A few questions for fellow atheists

[Elok]

That's not an abortifacient, it's a "refer-it-to-god" witch trial type. Read the words you're quoting before you post them. And again, the bible was not written to be the one and only source of religious guidance for Christians; it's a compilation of the bare necessities to be passed from church to church. Hundreds of church fathers from around or before the council of Nicea which standardized the NT wrote open condemnations of abortion, which are held by my faith as canon. Don't give me that not-in-the-bible crap. If it comes to that, neither the Constitution itself nor the fourteenth amendment says a bloody thing about abortion but the supreme court still gives us that constitutional right BS.
Finally, I was using the abortion controversy as an example of the apparent insufficiency of human reason to determine morals, not to push my own belief. I think legalized abortion is both a sin against god and a vile case of negligence on the part of the state.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Yep. Which proves once more that religion is not that useful but to overcome a personal emptiness...

Aquiring moral fiber is "overcoming a personal emptiness?" You make it sound as if the aquisition of meaningful values is bad, or making up for something.

Personally, I would rather be around moral people than immoral people, and I find that people who have a religious background are somewhat more likely than atheists to be moral people. Why is this a bad thing?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


Aquiring moral fiber is "overcoming a personal emptiness?" You make it sound as if the aquisition of meaningful values is bad, or making up for something.

Personally, I would rather be around moral people than immoral people, and I find that people who have a religious background are somewhat more likely than atheists to be moral people. Why is this a bad thing?

No, it's not wrong, but my question was if it was necessary. Honestly, I have not found any correlation between moral people and religious people and thus I think it is incorrect to judge people just on basis of their faith. Good people come in all shapes and sizes and not all of them carry a cross.

Now the question I ask you is, if you were to lose your faith, would you still be fulfilled? If the answer is yes then you don't need it. If the answer is no then are are using it to cover up a personal emptiness or something similar? Think about it.

[Jack the Bodiless]

That's not an abortifacient, it's a "refer-it-to-god" witch trial type. Read the words you're quoting before you post them.

I did. It sure looks like an abortifacient. A possibly "defiled" adulteress is given a liquid which causes her belly to swell and her uterus to rot?

It seems that the uncertainty relates to whether she's "defiled" (pregnant) or not. If she isn't, the liquid has no effect.

Hundreds of church fathers from around or before the council of Nicea which standardized the NT wrote open condemnations of abortion, which are held by my faith as canon. Don't give me that not-in-the-bible crap.

Well, it ISN'T in the Bible. If your faith accepts the opinions of "church fathers" as canon, that's a separate issue.

Finally, I was using the abortion controversy as an example of the apparent insufficiency of human reason to determine morals, not to push my own belief. I think legalized abortion is both a sin against god and a vile case of negligence on the part of the state.

And I'm saying that it has nothing to do with religion. It's only natural to feel an instinctive urge to protect babies: that's evolution in action. Hence, it's entirely natural to feel uneasy about abortion. The existence or nonexistence of God is not a relevant factor.

And the same applies to other issues of morality. "Godless" does not mean "immoral".

[Elok]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
I did. It sure looks like an abortifacient. A possibly "defiled" adulteress is given a liquid which causes her belly to swell and her uterus to rot?
It seems that the uncertainty relates to whether she's "defiled" (pregnant) or not. If she isn't, the liquid has no effect.
Well, it ISN'T in the Bible. If your faith accepts the opinions of "church fathers" as canon, that's a separate issue.
And I'm saying that it has nothing to do with religion. It's only natural to feel an instinctive urge to protect babies: that's evolution in action. Hence, it's entirely natural to feel uneasy about abortion. The existence or nonexistence of God is not a relevant factor.
And the same applies to other issues of morality. "Godless" does not mean "immoral".

No, it is not an abortifacient; it is deferring the judgment of a woman to god. And "defiled" is not referential to the state of pregnancy itself(puritanical fear of sexual functions is a latter-day phenomenon), but to the state of having had sex with another man. If she's innocent, she "shall conceive seed," like it says. If god holds her guilty the fetus will rot.
My faith accepts the church fathers as largely canonical. So do the Catholics, and together I'd say we make up the majority of baptized Christians on this earth. Our opinion is not some dissenting gibberish, but a valid position. I am not a fundamentalist. I do not use legalistic bible arguments, though apparently you do and it seems you don't even use them very well. (Where did you get that thing? Belligerentatheist.com?) If you're going to argue with me, argue with me, not with a hypothetical conception of the stereotypical protestant.
And for the second frigging time at least, I use this as an illustration of bad moral reasoning by human beings. I might as easily have used the Jerry Springer Show and probably avoided the argument. In this case, my argument was that a rather obviously clear-cut issue can be perverted by euphemism and pity-grabs until the relevant issue is an absolute blur. The same happens with most arguments that I see; even here, if we lacked the fear of mods, this whole site would inevitably degenerate into a flame-war hive of personal attacks within days. Human beings are too muddled, too seperate from the big picture, to see truth clearly all of the time. Even religion itself can be perverted, but it's slower-acting than the day-to-day lunacy we normally encounter. There's also the fact that, in my experience, prayers for moral guidance work. I believe there's a point in one of the epistles where St. Paul says God will never refuse a prayer for wisdom, and sure enough every time I have prayed for guidance I have found myself thinking more clearly within days. If it's a placebo effect, it's a good one, and it comes at no cost to me.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Elok

No, it is not an abortifacient; it is deferring the judgment of a woman to god. And "defiled" is not referential to the state of pregnancy itself(puritanical fear of sexual functions is a latter-day phenomenon), but to the state of having had sex with another man. If she's innocent, she "shall conceive seed," like it says. If god holds her guilty the fetus will rot.

I think science has long past solved the mystery of "conceivable seeds" and rotten fetuses....

My faith accepts the church fathers as largely canonical. So do the Catholics, and together I'd say we make up the majority of baptized Christians on this earth. Our opinion is not some dissenting gibberish, but a valid position. I am not a fundamentalist. I do not use legalistic bible arguments, though apparently you do and it seems you don't even use them very well. (Where did you get that thing? Belligerentatheist.com?) If you're going to argue with me, argue with me, not with a hypothetical conception of the stereotypical protestant.
And for the second frigging time at least, I use this as an illustration of bad moral reasoning by human beings. I might as easily have used the Jerry Springer Show and probably avoided the argument. In this case, my argument was that a rather obviously clear-cut issue can be perverted by euphemism and pity-grabs until the relevant issue is an absolute blur. The same happens with most arguments that I see; even here, if we lacked the fear of mods, this whole site would inevitably degenerate into a flame-war hive of personal attacks within days.

Some people still flame... and others even if there weren't mods would act correctly. It isn't fear of God which drives people to act in a morally correct way. I do not inflict pain on others because I would not like them to do the same to me, not because I fear I will go to heaven or hell. They only restraint is my own logic and reason, not some angry deity torturing me for eternity.

Human beings are too muddled, too seperate from the big picture, to see truth clearly all of the time. Even religion itself can be perverted, but it's slower-acting than the day-to-day lunacy we normally encounter. There's also the fact that, in my experience, prayers for moral guidance work. I believe there's a point in one of the epistles where St. Paul says God will never refuse a prayer for wisdom, and sure enough every time I have prayed for guidance I have found myself thinking more clearly within days. If it's a placebo effect, it's a good one, and it comes at no cost to me.

Prayer, meditation, etc. its all the same way of getting in tough with your inner self and finding answers inside of you. It's not god that's talking to you or guiding you (although most faithfull believe so) it is yourself. Now if people started getting some self-esteem and realizing that every problem's answer can be found within themselves, there would be no need for gods. Open your eyes, there is no "master plan", every success in life is because we've been smart enough to take it, and every defeat is because we've been stupid enough to let it happen. Oh and luck...or divine will? everything happens for a reason? umm. no. Luck is simply a point in a probability distribution. If if something happens for a reason, it's because we made that reason happen.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Logic leads to theism, not atheism: The Blind Atheist.
Even though this is a rough draft of the book the conclusions are still valid. Science cannot make a definitive satement about God so it is a lack of logic that uses science as the source of all truth.

And you cannot prove the existence of your god or his 'creation'...so you are no better off.

Like it or not, the logical questing mind has the massive advantage of the mind stunted by fear and superstition.

You cannot deny...

[Master Zen]

I always find it surprising why die-hard religious people always try to debunk every scientific theory out there. Like the anti-evolutionists. Sure, evolution is not without its faults and it's far from being understood. Yet just because because "some" tests prove it to be false they discredit it because it in not 100% accurate.

Yet these same people to not apply the same rigour when accepting their theories. Whatever faults evolution has, creationism has 10 times as many faults yet the hold on to that theory so blindly never bothering to explain why the do not apply the same standards to accepting facts.

But of course, most people accept what they want to hear, everything else must be wrong right?

[Frogman]

Urban Ranger, I thought I gave my opinion on the transitional forms. I suggest there is a trigger in the dna that causes large scale changes in a short time. My contention is that the changes are more than a reaction to the environment they are a move along an already defined path. As I said above, I'm probably wrong but hey its my stab at it.

from Master Zen

But of course, most people accept what they want to hear, everything else must be wrong right?

Which of course lead to the conclusion that everyone is wrong. I'm wrong, you're wrong and therefore its easy to punch holes in anyones belief. Some like to just leave it alone and not think about it and thereby not be wrong.

I think there is room in the universe for a spiritual dimension. Anecdotal evidence isn't solid proof, but the abundance of it leaves you wondering. People like Edgar Cayce are hard to explain. If it is possible to predict the future, than our concept of time needs adjusting. I think time is the most misunderstood concept of the universe we have.

So thats my soapbox. If everyone would just admit they're wrong, but making the best sence of it they can, we'd all get along a lot better.

more from Master Zen

No, it's not wrong, but my question was if it was necessary. Honestly, I have not found any correlation between moral people and religious people and thus I think it is incorrect to judge people just on basis of their faith. Good people come in all shapes and sizes and not all of them carry a cross.

Not knowing anything else about a person, I would rather have my kids hang with the church going crowd than not. It does weed out the parents who just don't give a crap or would rather get high on Sunday mornings. There are plenty of immoral people in the church but I would bet its less than you would find in the general population.

[Jack the Bodiless]

No, it is not an abortifacient; it is deferring the judgment of a woman to god. And "defiled" is not referential to the state of pregnancy itself(puritanical fear of sexual functions is a latter-day phenomenon), but to the state of having had sex with another man. If she's innocent, she "shall conceive seed," like it says. If god holds her guilty the fetus will rot.

Remember, this is not an isolated miracle: this refers to a standard procedure to be followed in cases of suspected infidelity.

Stripped of the mumbo-jumbo: every woman in this situation is to be given an evidently poisonous substance which has a high probability of killing any fetus she might be carrying.

So, unless this is a reliable miracle that can be invoked on demand (i.e. a magical spell: I'm fairly sure that it's heretical for Christians of any non-gnostic denomination to believe that God can be invoked like this), the result will frequently be the death of the fetus regardless of how it was conceived.

Call it "God's justice" if it makes you feel any better about it, but how is this not an abortion?

[Jack the Bodiless]

Not knowing anything else about a person, I would rather have my kids hang with the church going crowd than not. It does weed out the parents who just don't give a crap or would rather get high on Sunday mornings. There are plenty of immoral people in the church but I would bet its less than you would find in the general population.

That would not be a safe bet.

Atheists are under-represented in prison populations, Roman Catholic priests are over-represented among pedophiles, and some sort of perverted religious fanaticism is common in serial killers (and, of course, suicide bombers and those who fly airliners into buildings).

On the whole, it may be true that a lot of normal folks credit their religion with keeping them well-behaved. But the religious off-the-rails types are truly terrifying. It might be difficult to separate cause-and-effect in these cases: but, on the whole, I think it's safer to avoid the overtly and enthusiastically religious.

Even without the nutcases: there's often plenty of petty bigotry among them too. It's easy to feel that way if you're convinced that the Creator of the Universe shares your prejudices (as he almost invariably does, strangely enough).

[BustaMike]

You have got to be kidding. You say atheism doesn't care how we got here. Any group as intellegent as atheists profess themselves to be must at some point ponder their origin, their existance, and the meaning of life and death. Claiming its a stupid question and then criticizing those who attempt to answer it isn't much of a platform to claim intellectual superiority. I really don't think you're speaking for atheists but out on your own thin limb.

You misunderstood what I meant. Speaking strictly for myself, I believe the Why? question can never be answered. Any attempt to answer this question from any standpoint is always done to try and make people feel more comfortable with the fact that they have been thrust into a universe that cannot be fully understood. Religion was originally created as an attempt to answer this question, but it fails just like everything else because there is no answer.

Now, given this, the question itself isn't stupid. It's the most basic question there is. Everyone has to find some way to deal with it. For some it's religion, for others it's atheism. In this sense, every answer is the correct one for the person asking the question. We get problems when people think that their answer is right for anyone besides themselves.

I slightly misspoke when I said atheism (or my take on it) doesn't care how we got here. What I meant was, because I know I will never have an answer to why we are here, I've accepted that fact and moved on. There's no need for me to constantly be troubled by something I can't answer. In a way, that is my answer to the question. I'm not sure that philosophy is actually atheism or not, but it sure isn't religious.

Hope that makes sense.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Frogman

Which of course lead to the conclusion that everyone is wrong. I'm wrong, you're wrong and therefore its easy to punch holes in anyones belief. Some like to just leave it alone and not think about it and thereby not be wrong.

If you read my really really long first post about 2 pages back I also said everybody was wrong and that even I am a 99.99% atheist because there is a chance, remote as it is, that I might end up seeing jesus or allah when I die.

I think there is room in the universe for a spiritual dimension. Anecdotal evidence isn't solid proof, but the abundance of it leaves you wondering.

So, just when something is missing there must be a reason for its existence? Hmm... so there must be sea monsters and dragons somewhere out there right?

Also, why must a "spritual" dimension not be science-based? Just because we many not be able to explain other dimensions which our current knowledge of science doesn not mean the unknown followes a divine constitution. There is only one constitution which governes the entire universe, it is science, and we haven't even begun to understand the first article.

So thats my soapbox. If everyone would just admit they're wrong, but making the best sence of it they can, we'd all get along a lot better.

I've admitted it. Have you?

Not knowing anything else about a person, I would rather have my kids hang with the church going crowd than not. It does weed out the parents who just don't give a crap or would rather get high on Sunday mornings. There are plenty of immoral people in the church but I would bet its less than you would find in the general population.

I would much rather know the people my kids hang out with and not judge others by their faith or lack thereof. It does not weed out the parents that get high on every other morning besides Saturdays.

You have no proof that religious people are more moral than others just because they publicaly adhere to a moral code. What is said in public and what is done in private (and in public) are two very different things.

[Elok]

I think science has long past solved the mystery of "conceivable seeds" and rotten fetuses....

Uh...if that's a joke, I don't get the reference.

Some people still flame... and others even if there weren't mods would act correctly. It isn't fear of God which drives people to act in a morally correct way. I do not inflict pain on others because I would not like them to do the same to me, not because I fear I will go to heaven or hell. They only restraint is my own logic and reason, not some angry deity torturing me for eternity.

Has this whole board gone selectively illiterate? I just said that the reason for obedience in proper Christians should be a desire for peace in their lives, not fear of punishment. The remark on mods was a proviso for reality, not for the divine. And if you think there is a single human being on earth who consistently acts with goodness and reason, you're the one who's being naive here, not me. Do you act perfectly? Is everything you do sprung from truth? I don't think so...

Prayer, meditation, etc. its all the same way of getting in tough with your inner self and finding answers inside of you. It's not god that's talking to you or guiding you (although most faithfull believe so) it is yourself. Now if people started getting some self-esteem and realizing that every problem's answer can be found within themselves, there would be no need for gods. Open your eyes, there is no "master plan", every success in life is because we've been smart enough to take it, and every defeat is because we've been stupid enough to let it happen. Oh and luck...or divine will? everything happens for a reason? umm. no. Luck is simply a point in a probability distribution. If if something happens for a reason, it's because we made that reason happen.

And why do we not act with perfect reason at all times? How have we not evolved to a point such that we have such moments of utter clarity more than ten percent of the time? We have had scientific progress for centuries; we improve the agricultural sciences, so now most famines are caused by heavy-handed governments instead of natural disasters. We perfect computing, and we create computer viruses. We develop mass production, but we save on machine maintenance anyway by subcontracting foreign sweatshop managers. Year after year of enlightenment and we keep finding newer and better ways to make ourselves and each other miserable to make up for it. Or else we refit new vices. We have the power to make life perfect but we do not. That is not the behavior of a rational species. Why? The faith has an answer for that in the fall. Science cannot even try. That's why I go with religion there.

Remember, this is not an isolated miracle: this refers to a standard procedure to be followed in cases of suspected infidelity.
Stripped of the mumbo-jumbo: every woman in this situation is to be given an evidently poisonous substance which has a high probability of killing any fetus she might be carrying.
So, unless this is a reliable miracle that can be invoked on demand (i.e. a magical spell: I'm fairly sure that it's heretical for Christians of any non-gnostic denomination to believe that God can be invoked like this), the result will frequently be the death of the fetus regardless of how it was conceived.
Call it "God's justice" if it makes you feel any better about it, but how is this not an abortion?

Numbers 5:17(RSV) refers to the makeup of this horrible baby-killing poison: "the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water." Dirty water. Dirty water is supposed to be a reliable means of inducing a miscarriage? Or are you suggesting that ancient Hebrew priests lined their places of worship with poison? What kind of "poisonous substance" have you been smoking?
And you might be fairly sure, but you're still wrong. What do you think a modern Christian sacrament is, if not a readily repeated miracle? Bread and water transformed into flesh and blood, immersion in water causing a rebirth, anointment with chrism? Any of this ringing a bell? Do you know the definition of the word "covenant?" Sheesh.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Elok
I just said that the reason for obedience in proper Christians should be a desire for peace in their lives, not fear of punishment.

Okay, but then how does belief in God improve the Christian's morals over those of the person who doesn't believe in God? Unless somebody needs to believe in God in order to desire peace in their life (and I frankly don't see any connection between belief or disbelief in God and desire or lack of desire for peace), then the Christian (or the Muslim or the Hindu or whoever) is in the same moral boat as the atheist, all things being equal. If you never intended to claim or imply that the Christian is morally better off than the atheist, then why bring up morals at all if they're not germane to the debate?