There's no such thing as objectivity (so I may as well be religious).

[Crimson Wizard]

I think anyone can assume that anyone who writes "#1 Gay Basher" in some kind of proud way has an opposition to them, for one reason or another.  Anybody who writes such a blatant hatred towards another human being is opening themselves up to being questioned and judged.  It's not very nice, is it?  Why wouldn't I want to oppose unjust discrimination?

That might be related to personal experience, but I would not immediately oppose a man (any man) if he'd written "#1 Jews killer" under his avatar, because, from my point of view, such statement made on general public forum (not dedicated to nazi philosophy or something like that, for example) would mean he is 1) making a dumb joke, 2) being a troll (or pretending to be one) or 3) sarcasm (something like Khris explained). In either case this could mean he is acting stupid, but not directly prove he seriously have "blatant hatred" towards aforementioned group of people.

[awakening]

If I hadn't read all the other parts of the thread I probably wouldn't have judged him either.  I would have been taken aback, for sure, and probably investigated further.
As Khris explained it probably is just a joke, but I don't personally agree with this kind of humour.
The Jew example would get me just as cross.

I guess it's how you take it.

[Andail]

Ok, everyone, let's not make this thread derail completely. From here on, let's agree not to write posts that
1. are just meant to provoke. It's basically never funny, it doesn't make you look smart, and it just ruins the thread.
2. only point out how meaningless these debates are. Yes we've all heard the paralympics analogy, and no, it's not true. If you don't personally see a meaning in debating these issues, just stay away from the thread.
3. actually belong in the Rumpus Room. Yes, posting a funny même may seem like a good way to let the situation cool off, but it just makes the thread really long and hard to follow. Go and start a thread in the Rumpus Room if you're itching to be funny.

[waheela]

The Bible at least encourages good moral values. And yes, if I weren't a Mormon I would be a lot more pissy than I am anyway. People are generally ignorant, and mostly they're too ignorant to know or care.

I don't mean to be rude, but I've found a number of bible passages that I can't see as encouraging good moral values in any circumstance. Do you think any of these things are good or moral?

• Num 31:17-18 -- "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
• Isa 13:16 -- "Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished."
• Luk 14:26 -- "If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
• 2Jo 1:10 -- "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into [your] house, neither bid him God speed:"
• 1Cr 14:34 -- "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law."
• 1Ti 2:12 -- "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

Can we at least agree that infanticide, child rape and the oppression of women are not good or moral in any circumstances?

Is slavery in any context actually good?

That really depends. Slavery in America was generally good. That is, the majority of slaves lived better, more productive lives as slaves than the persecution and segregation that followed. Firsthand accounts support this. It's also supported by the number of slaves who willingly stayed with their former "masters" to continue working (because they knew they didn't stand a chance at making a living on their own).

There's also the context in which people are placed into slavery under less humane terms as a form of punishment against them, such as the Jewish slaves in ancient Egypt. Because God's covenant people had willfully rebelled against him, they were subjected to some horrible things. This is essentially the same as a parent stepping aside when a rebellious child refuses to listen, even though the parent knows that the outcome will be far worse for the child.

Again, I don't mean to be rude, but I think your view on slavery in America is a little naive at best. If you honestly believe the owning of another human being can sometimes be ok, I don't know if we can find any common ground on what is truly right and wrong. 

-Why would God create people who are unequal?

Because the alternative is everyone being an exact carbon-copy clone of everyone else. The entire purpose of life itself would be frustrated if everyone had the exact same experience (hence the reason that Satan was deemed the loser in the war in heaven).

So God didn't create people equal because it would be too boring for us?

-If God truly loved every one of us, why would he send some of us to hell, an eternity of torture, for being unequal? Does he really love us if he does?

This is like asking, "if a parent truly loves their children, why would they ever discipline them?" If God is perfect and just, then he is bound to assign punishment to those who willingly choose to rebel against his law. That speaks nothing of whether he loves them. God loves Satan, as even Satan is one of his children. That doesn't mean that God is going to break the justice by which he is bound. At the same time, it also wouldn't be fair or just to hold anyone accountable for knowledge which they never had the opportunity to gain. Those who will be assigned the greatest punishment are those who had the opportunity to accept the truth but willfully rejected it.

I think I understand what you're saying. God and humans are similar to a father and his children. I'm not sure though that the punishment God inflicts holds the same weight as a father punishing his child for doing something bad. It would be like a father beating his child for days on end for getting a "D" on his report card.

Do you honestly think it's right for someone like me (who does not believe in the Christian God but tries to live life as honestly and decently as possible), to spend an eternity in horrible agony because I used the brain and critical thinking God gave me and came to the conclusion there was not enough evidence to believe in Him? Is that truly just?

As to "an eternity of torture", nothing would be worse torture to me than having eternity to come to terms with the fact that I didn't live up to my full potential. Of course, if I hadn't lived a life in accordance with God's law, I certainly wouldn't be comfortable in his presence either. Heck, I don't even feel comfortable going to church on Sundays if I know that I've openly made decisions that go against everything I say I believe. Placing someone outside the presence of God doesn't mean that they are separated from his love (otherwise, even here on this earth we would be separated from his love).

Just a hypothetical scenario... If someone you loved with all your heart in this life did not believe in God, would you truly be happy in Heaven knowing they were burning in hell for all eternity?

-If a mass murderer or rapist converts on his deathbed, does he go to heaven? If so, is that truly fair and just?

Repentance isn't about lip-service. Repentance is a process which generally speaking requires significantly more time than anyone on their deathbed is going to have. Murder is spoken of as being one of the hardest sins to actually be forgiven of, in part because you can't just go and make reparation to the person you've harmed. It wouldn't be just or fair to assume that someone simply saying, "Oh, btw, sorry," would be pardoned of a life of sin.

I think you're right. If God existed, he would absolutely be able to tell if someone was faking it to try to get into Heaven. If he truly has repented, could he though? If so, would that truly be just?

[Lt. Smash]

@monkey:
I always find it funny that religious people call themselves moral. Actually they don't have any real sense of morality. They are just following some codex and commandments that they were told to be good or bad. God says what is good or bad for a human.

But isn't it way more logical that humans know better what is good or bad for them? You know what makes you laugh and what makes you cry; you know what things are good and what things are bad for you.
Even IF there is a god, he wouldn't know better what is good for us than we, because he is no human but we are!

Atheists, agnostics and non-believers don't have these moral codex and commandments they are told to follow. No god, who tells them what's right or what's wrong.
But if you look at various statistics and polls it's quite clear that they are way more moral than any religious people.

Why can this happen one may ask?

I believe, it's simply because these people are way more open-minded. They think about their actions and the outcome of these. They do not have to fear that they will get into hell or anything like that if they do something wrong, they can think rationally about what is really good or bad.

See, monkey is way too restricted in his view of things because of his mormon beliefs. He thinks that slavery can be good because his god or bible or some golden plates don't say that it would be bad (at least not directly). Therefore he says it could be good as he doesn't know if god is strictly against it. If he wouldn't have these strong beliefs, he would see things from a different side.

Myself, as an atheist, think the following when it comes to slavery: How does somebody feel when he is just the property of someone else? Is a life as property better than a life in poverty? How could I dare to let someone work for me in exchange for not torturing and killing him?
After thinking about these things and answering for myself I come to the conclusion that: Even if I would get the richest person in world for keeping slaves, I would rather kill myself than doing something like that.

[waheela]

Atheists, agnostics and non-believers don't have these moral codex and commandments they are told to follow. No god, who tells them what's right or what's wrong.
But if you look at various statistics and polls it's quite clear that they are way more moral than any religious people.

I'm sorry, but I don't even know how one would go about performing a study on which group is more "moral" than the other. 
Do you have any more info about these studies and how they were performed? Maybe some links?

[Snarky]

People like us are more moral because they agree with our opinions. Obviously.

[Lt. Smash]

Sorry I may were not specific enough. Of course there's no real study about morality. But there are several statistics which show that among atheists there is less divorce, murder, rape, crime in general, less prejudice but more tolerance... I'm in bed now but will post some links when I've time tomorrow. If you use google you should find lot of information about that subject.

[Baron]

I love you guys.  In a neighbourly, christian kind of way, and also in a carnal vulgar man-loving kind of way: that should embrace and alienate everyone sufficiently to get your attention.

I'm impressed by the fervour of the arguments of both the religious and atheistic among you: you obviously hold your beliefs very strongly as evidenced by your willingness to argue them endlessly with the hope of.... well, being proven right, I suppose.  I myself have a hard time believing either way.  I must confess I doubt in the existence of a supreme being or flying spaghetti monster or whatever, mostly due to lack of evidence but also due to the self-interested delusions of the most zealous believers (isn't it handy that god told you to oppress those other folk and not the other way around....).  By inclination the cult of reason appeals to me, but then as has been pointed out in the thread it ought to, since that's how I was raised.  And yet, to be truthful, I have a hard time seeing the world as a reasonable place.  For all the blood and treasure sacrificed to science, it is in many ways as aloof and impotent on the ground as any divinity.  Yes we don't die all the time of trivial diseases any more, but then the Hebrews giving up pork probably solved a lot of needless disease-caused death too.  There's lots of diseases which science can't cure, and many more that it says it can but won't.  Also I am frustrated by the feature creep of rationality.  Small decisions made for rational reasons culminate in a straightjacket of regulation that strangles spontaneity and initiative: I won't gripe on with examples, I'm sure you can think of them.  Kids don't explore/play outside any more because everything is rationally dangerous to some degree, etc. 
     So I'm left dubious of anything that makes grandiose promises of a better life or offers to teach me to improve myself.  I guess the official term is agnostic, but I even doubt that term encapsulates everything I'm not sure of.  I don't like hate, but I guess there's a time and place for everything (to be a good person you really ought to hate what the Nazis stood for).  Being good is appealing, but it leaves you vulnerable to those who would take advantage of unconditional goodness.  So where are the absolutes that can dispel my doubts?  I am reminded of one of my grandfather's favourite sayings: "All things in moderation.  But not that much moderation."

Peace be with you sometimes maybe. 

[Andail]

Ok, I just removed a bunch of posts that ignored the warning I posted like less than 24 hours ago.

Really guys, respect the topic of the thread.

If you don't enjoy discussing religion, there's no f-ing reason to barge in and tell everyone about it. Just pick another discussion to take part of.

[Khris]

There's lots of diseases which science can't cure, and many more that it says it can but won't.  Also I am frustrated by the feature creep of rationality.  Small decisions made for rational reasons culminate in a straightjacket of regulation that strangles spontaneity and initiative: I won't gripe on with examples, I'm sure you can think of them.  Kids don't explore/play outside any more because everything is rationally dangerous to some degree, etc.

Wow.
There are many diseases science says it can cure but won't?  Care to name a few of those?
And how does science tell kids not to play outside?
If there's a radioactive cloud coming towards your house, science doesn't tell you to stay indoors, it only tells you why and how you're going to die if you don't.
Science doesn't make moral judgments. It tries to describe and understand reality.
(Actually: according to science, going outside and eating dirt is recommended, because exposure will strengthen the immune system.)
It looks like you are confusing rationality with completely irrational recommendations. Not everything that isn't religious is scientific.
The people who claim that living near power lines makes you sick are not scientists.

If your view of religion is similarly removed from reality, I'd almost feel inclined to defend it. The notion that Hebrews didn't eat pork because of infections if completely ridiculous. They knew nothing of microorganisms.

[geork]

I know this will complicate the discussion somewhat, but is it worth trying to factor in a distinction between the views, beliefs and practices of a religious organization and the views, beliefs and practices of an individual within one? Does being religious mean you have to observe every code that is layed down,or does it mean trying to undertake the same spiritual journey, rather, that the organization is attempting to undertake?
I'm not saying I know the answer, I was just wondering what you all thought of that, because if the individual is allowed to consciously deviate from the text if he/she sees that to be imperative on guiding their spiritual journey towards whatever their religion tells them is the end point, does that make them religious or not? I personally (from a semi-religious, although quite deviant, persuasion) see going to church as a boon, but I cannot accept that ALL the teachings in the Bible really are the 'truth' (it was, of course, written by people too).

[Khris]

I don't know what a "spiritual journey" is. Sounds made up.

What you propose sounds like somebody who is raised to be vegan but then finds out they like eggs way too much to abstain from them. It ultimately always comes down to cherry-picking. I'd also question that going to church is a boon, as opposed to a complete waste of time.

Religions aren't interested in what's actually true, they already claim to know the absolute truth. Anybody who is actually interested in what's true should be consistent and leave dogma behind.

[Stupot]

I know this will complicate the discussion somewhat, but is it worth trying to factor in a distinction between the views, beliefs and practices of a religious organization and the views, beliefs and practices of an individual within one? Does being religious mean you have to observe every code that is layed down,or does it mean trying to undertake the same spiritual journey, rather, that the organization is attempting to undertake?
I'm not saying I know the answer, I was just wondering what you all thought of that, because if the individual is allowed to consciously deviate from the text if he/she sees that to be imperative on guiding their spiritual journey towards whatever their religion tells them is the end point, does that make them religious or not? I personally (from a semi-religious, although quite deviant, persuasion) see going to church as a boon, but I cannot accept that ALL the teachings in the Bible really are the 'truth' (it was, of course, written by people too).

It's one thing that any given religion does have its word-for-word followers who go along with everything that their particular holy book tells them.  But then you break down the main religions into hundreds, if not thousands of smaller denominations which each have their own 'version' of what they consider 'the truth'.  Do those people really believe that their small handful of people know something that all the other churches don't.  And then even within those churches, there are presumably a large percentage of people who don't necessarily share exactly the same set of beliefs than those of their fellow churchgoers.  Basically,  billions of people think they are following the true path.  But how can they all be right if they are all following different paths? Are religious people so arrogant that they think their particular set of arbitrary, historically-evolved beliefs is somehow more correct than those of everyone else?  If everyone else is wrong, then you're probably wrong as well.

[waheela]

There's lots of diseases which science can't cure, and many more that it says it can but won't.  Also I am frustrated by the feature creep of rationality.  Small decisions made for rational reasons culminate in a straightjacket of regulation that strangles spontaneity and initiative: I won't gripe on with examples, I'm sure you can think of them.  Kids don't explore/play outside any more because everything is rationally dangerous to some degree, etc.

Wow.
There are many diseases science says it can cure but won't?  Care to name a few of those?
And how does science tell kids not to play outside?
If there's a radioactive cloud coming towards your house, science doesn't tell you to stay indoors, it only tells you why and how you're going to die if you don't.
Science doesn't make moral judgments. It tries to describe and understand reality.
(Actually: according to science, going outside and eating dirt is recommended, because exposure will strengthen the immune system.)
It looks like you are confusing rationality with completely irrational recommendations. Not everything that isn't religious is scientific.
The people who claim that living near power lines makes you sick are not scientists.

If your view of religion is similarly removed from reality, I'd almost feel inclined to defend it. The notion that Hebrews didn't eat pork because of infections if completely ridiculous. They knew nothing of microorganisms.

Khris, I think you're being too hard on Baron. I actually agree to a certain extent with what he's saying. (Not sure what he means about the diseases scientists can cure, but won't though.) I may be wrong, but I think what Baron is getting at is that there are often studies that are published online or in magazines that say doofy things that go against common sense. Things like having 10 extra pounds of body fat will shorten your lifespan by 5 years, or eating such-and-such will reduce your risk of cancer by 5%. However, a lot of this is junk science. When looking at studies like this, it's imperative to consider how the study was performed (control groups, how many people were surveyed, etc...), whether or not it was peer-reviewed, and what company potentially stands to benefit from this study? There are a number of things (like germs) that people have phobias of because the media and junk science have told them these are dangerous and should be avoided. When you actually look at the hard science though, you'll see what Khris has said: Germs strengthen the immune system, it's important for kids to get colds at an early age, etc...

[Eric]

It didn't sound like a joke to me, more like: "those silly atheists just don't get how profound and great Jesus's teachings are".

As an atheist, I still find value in the teachings of Jesus. The power of the Bible is in its storytelling, and the Old Testament especially benefits from being the end result of oral tales transmitted over generations before the act of writing was invented. The stories of Moses, Noah, David, Solomon, etc., are undeniably great narratives. Jesus, as he's represented in the gospels, was also a great storyteller.

The biggest problem with the teachings of Jesus is the same as their biggest strength. Their profundity comes from their simplicity. "Blessed are the meek," equally so. "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye," "Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you didn't do it to one of the least of these, you didn't do it to me." Not exactly mind-blowing material, but how many follow them? They're so simple that they seem like common sense, and yet they're not commonly put into practice.

I'm obviously not as enamored with the bits regarding the supernatural, but even in those, Jesus is attempting to change the nature of the relationship between the people and their God. The Old Testament God wipes out entire civilizations on seeming whims, favors nations in battle with others, kills innocents to prove points to the devil. The God for whom Jesus advocates is one of love, forgiveness (see the parables on the prodigal son, and the story of the two debtors), charity (the parable of the widow's two coins), and benevolence. Thus, the new Covenant: "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."

Jesus spent his time with the working class and with sinners. Part of me always wonders, and I hope the religious among us will excuse this bit of what they might consider blasphemy, if Jesus was just a really benevolent teacher who realized that if he wanted to reach people, he had to put his teachings in terms of what they knew already, i.e. in terms of their religion. I wonder if he really believed he was the son of God, or if that was just a solid hook on which he knew he could hang his teachings.

[Khris]

Jesus also introduced the concept of eternal punishment in the lake of fire. And he tells people to not care about tomorrow, leave their family, and to love their enemy.
Is somebody who gives as much bad advice as good a good advisor...?

The fact that not many follow his teachings to the letter is probably a good thing, and even if we single out the ones that would still count as good advice today, it again boils down to "don't be a dick". It's all we need as basis. The important thing is the message anyway, not who delivers it.

The biggest problem I have with religious morality in general is the absolute black and white type of separating people into sinners and non-sinners. Jesus' teachings are no exception, due to their simplicity. Life is complex, science is complex, the universe is complex. Accepting simple explanations and rules is easy, but is almost always problematic.

[Eric]

Jesus also introduced the concept of eternal punishment in the lake of fire. And he tells people to not care about tomorrow, leave their family, and to love their enemy.
Is somebody who gives as much bad advice as good a good advisor...?

Well, that's the benefit of seeing Jesus as a philosopher and not a religious figure whom I have to follow to the letter. I don't have to agree with everything that Aristotle, Kierkegaard, Kant, Nietzsche, or others say, but can treat their good ideas as the ideas of fallible men who sometimes also had bad ones. Some of the examples you've cited here aren't things I'd necessarily disagree with either -- our interpretations of the mandate to love enemies, for example, I think, would come down to our individual interpretation of that set of verses.

In addition, my skepticism regarding the supernatural extends to whether Jesus believed in a fiery hell, or whether, as he often did in the parables, he drew on metaphor and storytelling to make his point. I'm being super lazy right now, and don't actually want to belabor this because I think we're on the same side for the most part in the wider view of this debate, but if I'm not mistaken, Jesus was drawing on a description of an actual place where garbage was burned...or something. We also get all of this filtered across centuries, secondhand accounts, and multiple translations.

it again boils down to "don't be a dick"

Which is, unfortunately, the part that everyone seems to gloss over, in fact they bend over backwards to ignore it. Again, I wonder if Jesus was attempting to lead a shift from a culture of persecution, mistrust and vengeance, to one of self-examination, openness, and forgiveness. This involved making people shift their view of God and the laws that God hand-wrote for them to follow. Easier this approach than simply announcing there was no God, though it still got him killed. I don't advocate this as the definitive reading of the New Testament, only the one that's most interesting to me.

Ugh. That's more than I ever intended to write in this thread. Carry on!

[Igor Hardy]

Science doesn't make moral judgments. It tries to describe and understand reality.
(Actually: according to science, going outside and eating dirt is recommended, because exposure will strengthen the immune system.)
It looks like you are confusing rationality with completely irrational recommendations. Not everything that isn't religious is scientific.
The people who claim that living near power lines makes you sick are not scientists.

When it works like it should, removed from dogma, misleading desires, focused on a problem at hand, science doesn't try to describe and understand reality. It's people who do that. Because of psychological needs and ideological purposes. For those who still believe actual science (or even "real", "official" science) is any close to 100% rationality and differs so much from how the directives of a religion are established, I have one word for you: "Kuhn".

[Khris]

How about a few more words? Because I'm talking about landing a rover on Mars using a sky crane, eradicating smallpox and polio, building quantum computers inside diamonds, and figuring out how single celled organisms turned into the diversity of life we see today by purely natural processes.
How does any of this compare to what religion does/is?