a heroic movie like "Saving private Ryan", probably because to me (age 12 at that time) and maybe to many others it seemed that no one got hurt and it had a Happy End ™.

Quote

I have just heard from some news that there are a few very dogmatic ministers in parts of the USA. But it was not to my knowledge that they are so strong and that it had become so difficult to be an atheist. I may had become an atheist too if my priest would make so silly statements.

Possibly, but you wouldn't be able to tell anyone.
When I was studying in Leiden, a fellow astronomer at my institute had lived and worked in the "Bible Belt" for a few years on a postdoc. He said he was really scared that if he would say what he thought that his house would be burned down. I am happy I live in tolerant western Europe.

[helene_t]

mike777, on Aug 24 2007, 02:21 PM, said:

Helene said she did not believe in imposing a sentence if she breaks her own moral code. I was asking her if that is what she truly meant or did she mean something else?

Right, I don't see the moral justification of punishment. I can see it has practical merrits in some cases but not in this case.

[helene_t]

Codo, on Aug 24 2007, 02:08 PM, said:

we agree as an atheist and a believer.
The world can be so nice.

Thanks, Roland

[HeavyDluxe]

My goodness!!! How did I miss this thread?

Quote

Mike777 said:
People may not fully understand that Jesus dying a painful, horrible death by going to the Cross and his resurrection is the key event of Christianity. IF none of this happened then the Christian religion is really the most cruel and awful hoax and delusion.

I've missed too much of this to jump in feet first, but Mike's comment caught my eye. He's so right that even one of the writers of Christian scripture made the same point! Christianity, as biblically defined, sets up a black and white world... It is either all true, or all false.

It gives itself no middle ground.

Probably the most famous articulation of this point comes from CS Lewis and his "trilemma"... Anyway, interesting discussion.

Dluxe

[mikeh]

[quote name='Codo' date='Aug 24 2007, 02:20 AM'] There are people who need religion to live moral lives. This is simply true. But I would never claim that atheists. are people without moral. And nobody claimed it.
To repeat your complaint that the believers call the atheists immoral does not make this nonsense better. I guess there are some souls who will do so, but I believe that these are a small minority.

The fear of gods punishment is not the only reason -not even the best or a good one- to live a moral live. But for some people it is a help to do so or the only reason they can accept.

[QUOTE]While one's own experiences are anecdotal, and thus susceptible to bias and not well-generalizable, my life experiences have taught me to be very, very careful of the ethics of 'devout' religious people, and to trust atheists.


The history off man from the stoneage till now is a history with crime, murder and war. This is true in any culture and in any country and for believers and atheists. And always religion had been a shield for some leaders for protect their real wishes. But what does this prove? There had been wars in the name of god, for self protecting, for the glory of the flag, to help freedom fighters, because of Helena or some misunderstandings.


You cannot follow a religion by war. Whoever says so is a liar. So the religion is just abused as a "reason" for war or terrorism. Yes this happened- much too often. But what does this prove? Nothing.

[QUOTE]
Imagine the Sunnis and Shiiites in Iraq suddenly spontaneously converting to atheism... my guess is that a lot of the violence there would disappear.. not all, of course.

Have the Taliban become atheist, and does anyone think they'd still blow up statues of Buddha?

Have the lunatic fringe of American Christianity become atheist, and how many abortion clinics will be torched, or doctors murdered?

This argument that religion founds morality is insulting, juvenile, and idiotic. No student of history can deny that religous difference and religious intolerance underlies much (altho not all) human strife.
[/QUOTE]

And you really believe that the sunnis kill the shiites just because they have a different way in believing in Allah? And that George Bush will become a great president after he became an atheist? Sorry this is idiotic. Atheist will do the same harm to other people. They just will have other so called reasons to do so. If they don´t kill doctors in abortion clinics they will kill negros/Hispanos/Germans/ redhairs/smokers whatever. They are not cruel and blind because they follow a religion. They are just cruel and blind.

[QUOTE]
I would also trust many of the less-dogmatic religious believers...[/QUOTE]

At least one thing we agree about. I hate dogmatic believers too. And I would trust less-dogmatic atheists. But your postings sound too dogmatic to be trusted.[/QUOTE]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Roland... thx for backing off a little in your later posts

I have no doubt that you (and Mike), as examples, are people who, while devoutly religious, accept that some atheists can live moral lives

But I am puzzled by your assertion that some people DO need religion in order to live a moral life.

How do you know this?

Is there a significant body of evidence to suggest that people who lose religious faith go on to live lives of crime and violence? Or to become cheats, swindlers and thieves?

I appreciate that there are stories, no doubt true, about people who led immoral lives and then 'found Jesus' and became moral. So it is true, it seems, that a minority of people need some form of discipline to at least claim to be on the straight and narrow: a suspiciously large number of these people only seem to 'find Jesus' after having been caught... at a time and under circumstances where 'finding Jesus' looks like the best way of avoiding all of the consequences..... it certainly seems to work in the US

But, as a whole, it seems to me that there is no way to prove or disprove the idea that any significant number of those already indoctrinated in religious belief would become immoral if they lost faith.

So the argument that humanity or any significant fraction of it 'needs' religion to be honest, etc is merely an assertion. Any assertion of fact, with no evidentiary foundation, is dogma. So, while I appreciate that my tone may offend you (and others), it is not I who is being dogmatic when I take offence at blanket overstatements about the need for religious belief.

Leaving aside the issue of whether the assertionis valid: what does it have to do with the 'truth' of religious belief?

In essence the argument that religion is necessary to preserve societal ethics (and so far it has done a lousy job, if that be its main function), is no argument for any specific religion. Any religion that preaches any form of moral code is as vaild as any other. Yet most of the major religions are intolerant of others. Heck, even the recent signs of tolerance within the Christian groups was dealt a blow by the current Pope who has renewed assertions that his particular sect is the only true church, while, of course, many Muslims believe that any muslim who converts to another faith should be killed.

Since, on the 'morality' issue, any faith will do, how can that be an argument for any one faith? I could make up my own gods, so long as they imposed on me a moral code.

I also read your post as suggesting that any wars or crimes committed in the name of religion were due to bad leaders.. perhaps leaders who did not really believe in the religion.

If I read you correctly, several points seem to arise.

1. How is it that so many non-believers or evil people rise to become leaders of religions?

2. How is it that the lower rank-and-file of the religious order go along with such distorted leadership?

3. How is it that the lay believers fall for the lies, etc?

Now, some superficially religious disputes certainly appear to contain significant socio-economic factors as well.. which may have origins in religious differences in the past but which may have gained a live of their own: the Protestant-Catholic dispute in Northern Ireland springs to mind, and some of the same may be true in Lebanon and even in Iraq. But the Crusades were purely religious in ostensible purpose, and apparently taken as such by the majority of Christians who went along, altho undoubtedly many also saw an opportunity for wealth. But I still maintain that many of the disputes in the world today would be reduced in ferocity if the religious aspects were eliminated.

Anyway, let me end by saying that I don't doubt the sincerity of all posters on this thread, nor the personal ethics of any

[Al_U_Card]

Gerben42, on Aug 24 2007, 08:03 AM, said:

Quote

I don't think that religion was the root cause of the genocide in Bosnia. But it is possible that the religious divide made it easier for the killers to define their victims.

Very possible. I for one cannot tell a Serbian from a Bosnian. What I found horrifying about the Yugoslavian war was that people who were living in peace in the same street were suddenly fighting eachother to the death.

I must admit that it was the first war that remained in my mind, also possibly because of the role of the Dutch army in this war.
Gulf War 1 looked more like a heroic movie like "Saving private Ryan", probably because to me (age 12 at that time) and maybe to many others it seemed that no one got hurt and it had a Happy End ™.

Quote

I have just heard from some news that there are a few very dogmatic ministers in parts of the USA. But it was not to my knowledge that they are so strong and that it had become so difficult to be an atheist. I may had become an atheist too if my priest would make so silly statements.

Possibly, but you wouldn't be able to tell anyone.
When I was studying in Leiden, a fellow astronomer at my institute had lived and worked in the "Bible Belt" for a few years on a postdoc. He said he was really scared that if he would say what he thought that his house would be burned down. I am happy I live in tolerant western Europe.

Well, it is tolerant now but remember the uh....protestants, the heugenots the cathaars etc. etc. Man has only been tolerant when all of his other needs were fully met and then some. Powerful men are rapacious and never satisfied and that is why we need a system that can control and limit their powers....to protect ourselves.

Whenever I see the word "christ" I just replace it with "money" or "power" and if the sentence still makes sense I discard the whole thing.....try it, you'd be surprised.

[Winstonm]

Mike,

I'm not ignoring you but don't have the full answer for your question.

I can mainly recall only those things I suggested to which he did not disagree - he added to but I don't remember many of those comments.

Basically, it came down to this: the birth and death of christ was to fulfill jewish law. Once jewish law had been fulfilled, the book was closed on it - rule bound religion had been completed and was now obsolete.

One of his most ardent points and additions to the discussion was that the greatest commandment was to love god and your neighbor as yourself - he added that the original language wording showed this love meant actions - in other words, the only way to have true love of god was in the actions taken toward others.

I asked if that meant one could be a christian and not even know it or acknowledge it - and he said, "absolutely."

I don't know if this answers your question, but it's the best I can do relying on memory.

[luke warm]

mikeh, on Aug 23 2007, 08:34 PM, said:

Of all the arguments for religious faith, I find the argument that we need religion in order to be able to live moral lives the most personally repugnant. What utter arrogance... to suggest that atheists are immoral... and we must be, since how can we be moral without the fear of God's punishment?~~~

i don't know that i'd use the word 'arrogance' but i agree that many *many* atheists live good, decent, moral, and ethical lives

[jocdelevat]

A very respected Romanian writer(Octavian Paler-)http://en.wikipedia..../Octavian_Paler) said " I'm not afraid of God but I'm afraid if God doesn't exist"

[mike777]

just asking but what is the difference between:
1) a very respected writer
2) a writer that over 3 billion/4/5/6/7/ people could not name?
3) lets back up and start with a top one thousand writer.....Keats....
4) how many billions can quote anything by him? do not use the web.

[pbleighton]

Quote

just asking but what is the difference between:
1) a very respected writer
2) a writer that over 3 billion/4/5/6/7/ people could not name?
3) lets back up and start with a top one thousand writer.....Keats....
4) how many billions can quote anything by him? do not use the web.

"Beauty is truth, truth beauty"

Full disclosure: I was an English major decades ago

Peter

[rona_]

mike777, on Aug 25 2007, 01:36 PM, said:

just asking but what is the difference between:
1) a very respected writer
2) a writer that over 3 billion/4/5/6/7/ people could not name?
3) lets back up and start with a top one thousand writer.....Keats....
4) how many billions can quote anything by him? do not use the web.

"My heart aches, and a drowsy numbness pains My sense, as though of hemlock I had drunk.......".

I was not an English Major but I can't imagine any English speaker going through high school and not having to memorise Keats. Decades later I still remember "Ode to a Nightingale".