Are atheists discriminatory towards theists?

[(Q)]

I invited you to come rant here, didn't I?

You're dictionary appears to be somewhat different then mine, which does not show a relationship between 'experiment' and 'rant.'

Tomayto Tomahto

I'll take that as a no and will expect to see more of the same.

Dare I say, most respectfully, that you have no idea what you are talking about?

Uh, Biology 112 is a prerequisite for every biology student: Evolution and Genetics with Lab. Yet, you know nothing about evolution. Curious...

Fishy... smell...

[S.A.M.]

You're dictionary appears to be somewhat different then mine, which does not show a relationship between 'experiment' and 'rant.'

Yes I've some experience of your "dictionaries"

I'll take that as a no and will expect to see more of the same.

still jumping.

Uh, Biology 112 is a prerequisite for every biology student: Evolution and Genetics with Lab. Yet, you know nothing about evolution. Curious...

Biology 112? Are they offering it in India? Must've missed it.

Fishy... smell...

Froggy....jump

[scorpius]

I

So, I would like to know the position of atheists regarding:
1. Abortion

its a womans choice,did ya know that a hungry child dies somewhere in the world every three sconds?
do we need more children then? dont think so.

2. Homosexuality and Gay marriage

why the fuck should this even be discused,whats it to you who marries whom?

3. Capital Punishment

only for those who deserve it,and only if we are 100% sure they done the crime.Sadam Hussein. for example..fry the bastard or maybe its more humane to let him sit in the slamer for the rest of his life?

4. Immigration

people want to make a better life and theres plenty of work here,I say welcome.

5. Ideal social system ( capitalism, socialism, etc)

something like a Star trek society where they dont need money,sure would eliminate lot of crimes,or www.technocracy.org
but then majority of people are too unevolved to even consider this ..yet!

[Michael]

samcdkey,

Wow these threads do follow entropy – that’s for sure

Yesterday I was reading along and fine. Today it seems like the tone has changed? Yeah atheists tend think to theists are irrational in regards to the religious portion of their belief. So what? Strong atheists are irrational in their belief as well.

Is there really that much difference between Agonistic Atheists and Agnostic Theists?

Are you an agnostic Muslim?

I think being happy without harming others in the process is really the most important. viva la Happyness!
(I’d rather be a happy Muslim than a sour Atheist.)


Anyway, I was wondering what your thoughts were on:

- 1. Abortion
- 2. Homosexuality and Gay marriage
- 3. Capital Punishment
- 4. Immigration
- 5. Ideal social system ( capitalism, socialism, etc)


And my own question:

- 6. Do you believe in race?

I don’t. To me race is meaningless. Yet, I know some atheists that do believe “vehemently” in race. Why I have no idea? They are irrational to me. They seem to think I am irrational!? That can not be......


Cheers,
Michael

[S.A.M.]

Hi Michael

Try to imagine, you wake up one day. Everyone around you stopped believing in the One God Allah and started believing that the Moon was God. I mean EVERYONE. Everyday people prayed 10 times to the Moon God. They would scorn you for your belief in Allah.
"No no no – the Moon God is the True God!!"
Say some other people started to pray to the Sun.
Wars broke out.
Moon worshipping people killed Sun worshipping people.
How would you feel? You would probably say to yourself - "This is crazy". The Moon is not a God nor is the Sun.

You get the picture.

Actually I woke up one day and found out that God had been transformed to a sky fairy and I thought "This is crazy!"

Well, that’s how I feel sometimes. I used to believe in Jesus et.al. (well the blue eyed blond haired one that iconicly looked kind of like me One day, while I was walking to my grad building, I had an epiphany. Figuratively, I suppose you could say, I realized everyone was worshipping either the moon or the sun.

Are you spiritually inclined, though?

Even if you are not religious?

Thus there is a desire to engage in debate.
Why?
I suppose it’s part of being social.
Encoded in our DNA like everything else.
I also find debate is a good way to learn and can be kind of fun.

Oh I'm all for debate. I've been opinionated and argumentative ever since I was born. I was a little taken aback at the degree of viciousness on this forum, though.

Although, I think most Atheists recognize that Theists are rational in all things except their belief. That is the really interesting part.

There is a rather large assumption at play here, you know. For example, I would say that atheists are alright except for their lack of faith.

Can you see the similarity with the two stories?

Don't rock the boat?

I know some Atheists that are as fanatical in their belief as some Theists.

It’s obviously encoded in our DNA. Thus, Type II errors abound

Yes, I know what you mean I've met some major Type IIs here.

Ironically enough, for me, the more I have learned - the more I realize I don’t know anything!

But you're open to discussion, at least.

Yes. But when a person comes to a Science forum in the religion section it’s kind of understood that they are there to debate Religion from a scientific point of view.

So does science eschew morality?

Well, do you think it is OK to teach a child to believe in One God or Many Gods or Buddha or to be an Atheist?

Teaching a child to believe in a particular religion is similar to teaching a child to speak in a particular language. The child has no choice in which religion/language. And once learned, it’s almost impossible not to think within that religion/language.

So what do you think about the children of the present generation?

They have considerable more freedom of choice as compared to the previous.

What is your objective assessment of them?

Morals/ethics are individual. For example, it used to be moral/ethic to own Slaves. Now most people think it is wrong. It is morally/ethically acceptiable to have multiple wives in some countries. It is morally/ethically unacceptle in AU/USA/Euope/China/Japan etc... It is immoral for a women to show a lot of flesh in KSA it is perfectly fine to sunbake topless at a beach in Sydney (that’s where I live).

Yet people constantly impose their morals on those who belong to a different society or culture. What is your opinion about that?

These are my personal views:
1) Abortion – I am a man so I can not say, I will never have an abortion. But, I support women to make their own moral/ethical choice. 8/10 fertilized eggs spontaneously abort.
2) Homosexuality and Gay marriage – Perfectly OK, I support men and women whom are gay to make their own moral/ethically choice on the topic. Sexuality has a gradient from classic male to classic female with all the greyness in-between. Some people are born phenotypically having both sexes – I suppose to be fair we should have at least a third category then.
3) Capital Punishment – Some heinous crimes can be dealt with using Capitol punishment. Child molesters come to mind.
4) Immigration – I have migrated from the USA to AU. I support immigration. I would like to see a day when people can immigrate anywhere. I know how much I hated it when I didn’t have citizenship here in AU, and I could be forced to leave at someone’s whim.
5) Ideal social system. Great question. I have no idea. Capitalism is pretty OK, but I think we should have free (a) medical (b) grade-high school (c) support for the disabled and elderly (d) minimum wage. People in their 20-40 should not be given to much social support. This is the most productive times of our lives. Most animals push their young out of the nest/pack at this age. We are animals - we should do the same! It’s good for them anyway.

Very PC

As a Muslim perhaps you were once told of how the Qur’an is miraculous book, more so than the others – which have been corrupted over time. Did you ever wonder who wrote it? What year was it finished? Who canonized it? What of the day of its completion? Surely that would be known? If not then at least the month? The year?

That's been done to death in another thread.

As "evidence" maybe you were told of the healing properties of Honey? That’s always a good one to point to. It’s often presented as evidence of God inspired revelation given to Mohammed from Allah via an Angle during a dream …

All the verses were revelations and the honey one has actually been quoted not so much for the "healing properties" but the fact that it is only the female bees which produce the honey. I'm not really sure about this, since I haven't actually looked at the Quran for confirmation of scientific evidence, but this was a fact apparently unknown until very recent.

So to answer your last question. My personal opinion is that Religious Archaeology should be taught in school. The connections with past religions should be made. In this way people will understand that most stories in Judaism Xianity and Islam are plagiarized works from earlier religions. The stories were not corrupted over time – they were incorporated by the new religious upstarts.


- The similarities between Mythranic belief and Xianity for example.
- Arab Nature worship and Islam.
- Sumerian epics copied verbatum into Judaism.
- Zoroastrian stories taken into Xianity and Islam.
Etc…

Well there are some things I could say to that, but you would call it propaganda

[S.A.M.]

samcdkey,

Wow these threads do follow entropy – that’s for sure

Yesterday I was reading along and fine. Today it seems like the tone has changed? Yeah atheists tend think to theists are irrational in regards to the religious portion of their belief. So what? Strong atheists are irrational in their belief as well.

Sorry about that; he brings out the worst in me.

I'm a good girl, otherwise, really.

Is there really that much difference between Agonistic Atheists and Agnostic Theists?

Are you an agnostic Muslim?

I think being happy without harming others in the process is really the most important. viva la Happyness!
(I’d rather be a happy Muslim than a sour Atheist.)

Well I'm not agnostic, but I truly believe in the freedom of choice.

Anyway, I was wondering what your thoughts were on:

- 1. Abortion

I used to be vehemently pro-choice, then one day in the hospital where I worked I saw a live abortion; I don't know how they're doing it these days but the one I saw was by vacuum aspiration. The fetus was 3 months old. I saw the vacuum suction tug at the fetus's arm and pull it off, then one leg , then the other, whatever came in the vicinity of the vacuum was sucked off and finally there were only bits and pieces of the fetus in a tray. At 3 months it was fully formed though little in size and on the ultrasound screen, I could see the baby's mouth open in a silent scream when the first arm was torn off. I know that abortion is sometimes unavoidable and everyone has the right to choose, but personally its not an option for me.

- 2. Homosexuality and Gay marriage

I really don't care who sleeps with whom as long as they're not underage children; and they might as well legalize it, if they so choose.

- 3. Capital Punishment

This is a really grey area for me. Death is so final, what does it really achieve?

But there are some people who lose their right to life due to the heinousness of the crimes they commit.

- 4. Immigration

Why not?

- 5. Ideal social system ( capitalism, socialism, etc)

I would like a society where the government had a strong sense of social responsibility, not just for the present but also for the future. I don't know how it can be achieved though.

- 6. Do you believe in race?

No but I do believe that we are fascinated and in the case of some people fearful of differences; I've lived in different places around the world and one thing I've come to realize is, people have far more in common than they realize.


Is this enough?

Sam

[Michael]

Hi Sam,

Are you spiritually inclined, though?

Even if you are not religious?

Hmmmm, I’m not sure of your question?

Well, I will say this, deep within our DNA is some code that, when translated and transcribed into proteins etc… creates a brain. Within this fluid-electric creature is “consciousness” and somewhere “in-there” I can distinguish self from non-self.

I somehow know "I am me” and "I am not this PC". (Incidentally I believe some people with a particular type of brain damage loose this ability).

Anyway, back to spirituality. I really hope that one day I am able to reach a meditative trance where I can loose the sense of "I, me, mine", for time to disappear - to live in that moment of eternity and to feel like I am a part of everyone and everything in existence – THAT, I think, would be fantastic.

Yes, I do believe transcendence would be great!

Hopefully I can do it someday. Right now I don’t even know how to meditate - Some day though….


Is that what you mean by spiritual?

Oh I'm all for debate. I've been opinionated and argumentative ever since I was born. I was a little taken aback at the degree of viciousness on this forum, though.

Yeah, discussions can get heated at times. I would be lying if I said haven’t been pretty harsh at times. Sometimes something, a new idea or whatnot, can some from this. It’s amazing what we will come up with to defend our position.


You know, the Chinese character for discussion is words+fire

There is a rather large assumption at play here, you know. For example, I would say that atheists are alright except for their lack of faith.

Ahhh, but you replaced the word rational with alright? Hmmmm?

Don't rock the boat?

You know what they say, if the boats a rocken don’t come a knocken.

Haaa! Just kidding!!

So does science eschew morality?

You know, I had to look up the word eschew. Wow, those 4 years of grad school are starting to pay dividens now!!

Really though, I think of science only as a method. And a pretty good one. However, this method has no morality or ethics - just methodology. Those are for the scientist herself to determine.

So what do you think about the children of the present generation?

They have considerable more freedom of choice as compared to the previous.

What is your objective assessment of them?

Well they do have access to a lot of information, but other than that I think they are pretty much the same mix of personality types as were around when I was young.

Did that answer your question?

Yet people constantly impose their morals on those who belong to a different society or culture. What is your opinion about that?

Yeah, that is the way of people isn’t it? I think it’s too bad most people are like that. That’s one reason I don’t like monotheism – particularly of the Abrahamic branch. When I think of the countless cultures that have been crushed, destroyed, forever lost – and all for what? To do what people do – impose their will on to those who belong to a different society or culture.

Yeah, I think it sucks.

Very PC

really?

All the verses were revelations and the honey one has actually been quoted not so much for the "healing properties" but the fact that it is only the female bees which produce the honey. I'm not really sure about this, since I haven't actually looked at the Quran for confirmation of scientific evidence, but this was a fact apparently unknown until very recent.

I’m not sure.

Well there are some things I could say to that, but you would call it propaganda

Haaa! Yes you are probably right

Well I'm not agnostic, but I truly believe in the freedom of choice.

I’m not sure that I understand?

I used to be vehemently pro-choice, then one day in the hospital where I worked I saw a live abortion;

While I have not seen the procedure I have seen many aborted foetuses.

I really don't care who sleeps with whom as long as they're not underage children; and they might as well legalize it, if they so choose.

I understand, but what of the ethics and morality? Do you think a gay couple are immoral?

Is this enough?

LOL …. for now


Michael

[S.A.M.]

[QUOTE=Michael]Hi Sam,

Is that what you mean by spiritual?

Yes

Yeah, discussions can get heated at times. I would be lying if I said haven’t been pretty harsh at times. Sometimes something, a new idea or whatnot, can some from this. It’s amazing what we will come up with to defend our position.

Probably, but its very non-Asian to be rude and aggressive in academic discussions; we usually say "please" and "thank you" even if we completely disagree. Also, a lot of those who dish it out cannot take it.

You know, the Chinese character for discussion is words+fire

I doubt the fire was supposed to be aimed at each other though!

Ahhh, but you replaced the word rational with alright? Hmmmm?

I could not find a word which would express faithlessness.

You know, I had to look up the word eschew. Wow, those 4 years of grad school are starting to pay dividens now!!

Sorry I love unusual words; they are my secret passion.

Really though, I think of science only as a method. And a pretty good one. However, this method has no morality or ethics - just methodology. Those are for the scientist herself to determine.

Yes; but science is capable of great good and even greater evil. And can we trust in the morality of human beings?

Well they do have access to a lot of information, but other than that I think they are pretty much the same mix of personality types as were around when I was young.

We have different experiences. I find that, compared to 20 years ago, children are less affectionate, less able to form stable friendships and more likely to lose their temper. They also no longer expect stability in long term relationships.

Yeah, that is the way of people isn’t it? I think it’s too bad most people are like that. That’s one reason I don’t like monotheism – particularly of the Abrahamic branch. When I think of the countless cultures that have been crushed, destroyed, forever lost – and all for what? To do what people do – impose their will on to those who belong to a different society or culture.

And yet in India, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists all live together with understanding. In fact, until the British came along and divided the people the concept of one religion was completely absent.

I’m not sure that I understand?

I mean that religion is a personal/family issue. This is how I view it.

While I have not seen the procedure I have seen many aborted foetuses.

Yes; it was an unforgettable experience.

I understand, but what of the ethics and morality? Do you think a gay couple are immoral?

Who defines what is moral or immoral? personally I do not consider it immoral.

[(Q)]

[QUOTE=samcdkey]

Yes; but science is capable of great good and even greater evil. And can we trust in the morality of human beings?

What 'sins' has science commited in order to be evil? How can science be evil?

The problem is when theists get their hands on science and use it to do harm to others. So, you cannot trust the morality of theists.

We have different experiences. I find that, compared to 20 years ago, children are less affectionate, less able to form stable friendships and more likely to lose their temper. They also no longer expect stability in long term relationships.

Funny how that appears to follow the surge of theism lately.

And yet in India, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists all live together with understanding.

Are you deliberately lying now or are you delusional?

I mean that religion is a personal/family issue. This is how I view it.

Unfortunately, that isn't the reality of religion.

Who defines what is moral or immoral?

Human beings.

[Michael]

Hi Sam,

Probably, but its very non-Asian to be rude and aggressive in academic discussions; we usually say "please" and "thank you" even if we completely disagree. Also, a lot of those who dish it out cannot take it.

I doubt the fire was supposed to be aimed at each other though!

Yes I understand. I think, well if they can not take it, then there is no point in having a discussion. They obviously either want a parrot or a wall to talk with.

I’ll look up the Chinese etymology tonight if I get a chance.

Yes; but science is capable of great good and even greater evil. And can we trust in the morality of human beings?

Well I would say Humans are capable of great good and great evil. So really we always have had to.

And yet in India, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists all live together with understanding. In fact, until the British came along and divided the people the concept of one religion was completely absent.

India, one of the 5 seats of civilization, I haven’t been to India but I would like to go there someday. That said, surely there have been religious wars fought in India pre-British colonization?

Who defines what is moral or immoral?

For most people, society I suppose. However, if so inclined, then the individual.

In this regard, religion has played both a good and bad role - wouldn’t you agree?

Cheers,
Michael

[Michael]

I wonder - were religious wars fought in Europe pre-Xianity?

Of course there were wars fought all the time in Europe. But weren't most just a blatant grab at another peoples resources? If it was expected and excepted that war could and should occur - then maybe there was no need for religion to play a role in war.
People are warlike and hence warred.
Everyone agreed.

I wonder?
With a new concept of morality, one that was based around Xianity, then what?
With it’s core of anti-killing, Xianity would NOT be well placed for humans - who happen to like killing and to make war.

Would the only way to make war in a Xian World be - to make religious war?

Given that humans (human males) like to make war, is it inevitable that a religion that intrudes upon this desire (i.e.: anti-killing, anti-coveting, etc...) that such a religion MUST be incorporated into War? Were the crusades and Xian colonization of the New World an inevitable outcome of Xianities anti-war theme?


(is any of what I just wrote coherent? I’m sleepy but still have a lot of work to finish today

MII

[S.A.M.]

I wonder - were religious wars fought in Europe pre-Xianity?

Of course there were wars fought all the time in Europe. But weren't most just a blatant grab at another peoples resources? If it was expected and excepted that war could and should occur - then maybe there was no need for religion to play a role in war.
People are warlike and hence warred.
Everyone agreed.

I wonder?
With a new concept of morality, one that was based around Xianity, then what?
With it’s core of anti-killing, Xianity would NOT be well placed for humans - who happen to like killing and to make war.

Would the only way to make war in a Xian World be - to make religious war?

Given that humans (human males) like to make war, is it inevitable that a religion that intrudes upon this desire (i.e.: anti-killing, anti-coveting, etc...) that such a religion MUST be incorporated into War? Were the crusades and Xian colonization of the New World an inevitable outcome of Xianities anti-war theme?


(is any of what I just wrote coherent? I’m sleepy but still have a lot of work to finish today

MII

Human Nature has always been territorial and violent:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinio...e#contentSwap1

Here's a list to look at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4757861.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres

There have been wars in India in pre-colonial times. However due to the diversity within Hinduism itself and because most of the invaders were foreigners attracted by the richness both of the Indian culture and its lands, they were never religious wars but wars of expansions. All those who invaded India became assimilated and there are traces of every culture in different parts of the country. It was the Brititsh, with their limited understanding who put all the Hindus in one group ( They did not consider themselves a single group before that; there are vast differences between and many major schools of thought within Hinduism) and separated them from the monotheists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wars_of_India

And a lot of what is termed as religious warfare has political roots and is actually due to fervent nationalism
(just scroll down, you don't even need to read all to get the impact)

http://www.robert-fisk.com/robert_elias_25sept2001.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ons_since_1945

[perplexity]

Human Nature has always been territorial and violent:

How then to apply this to the Internet?

--- Ron.

[S.A.M.]

How then to apply this to the Internet?

--- Ron.

I can think of many ways, the primary one being viruses and junk email (ie a desire to harm/harass people on their virtual space).

Besides that, have you noticed how sensitive people are about their posts and threads? How people attach feelings of power to words? Just have one person say something controversial and everyone who disagrees with him feels compelled to offer an opinion; though they could very well ignore him and stop the matter there. But they MUST show him that he is wrong and why. This is obvious territorialism (my way or the highway)

[perplexity]

Besides that, have you noticed how sensitive people are about their posts and threads? How people attach feelings of power to words?

Like this for instance?

I ceased trying to reason with you in private because it turned out there is no point to it. You insist in your positions and won't budge. Each confrontation with you eventually devolved into an argument about metaphysics and abstracts. I'm not saying that I'm not partially responsible for this, I'm just stating what happened.

Certainly seems to be to do with power, per se, for as long as the need to budge is a mystery. That is what I wonder about, the motivation, what moves to put the time in, for month after month after month with some of them. Do they fail to notice the lack of an actual outcome?

Fortunately I have somebody here at home to remind me of how inconsequential it really is, except perhaps that some feel a need to make up for a lack of power elsewhere.

Just have one person say something controversial and everyone who disagrees with him feels compelled to offer an opinion; though they could very well ignore him and stop the matter there. But they MUST show him that he is wrong and why. This is obvious territorialism (my way or the highway)

Tribalism perhaps.

"Territory" seems to me to require a boundary, without which I put it all down to insecurity.

--- Ron.

[S.A.M.]

Like this for instance?

Certainly seems to be to do with power, per se, for as long as the need to budge is a mystery. That is what I wonder about, the motivation, what moves to put the time in, for month after month after month with some of them. Do they fail to notice the lack of an actual outcome?

Could be self-righteousness (i.e. the need to save someone from themselves), could also be insecurity or fear

Fortunately I have somebody here at home to remind me of how inconsequential it really is, except perhaps that some feel a need to make up for a lack of power elsewhere.

I think insecurity is from within; you may let down your guard when you are able to trust someone, but this is inspite of the insecurity. I don't believe the insecurity itself can be diminished.

Tribalism perhaps.

"Territory" seems to me to require a boundary, without which I put it all down to insecurity.

So do you think the fact that the boundaries are harder to distinguish today is what has made people more territorial, that we are now fighting for what was rather than what is?

[perplexity]

So do you think the fact that the boundaries are harder to distinguish today is what has made people more territorial, that we are now fighting for what was rather than what is?

I suppose so.

The bane of the internet is the sheer impertinence of attempting to apply outdated rules, habits and expectations to a whole new system, at least in terms of scope and power.

To make good use the need is to see it exactly for what it is, not for what we'd like it to be.

--- Ron.

[LiveInFaith]

To make good use the need is to see it exactly for what it is, not for what we'd like it to be.

--- Ron.

Hardly anyone could see using helicopter view; even if one could, still one couldn't see side views. Viewing with 3 dimension ballround view, comprehension is so ideal, yet so far from actuality.

[(Q)]

Human Nature has always been territorial and violent:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinio...e#contentSwap1

That article was written by a religious editor with no references except he claims a book he bases his so-called rationale is endorsed by Richard Dawkins, yet this article, written by a doctor, claims that humans are NOT naturally agressive or violent, with references by Richard Dawkins. It says that the myth of human nature being naturally violent is a tired old argument and that human nature is equally prone to peacemaking.

http://www.harpercollins.com.au/drst...n/0402news.htm

As well, I already offered evidence that it was religion that formed our penchant for violence generations ago, but you refuse to acknowledge that as you cling to myths.

[S.A.M.]

http://www.harpercollins.com.au/drst...n/0405news.htm

A conclusion is the place where you stop thinking