RR- Atheism is very simple. It is nothing more than a LACK of belief in a diety. It is not a belief in luck, "randomness", nor even natural selection. It is not a belief in anything. It is a LACK of belief. It seems like you struggled with your own personal apathy ("a person that just did not give a d*mn") and are now projecting that experience onto atheism itself. Many atheists do actually give a damn. Many atheists believe in morals and ethics. Many atheists, I would guess, have lives very similar to yours. They just don't believe in a god. That's all.
So you go from one extreme (Atheism is complete Arrogance) to another (Religion is the epitome of Arrogance)? Personal faith is not the epitome of arrogance. Many religions promote humility as one of their main tenets. You've taken one blanket statement and replaced it with another.
No. Not projecting. What are the Morals of an Atheist. I mean, is it documented anywhere. Each Atheist's morals and ethics is individual. There is overlap but overall there is no One Moral Code of Atheism With Religions . . .there is whether they follow it or not . . is a different story Rocket River
While there are certainly both arrogant atheists and theists, many religoins preach some form of exceptionalism as part of their core belief structure. The belief, for example, that god made humans in her image can accurately be described as arrogant. More so with the belief that all non-believers are going to hell. Of course, not all religious people believe these things.
I hate this argument. Just because atheist do not have a book of crap written down doesn't mean that they do not have morals or ethics. Doing the right thing is NOT something mandated by a God. All morals and ethics are completely SUBJECTIVE. What is right and wrong for me may or may not be right or wrong for you even if you base your right and wrong on the Bible or some other religious texts. Having these religious texts do NOT make it concrete. That's why there are so many different religions which are all based upon the exact same texts. Everyone interprets these texts in a different way based upon what they feel is right and wrong. I don't believe in God. I know what is right and wrong for me. I know what is moral and ethical. I make decisions that usually stay in line with what I know to be right and wrong but sometimes I don't. Guess what, that is exactly how Christians are as well. You talk about atheists being arrogant yet you pigeon hole every atheist to be without morals and ethics. That is arrogance at its finest, condescending as hell, and I find it personally offensive.
rhester, again, I like your posts, and know your a pastor of some sorts, so see why you are compelled to these threads. But a lot of times, a lot of the "underlying, deeper" parts just confuse me. 1. You didn't see the movie, so how can you even comment on irony in the way a Christian gets portrayed 'just for laughs'..., as it relates to this thread? Beyond which, if it is just a generalized comment, you could pretty much pick any other group in society and they are more likely to have been portrayed just for laughs. As the movie points out, despite the surprising numbers of atheists/agnostics, it is that group in general that is typically very quiet, and rarely - Bill Maher is basically the only guy I can even come close to thinking of - are Christians portrayed "just for laughs" 2. Great story. Again, I know your a pastor, and your big on stories. But how does the fact that the guy is a homosexual have absolutely anything to do with anything? Not to mention that none of it really has anything to do with religion, except because you say it does? 3. Again, see the movie and then complain, or don't complain at all. I've seen the move, and I'd agree with the prevailing opinion in the thread. It's an ok watch. Bill brings up some great points, many of which require further research. He also is his usual smug self and a lot of it does go "too far" from a smugness standpoint. Obviously, he's the guy controlling the cameras, editing the film, etc., so he gets to choose what he wants the public to see. I get it...I get how Michael Moore does the same thing. But is there authenticity in there? Sure. I thought the few minutes with the Francis Collins were very interesting. Dr. Collins got seriously tripped up over discussions of the Bible. Again, I understand Maher edited the clip - see this upset blogger - but then again, Bill didn't make Francis answer questions he apparently knew so little about in such a definitive manner as if he was right. And, moreover, the questions asked ARE relevant to the discussion of why he, as a well known and respected scientists, continues to hold his beliefs. I thought the sections with the Muslim in the subway station was interesting. The section at the Jesus park was interesting - frankly, Bill got tripped up by the actor playing Jesus when he was trying to be funny about the whole trinity debate, and the Jesus actor intelligently described why he believed what he did. So, there's authenticity and there's editing, there's moments of thought and moments for laughs. In all, there are probably a lot better ways to get across his goal, and it's not going to win any awards or anything...it was okay, but at least see it before commenting on it, or around it. Also, I'd argue that "skeptic nation" would describe pretty much most other major countries in the world before describing ours - as has been noted and analyzed a bunch, America is one of the most religious major countries out there.
As the movie notes, most atheists are not moved by this argument, nor should they be. So when all else fails, the reason to believe in a particular religion is "just in case" - sorry, but if that religion really were true, I don't whatever would happen to me after death would change that much if that was the basis for my underlying faith.
you're right, if something isn't documented it must not exist Please show me where the moral code of Christianity is written down, in whole and detailed. Thanks.
Again, I get the 'bad' religion thing... I think religion has value and 'bad' religion is destructive... I thought the last episode of '24 ' had a nice touch where I think a muslim helped Jack Baur gain a moment of peace... it was the antithesis of having a muslim cleric trying to blow Jack up... My point is (remember I haven't seen the movie) I find little value in mocking (different than good humor- I like making fun of 'us' Christians)... mocking is bad laughing with respect is good
lol. Ask rocket river to prove how well this documented moral code is being followed, while you're at it.
Of course there isn't. Atheism is not a belief system. It is the lack of belief in any god. Nothing more. You could just as easily say that each theist's morals and ethics is individual. Everybody chooses what is right for them. Ascribing to a religion is just one way of doing so. There are many religions with many sects and many disagreements even within those sects. There is no single theistic moral code any more than there is a single atheistic one. People choose what's right by their actions, not merely by their beliefs (which are themselves actions). That process of choosing is no different for atheists than it is for theists. The only difference is the choice itself, which is unique to every individual.
Trust me, I would not even begin to argue that religion is NOT deeply rooted in extreme piousness, self-righteousness, and downright arrogance... but to say that the core of religion is arrogance seems a bit misguided in itself. Allow me, if I may to bring up an example of what I mean. The Christian belief that God created Adam in God's own image is one that does not decry personal arrogance, I believe it was to show that God intended to create human beings for his own personal gain, just as he did with the rest of creation. God is a metaphysical concept impossible to grasp whereas humans are bound by time and space, hardly infallible, ruled by their own selfish motives and desires... yet able to experience the essence of God, the infinite emotional bliss (love). So it is debatable to say what Genesis truly means when it says "God said let us make man in our own image" because there certainly isn't an image of God that anyone could conjure up. If God is perfect and infallible, omnipotent, etc, etc... humans are certainly far from being created in God's own image. What is interesting is that further along in Genesis, Satan (in the form of a Serpent) ends up tempting the humans with promises that if they gain knowledge they will be "like God" in that they will gain understanding of their domain. So at that point, human beings did not even have the knowledge to understand simple ethics and morality (i.e. right from wrong). When they "sinned" by partaking of the forbidden fruit, their "eyes were opened" and God was pretty pissed. So if God really had created humans in his own image what kind of quandaries spring up from that? What image was he really talking about? I'm interested to hear rhester and/or Madmax's take on this. but anyway, I think to say that certain beliefs require a little more understanding into what certain religions truly believe. To say arrogance is the epitome of a religion encompasses that whole sect as arrogant people with motives that are of pure self-interest and complete lack of compassion for their fellow man. I do not believe that to be accurate, although sadly it may seem that way at times. Again, do not misunderstand my intentions here, I am not trying to argue that religion is not arrogant, I am simply trying to say that making an allegation that religion is pure arrogance is a bit of a stereotypical and irrational statement that requires a little more understanding of the background. I would clarify my statements by saying I have no beef with Atheism, I find myself questioning the existence of God all the time. I simply do not know. I've seen things that have led me to believe God truly does exist, but I can certainly understand why a lot of people do not believe in what cannot be seen, and can be debunked with human reason. I firmly believe there is morality without religion, there are many things set in place in one's life that decide one's moral code that have little to do with personal faith. I just ask that we not be too hasty in painting one side of the barn the same color, rather it be the east of the west side of the barn. Lets think about this with open minds.
Once again, you're promoting the exception rather than the rule. Show me a religion that does not promote itself as "the" religion. You can't. Meanwhile, I'll show you an atheist who is very doubtful about all conclusions of faith, even his own. (example, you're talking to one) Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive.
I think these figures have remained pretty steady since about the turn of the century actually. If anything, they have moved in favor of the non-religious.
Justification is your rationale for that choice. Morality born out of a religion and justifed thereby is fundamentally different from morality born out of logic or philosophical creed. One is absolutist. The other is malleable.
There are many people out there like rhester and Madmax, I think sometimes you guys act like all people of faith are terribly misguided, closed-minded fools with no hope of ever having an intelligent thought but yet on a basketball message board, there are miraculously these two guys named rhester and Madmax who just don't get it. There are many more "exceptions" to your so-called "rule" Trust me on that.
You can also trust me that, being the religious hater that I am, no one wishes there were more people like them out there than *me*.
I agree. My example of being created in God's image was meant to apply to those who interpret that passage as giving humans some kind of exceptional status.
