get rid of religion if we want evolve

[Necrosis]

I didn't "lose" any faith. I never had it.

People who make claims bear the burden of evidence. No religion has put forth any.

"Just because you have lost your faith" is a bitter statement in itself.

yes, don't attack the islamic crazies who killed those on sept 11th their book of magic didn't instruct them to do so, don't fight the rich vatican who sit in gold plated chairs while people starve, who rape children and threaten the population with thoughts of eternal torture to manipulate you. Don't fight against those who wish to turn the US into a christian theocracy, who want special privileges/rights and who endorse homophobia and inhibit the equal rights of all humans. Religion and what it stands for is disgusting, it brings nothing new to the table that all the religions man made before have.

[syntaxmachine]

I cannot stand people who are bitter... and therefore feel the need to bash people who do have faith.

If you don't have faith.....fine....that is your right....but please don't put religion down....just because you have lost your faith.

There's a difference between critically evaluating a theory about the world (or, universe, really) that many people believe and simply "putting it down." Critical evaluation is important because we might as well see if there is any merit to these theories.

[syntaxmachine]

I say absolutely do not get rid of religous organizations.  As much as I don't like them we cannot choose to the right thing often enough as a species with out a moral compass based on religion and the threat of punishment for our sins in the after life. 

Do you really think this? Think about some of its logical implications: you would be agnostic about rape's being wrong until a church came along and told you you'd be eternally punished for it. Is it really true that only then would you think the act was wrong? I hope not!

If not, then we've got that compass (or most of us, anyway) without any such church. If, on the other hand, you weren't able to figure out the act's wrongness without a religious declaration, you'd be what we call a psychopath!

[garebear]

Do you really think this? Think about some of its logical implications: you would be agnostic about rape's being wrong until a church came along and told you you'd be eternally punished for it. Is it really true that only then would you think the act was wrong? I hope not!

If not, then we've got that compass (or most of us, anyway) without any such church. If, on the other hand, you weren't able to figure out the act's wrongness without a religious declaration, you'd be what we call a psychopath!

It is plain to see that at least most Christians have a higher order of morals than their own religion.

How else to explain why they are able to believe in some parts of the bible while ignoring others?

[OzmO]

Do you really think this? Think about some of its logical implications: you would be agnostic about rape's being wrong until a church came along and told you you'd be eternally punished for it. Is it really true that only then would you think the act was wrong? I hope not!

If not, then we've got that compass (or most of us, anyway) without any such church. If, on the other hand, you weren't able to figure out the act's wrongness without a religious declaration, you'd be what we call a psychopath!

No I don't think that at all.  I think people in general are not advanced morally enough to do the right thing with out some religious doctrine tellng them to do so.  They have a moral compass, but do not listen to it without the threat of punishment in the after life.

[tonymctones]

I didn't "lose" any faith. I never had it.

People who make claims bear the burden of evidence. No religion has put forth any.

"Just because you have lost your faith" is a bitter statement in itself.

do atheist not claim that God doesnt exist?

where is there proof?

abscence of proof for one argument does not prove the opposite stance by the way...

[tonymctones]

Do you really think this? Think about some of its logical implications: you would be agnostic about rape's being wrong until a church came along and told you you'd be eternally punished for it. Is it really true that only then would you think the act was wrong? I hope not!

If not, then we've got that compass (or most of us, anyway) without any such church. If, on the other hand, you weren't able to figure out the act's wrongness without a religious declaration, you'd be what we call a psychopath!

by what measure do you believe that it is wrong?

what basis do you have to tell someone they are wrong if they believe rape is ok?

no they would be called a sociopath, psychopaths have problems with reality...sociopaths just dont subscribe to the same line of thinking but still have a firm sense of what is real and isnt.

[OzmO]

by what measure do you believe that it is wrong?

what basis do you have to tell someone they are wrong if they believe rape is ok?

no they would be called a sociopath, psychopaths have problems with reality...sociopaths just dont subscribe to the same line of thinking but still have a firm sense of what is real and isnt.

Victim/harm principle.

[garebear]

do atheist not claim that God doesnt exist?

where is there proof?

abscence of proof for one argument does not prove the opposite stance by the way...

The burden of proof is not mine.

Is it up to you to prove to me that unicorns and dragons don't exist?

Can you prove that I can't fly just using my arms?

[tonymctones]

The burden of proof is not mine.

Is it up to you to prove to me that unicorns and dragons don't exist?

Can you prove that I can't fly just using my arms?

LOL thats very nice but it goes against your premise.

The onus of proof is on the person making the claim.

In science, disproving the null does not prove the alternative.

so not being able to prove God exists doesnt mean that God doesnt exist.

why do you hold religious ppl to scientific standards but not yourself?

[garebear]

LOL thats very nice but it goes against your premise.

The onus of proof is on the person making the claim.

In science, disproving the null does not prove the alternative.

so not being able to prove God exists doesnt mean that God doesnt exist.

why do you hold religious ppl to scientific standards but not yourself?

I know you're trying really hard, but it's not working.

[tonymctones]

Victim/harm principle.

I see, and by what measure do you believe that person is a victim and they are being harmed?

without common basis for morals, who are you to tell me I am doing wrong?

what if I dont subscribe to your victim/harm principle?

what if I subscribe to the survival of the fittest? what is necessary for continuation of my bloodline is right...

[tonymctones]

I know you're trying really hard, but it's not working.

good response....

so no answer then?

[OzmO]

I see, and by what measure do you believe that person is a victim and they are being harmed?

without common basis for morals, who are you to tell me I am doing wrong?

what if I dont subscribe to your victim/harm principle?

what if I subscribe to the survival of the fittest? what is necessary for continuation of my bloodline is right...

Good points, however, I think it still applies.  Maybe you can come up with a scenario where this principle would have trouble.  Like with the bloodline thing, but with more detail or info.

Rape, murder, and theft all have a victim who is harmed.  War's are hard to determine either way because they are usually justifiable to the attacker in some way and immoral to the defender with or without religion. 

[garebear]

good response....

so no answer then?

Your conclusions aren't really conclusions, they are just where you get tired of thinking.

[OzmO]

Your conclusions aren't really conclusions, they are just where you get tired of thinking.

how so?

[tonymctones]

Your conclusions aren't really conclusions, they are just where you get tired of thinking.

a response without a response, very talented...

[OzmO]

a response without a response, very talented...

Par for the course.   

[tonymctones]

Good points, however, I think it still applies.  Maybe you can come up with a scenario where this principle would have trouble.  Like with the bloodline thing, but with more detail or info.

Rape, murder, and theft all have a victim who is harmed.  War's are hard to determine either way because they are usually justifiable to the attacker in some way and immoral to the defender with or without religion.  

I agree that ppl are being harmed I have no issue there.

My point is that the ppl commiting those attrocities may not feel that doing harm in that way is wrong.

You are trying to hold them to your arbitrary views of right and wrong.

[OzmO]

I agree that ppl are being harmed I have no issue there.

My point is that the ppl commiting those attrocities may not feel that doing harm in that way is wrong.

You are trying to hold them to your arbitrary views of right and wrong.

Religion is just as ineffective in that regard.

[tonymctones]

Religion is just as ineffective in that regard.

not disagreeing with you there

There is however a slight distinction, with religion your views of right and wrong shouldnt really change b/c they are based in that respective religious text.

In a world of atheism, what is the basis for moral views?

what is to keep a person from constantly changing that belief to fit their current situation?

there isnt anything, its an arbitrary value system that can change with the wind and situations.

[OzmO]

not disagreeing with you there

There is however a slight distinction, with religion your views of right and wrong shouldnt really change b/c they are based in that respective religious text.

In a world of atheism, what is the basis for moral views?
what is to keep a person from constantly changing that belief to fit their current situation?
there isnt anything, its an arbitrary value system that can change with the wind and situations.

The victim principle and common sense just as religion is supposed to do, but both sometimes fail to achieve their purpose. 

Addtionally. I have to disagree with you on "changing belief to fit the wind and situations". Religions seem to do that all the time.

[tonymctones]

The victim principle and common sense just as religion is supposed to do, but both sometimes fail to achieve their purpose. 

Addtionally. I have to disagree with you on "changing belief to fit the wind and situations". Religions seem to do that all the time.

Agreed on religion doing that but there are also religious ppl who dont change their beliefs. Just ask our atheist friends here on the board. Im sure they would be more than happy to regail us with their views of "ignorant, non thinking, moronic religious ppl"

By citing the victim principle you assume that we all have the same base of morality. Its common sense to do what you have to do to survive as well. That will put you at odds with the victim principle from time to time.

and its then when ppl will change their views to suit their current situation. They will rationalize their actions b/c its human nature to do so, even if those actions fly in the face of their held beliefs.

The difference is that with religion you have a certain set of guidelines that says this is right and this is wrong.

The victim principle and common sense look different depending on what side of the situation you are on.

[OzmO]

Agreed on religion doing that but there are also religious ppl who dont change their beliefs. Just ask our atheist friends here on the board. Im sure they would be more than happy to regail us with their views of "ignorant, non thinking, moronic religious ppl"

By citing the victim principle you assume that we all have the same base of morality. Its common sense to do what you have to do to survive as well. That will put you at odds with the victim principle from time to time.

and its then when ppl will change their views to suit their current situation. They will rationalize their actions b/c its human nature to do so, even if those actions fly in the face of their held beliefs.

The difference is that with religion you have a certain set of guidelines that says this is right and this is wrong.

The victim principle and common sense look different depending on what side of the situation you are on.

I don't see how that's different.  There are many sets of guidelines in many different religions and the sore values they have in common can be compared to the victim principle and how it varies slightly with atheist.  Also, I am sure there are many atheist that won't change their moral compass ever.

[syntaxmachine]

LOL thats very nice but it goes against your premise.

The onus of proof is on the person making the claim.

In science, disproving the null does not prove the alternative.

so not being able to prove God exists doesnt mean that God doesnt exist.

why do you hold religious ppl to scientific standards but not yourself?

Our investigations into the world are biased towards non-existence (and rightfully so). By this, I mean that we only posit the existence of something if we need it in order to explain some feature of the world. So, we don't posit invisible gnomes unless there's a damned good reason to believe they exist. Positing invisible gnomes explains precisely nothing, so we don't bother.

When it comes to "God," there is no need to posit this entity, because thus far we've been able to explain things without it (including the beginning of the universe). Thus, unless a compelling reason can be given explaining why positing God is necessary, the default stance ought to be atheism (and this is with regards to all conceptions of God, not just the Christian).