Staredit Network

Fair enough. thanks, Noz

If that generalization you make is true, then I wish both Atheists AND Christians could have an agnostic view upon the argument. By looking at both sides, your predispositions become less firm. By listening to the statements and trying to figure out what they mean, you will not make false conclusions. By finding problems in logic, you can remove the false ideas or find a solution to it, sharpening your skill and strengthening your resolve.

Except, that word, "compromise", juts out like a splinter. In short, a compromise would be putting two differing opinions together equally to form a new opinion. Putting two differing facts on the same subject together to form a new fact is completely absurd. If my friend and I were to look at a face, and I state I saw a very distinct and obvious , while he states he saw a very obvious , we wouldn't compromise the two facts and say we saw !!! Instead, we would use facts and other little trinkets to find which one is wrong. (Of course, both could be wrong.. but both can't be wrong in this case because of up ahead)

Saying that you can "compromise" Atheism and Theism (considering they're contradictory words in themselves) is having a predisposition that both sides are just mere opinions. The Law of Noncontradiction helps display this fact:

Either some being created this world, or it didn't.

Hey Nozomu, was my statement in that other thread about evolution directly (atheism indirectly, because main atheism conclusion is evolution) relates to anarchy correct? I just want to know . It doesn't exactly prove any point, it just shows the normal facts.

Eh, I've decided to join this one since consider myself an walking in the thin line between, sorta like FireKame said.
And I agree with D_Scypher, Capt.Will and Nozumu's view angles the most. Morality can come from logic and drawn from experience as sorta spoken of.

I'm sorry.. my mind has slipped from me currently. Could you more thoroughly explain this hypothesis? Thanks!

I think he means that morality and ethics are not always related to religion. Some people may think that the un-religious are likely to be sinners, but that's hardly true.

I believe the basis of morals and ethics started with religion, but those are ingrained in today's society. Murder is now a universal evil, for example. But furthermore, the character of a person today doesn't necessarily depend on their beliefs regarding the mystic world -- like CaptainWill said, humans are naturally altruistic, and it's through experience and interaction that people learn what's right and wrong, and even what they think about the complexities of life. Life isn't simple, but if we take the time to experience everything with an open mind and heart...

Okay, I'm getting slightly off topic and being more general about morals and life, but I think that's the gist of it.

To further go off-topic, I disagree that humans are naturally altruistic. I think that humans are inherently selfish. Everything we do is for ourselves. Take people who donate to charity, for instance. Would they donate if it didn't make them feel better about themselves? Would you? Answer truthfully, now.

Back on topic, on what evidence do you base the assumption that morality was derived from religion? People without religion are perfectly capable of developing their own morality. It's probably the other way around - religion is a collection of morals packaged in a way that is beneficial to society (when it works the way it's supposed to, that is). Murder was considered wrong way before Jesus got himself nailed onto some planks, and way before there was a concept of "Hell" to scare people into obedience. Bhuddism doesn't have a specific law against murdering other people, but rarely do Bhuddists murder others. So their morality must come from somewhere other than their religion. My guess would be that society instills morality into people from an early age, long before our minds are developed enough to deal with the possible threat of Hell or the bribe of Heaven.

Hmm, I don't know... For some reason I always have this image in my mind from the movie Ten Commandments, with Moses on the hill and all that. Something along the lines of Biblical times often being about sinners and saving (or wrathing) sinners. But then I realized there were other ancient civilizations, like Egypt and Mesopotamia, and unless I'm mistaken they had their own moralistic set of laws. So basically I just realized my concept wasn't developed at all... >_>

In which case, I agree that religion came from a collection of morals. But, to go back to my original idea, I suppose it was religion that decidedly spread their ideals of morality under an identifiable title -- and that's why we usually do (or used to) equate a very strong set of morals to religiousness. Theistic practices aside, the religious word "holy" usually implies a moral refinement or even moral perfection. So, while religion and morals had their own births, they were essential to each other's growth through history; I'm betting even far before Judaism.

I see... so the hypothesis is that man made "morals", then a code of specific morals got bundled up into what we now call "religions", then gods were used to explain the world, and then somehow morals got connected with gods.. or something like that... right?? I don't want to be doing a strawman here.

This would make much sense of things, except one little problem.
Thats the problem with the hypothesis. If man is inherently selfish, then where did they get these "morals"?

Think about it. There are habitual liars in this world. They lie and don't think twice about it, yet when they get lied to, they blow their top!!! They don't see any problem with their "behaviors" yet see their own behavior against them as wrong! They don't get their own hypocrisy!

This brings up an important point, almost everyone is hypocritical. People are inherently selfish, yet get annoyed when they meet selfish people. So the problem is, if people are inherently selfish and are extremely hypocritical, how could they have created these morals of "right" and "wrong" in the first place???

Because back in primitive society the development of a common morality was beneficial to survival - the most pressing and inherently selfish goal of humanity. Attempting to survive is selfish, because you stand to experience pleasure during your remaining lifetime. Would anyone bother with morality if they stood to gain nothing from its application? Obviously not when disregarding morality is more beneficial to their survival - look at every robbery in the country.

I agree with D_Scypher in post nr.30, except for the altruism bit. In there I'd go along with Nozumu's view (post #31) that the human core is mainly egocentrical. Exceptions, in the society's role, are when the communal good and/or decorum comes into play. *Sees pocket to fetch kudos for both* Ya sorta saved me from a thorough post (, since don't have much time for it).

I am an atheist, (IMHO) I agree on that people following a religion makes them dangerous, since I think that they think "God wants me to kill this man and stop his non-believing rituals for it will be a better place in the world." Whats to stop them from pulling the trigger if God wants them to kill them?

I have tried to have been 'saved' by a couple of people, no luck. I am not against religions, I just don't think it is right for me to believe in a religion. I don't say to people "Hey, be atheist or I kill you!" People believe in whatever they want to believe.

However, some people have judged me because I am atheist. Some think I can be easily converted, so they talk about the Bible, some think I have no kindness at all. If people are going to judge others on their beliefs, then I guess that is one of the reasons I am not religious.

I also believe everything is scientific (that's another discussion)...

There is something VERY wrong with these 2 statements. I'll let y'all figure it out.

Uh... The fact that 2 different people made them?

Well gee, the only thing I figured out is how perverted you are.


I believe I am the definition of just a normal atheist, not a "soft" atheist, I like to go at arguments and I am one-sided instead of neutral. It's because I like arguments or I am just stubborn, probably both.

What I am driven by is the need to explain something I have a different point of view on. I just have to do it, without doing that I get an illogical feeling that no one else will explain it.

I've never sat down and thought about what Im "driven" by. I live for the sake of living; to experience happiness, love, and life in general. Whether or not you have a belief in any higher being, you still feel emotions like anyone else. And pleasurable emotions are just that, pleasureable. For a very strange anology: Let's say you play a game. You like it. It's fun. So, later, you play it again. Why? You look forward to experiencing those same emotions again, maybe finding something new.
I live for the rush, the emotions, and the pure simple joy in having life period.



As for what emotions are driving by: Religion points to the soul (Im assuming here, correct me if I'm wrong). Science says chemicals, electrical signals,and other various functions of the brain. Personally, I really don't care. I don't feel a need to seek out the underlying cuase, I am just happy to have them period.

As for what I look forward to in the afterlife: I don't. I feel that once I die, my "self" will no longer exist in the sense that I believe it does now: my sentience will simple become the sentience of something else. I will retain no memory of myself as I am now. I'll just "be" as I am now.



Although I hold nothing against any classification at all, I find that almost every christian I encounter, the second they DO find out I am an athiest, they immediately change their entire outlook on me. A very close friend of mine (or so I thought) for nearly three years, had no clue I was an athiest until just recently. And the second she found out, she declared me a "lost soul," said I was doomed to burn in hell for all of eternity, and suddenly absolutely everything I do that she dislikes is because of my lack of religion; before, it was because I was "a hyperactive typical male pothead." And perhaps a week later, she spoke to the entire church group, and a total of 2 out of the 20+ people thought it would be okay to leave me to believe what I believe. I have NEVER tried to persuade someone else to my views. Although I don't believe in an all-powerful deity, I'm not going to try to infringe on someone else's beliefs in attempt to spread my view, or completely stop talking to them altogether. In my opinion, thats complete ignorance.

Those are the trials we atheists have to endure. It sucks, but unless you make a point to surround yourself with the right people you'll probably go through that sort of thing for the rest of your life. I told all my friends in high school who wanted to save me to "do unto others", and it shut 'em up. Lost some good friends that way.

Hey, alas it happens as Nozumu stated. Not everyone will respect your opinions n' even some will even try to expose you as a fraude or worse.
But imao, I don't assimilate all that's spoken to me altough I hear all it's directed towards me. You'll have to figure out your own 'consideration meter' to evaluate folks upon their actions, if they're coerent or even if they're correct on that issue, etc. etc. After this, you can see a mile away where I'm heading... even if she said that "your soul it's doomed" I wouldn't worry if I were you, since she haven't proven anything to support that claim.

http://www.staredit.net/index.php?showtopic=13082

Go there if you wish to see some opinions on the whole religious subject, and read my reply.

Its very blunt, and to put it in terms here why it is, I do not believe in God and I do not believe that Christ was "The Son of God".

Most religions are formed on the basis of mans insecurity with death.

I believe there are many energies around us we dont see, and am more open to poloytheism than monotheism. Some may say I'm going to hell for this, but think about it if you were a god and needed believers to keep you alive, and strong, wouldnt you want to make mortals believe that your the only god that exists, for fear of your own death.

Gods can die, all things can, most religions are just there for a comfort, to help us sleep at night, and to make us feel like we are the most important things in the universe. I have a book that all christians, agnostics, athiests, buddists etc. should read. The book is called Ishmael.

The reason us athiests or non-believers or someone that doesnt believe in an EXACT religion like Christianity are firm on telling peeps to **** off, and so firm in our beliefs. It was said before, because we express arguements, and now after expressing them we are told "Oh, my poor child you need faith, you are a tortured soul, you need to believe, or your going to hell, I must save you, it is my duty". Usually something around that sentance is thrawled upon us everytime we share our thoughts trying to have a logical conversation, now we have to be saved, this is y we are quick to jump at poeple. Does it make it right, no, but neither is forcing christian beliefs down our throats every day of our lives.

If Radiowaves can exist, then souls can exist Im open to possibilities, but as for an Imfathonable god, it is impossible. A god could exist, but not the christian god, one that cannot be wrong and nothing it cant do, sorry its just NOT possible.

I also happen to have the book on tape, on my comp, I will be uploading this book on me & my friends webpage for download, for those that wish to hear a new point of view. It only mentions religion in a few examples, but has things in it that have some relevance to some things that are done and percieved in religions.

I would call the 'feeling better about themselves' a conditioning factor. You'll be more encouraged to do something again (in this case, be altruistic) if it makes you feel good. This could be evidence for natural altruism, but I admit that it has flaws.

I also agree to an extent with humans being very egocentric, and it is easy to find the selfish reasons for why we do things:

- Being altruistic to family because they are useful to us as people who can give us a home/food/money etc.

- Too many other situations to count.

Its takes much faith to be atheistic...

Wrong. Soft atheists, such as myself, profess no faith whatsoever. You cannot define a lack of faith as faith in the nonexistence of God, or multiple gods.

How? I just never believed...

*Mumbles* Humph, I was about to reply in a similar manner but Nozumu already made the atheist PoV stand out (post #46).

i am an athiest therefore i do not believe in a higher being or supreme ruler
but as most religions(not being predudice) are a lie and have no affect on ones life
other than something you believe in. I never let my atheism get in the way on my socialism so i keep everything clear in view

I'm probably agnostic, I'm not denying there is a god because one can never really know, but I'm not going to put blind faith into something I don't believe in. I don't think all agnostic people would be lazy. They might just be the type of people who won't exclude any possibility of a god, but also won't blindly put faith into one either.

I think if people are inherently selfish there is a way morals can stem from that. Being inherently selfish humans want to survive. The best way I think we have found is to stick together. After being together with people for so long we learn to love them, have relationships with them. Now knowing someone for so long and depending on them to survive, you wouldn't want them to die, would you? This causes bad feelings toward murder and so on.

I also feel religion as a way for people to live life without questioning, where did we all come from? And as a way to easily give morals. I may be ignorant, but I think religion gives an average person something, anything to believe in. I myself don't feel the need to follow a religion really, because I like to look at things in a scientific view where I need to observe things with actual evidence and facts.

Looking at things from both perspectives, I think that its very foolish to discriminate against religious and nonreligious people. Its just the way people believe, it doesn't matter. I could prefer the color blue while someone prefers the color red, it doesn't make any real difference.