Athiests, where do you get your moral values?

[FleshNBones]

In this country we cannot teach biology in an substantive way because of ignorant religious zealots who insist that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Currently, the only country in NATO that scores lower than the US in math and science is Turkey. We are 19th and sliding. The threats to the environment today are catastrophic, yet believers deny global warming even exists, and suggest that Jesus will be back before any serious damage will occur.

You come across as a fanatical zealot yourself.

Lest the "fanatic" argument come out again, there are senators and congressmen who hold this view. And the rest of them vote.

And I suppose you want us to vote for your politicians. I wonder how many years you will be used before you come to your senses.

Watch the news. How many children are denied medical care in favor of faith healing? How many people are blown up? How many girls forced into marriage at age 8? How many gay children kill themselves because of their parents disown them because of their religion? How many children must be abused at the hands of youth pastors and priests?

Where do you get your news from? It seems like you completely lack perspective.

Check out this study:

 

http://www.ffrf.org/timely/epidstudy.php

Yes. An independent study from a biased webpage pushing an agenda. Not reliable in my opinion.

How many people, the majority of whom can least afford it--give their money to lying charlatans in the name of god?

There are many who take advantage of impressionable people like yourself.

There was an Indian couple who emigrated here and settled in Portland. They became born-again Christians. Their son had a serious brain disorder, one that would certainly take his life. Neurosurgeons gave him two years to live with medication.

 

The couple were fans of Benny Hinn and his healing ministry. They attended a rally, and felt the presence of god, telling them to trust him and he would heal their child. They made the decision to take him off medication, against the advice of their medical doctors. The child died, of course. What is worse, the couple blames themselves because they think if their faith was greater their child would have been cured.

Why should you care if they turned to some faith healer? The doctors already gave him a death sentence.

There are too many instances similar to this to list. One often hears, "Those people are extremists. Religion makes people happy and so it must be ok." But that statement is empty. It is religious thinking instead of reason that leads to such atrocities. Religion may not always lead everyone to kill people, but it is the most efficient tool for doing so.

What kind of propaganda films have you been watching? What kind of propaganda pamphlets have you been writing?

 

I guess religion leads people to kill most of the time. Everybody, watch out, your neighbors are coming to get you!!!

Perhaps you see me as a zealot because I care so deeply about people and the future of mankind and the planet as whole. We must abandon superstition or we are certainly doomed.

Moai is either the athiest messiah or a total wacko.

[Moai]

how so? this is merely a logical statement. say you've been told that zues is the only true god and so you are a zeusite. and the guy sitting next to you has been told that ganesh is the only true god and so is a gane****e. one of you is wrong, right? to the gane****e you are committing blasphemy by talking about zeus, and to you the gane****e is committing blasphemy by talking about ganesh. similarly, if i believe that a carrot is the transubstantiated body of my carrot god and you eat a carrot, have you eaten my god? or have you eaten a carrot because you don't believe in my carrot god? there is absolutely no valuative bias or intolerance involved here. you are rather touchy, especially when it comes to inarguable logic.

 

And they could both be wrong.

 

You raise an interesting point. Believers are just as much atheists as avowed atheists, save one. We just believe in one god fewer.

 

Moreover, when discussing Zeus with a believer in another religion, they completely understand how silly Zeus belief is. But turn the same thinking on their particular superstition and you are intolerant and "don't get it" are immoral and worthy of death (sadly sometimes literally).

[dobler33]

humorously enough, when i tried to term a believer in the god ganesh (ite) the program found a dirty word in there. that's ganeshist.

[FleshNBones]

Not being Catholic, the feelings I hold for that faith are the same as for any other, be it Bahai, Lutheran, Muslim, Jainism or Scientology. My father was a Baptist minister, but I don't have any nostalgia for that faith, good or bad.

Maybe your father was a Baptist, but there is no reason to belive you are being honest.

Hate is quite the strong word, but regardless of the description of my feelings, they extend beyond religion into any form of the irrational. IMO, religion is just organized irrationality.

It actually is hate, and it is irrational. I recommend you get some professional help.

[dobler33]

You come across as a fanatical zealot yourself.

And I suppose you want us to vote for your politicians. I wonder how many years you will be used before you come to your senses.

Where do you get your news from? It seems like you completely lack perspective.

Yes. An independent study from a biased webpage pushing an agenda. Not reliable in my opinion.

There are many who take advantage of impressionable people like yourself.

Why should you care if they turned to some faith healer? The doctors already gave him a death sentence.

What kind of propaganda films have you been watching? What kind of propaganda pamphlets have you been writing?

 

I guess religion leads people to kill most of the time. Everybody, watch out, your neighbors are coming to get you!!!

Moai is either the athiest messiah or a total wacko.

 

 

you crack my arse up, FnB, particularly when you call an empirical rational positivist "impressionable". and, um, FnB? there is no atheist messiah. that's kind of the point.

[FleshNBones]

Not so. I don't go into churches and disrupt services. I don't think that it is right for anyone to do that.

I had the impression that you were fully supportive of his behavior.

[qtuoe]I just don't think that people should threaten to kill others for stealing crackers, no matter the superstition involved.

So theft for presumably good cause is okay in your book.

Once you leave church, however, your beliefs are fair game for debate, especially if you put them in the public sphere, which every religion does everywhere.

If I steal something, does it become mine when I take it home?

Every person has the right to believe as he or she sees fit, but that does not mean that he or she is free from the criticism of said beliefs.

Do you have the right to infringe on the beliefs of others?

[Moai]

You come across as a fanatical zealot yourself.

 

To some perhaps. That does not address the vaeracity of my information, of course.

 

And I suppose you want us to vote for your politicians. I wonder how many years you will be used before you come to your senses.

 

I want people to vote as I do the same way you do. Funny, but given the circumstances I would imagine you are mush closer to a life-changing epiphany than I.

 

Where do you get your news from? It seems like you completely lack perspective.

 

The AP. You haven't seen anything about the kid with cancer whose mom refused to take him to the doctor in favor of faith healing, and a jusge ordered that he be taken to the hospital?

 

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/46311512.html?elr=KArksi8D3PE7_8yc+D3aiUo8D3PE7_eyc+D3aiUeyc+D3aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr

 

Here's another:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/31/cult.child.death/index.html

 

I could go on and on.

Yes. An independent study from a biased webpage pushing an agenda. Not reliable in my opinion.

 

Rejected without reading, obviously. The study was an examination of cases that are part of the public record, and includes quotes as well.

 

There are many who take advantage of impressionable people like yourself.

 

I'm not the one who believes in magic. How much of your money lies at the bottom of Vatican coffers?

 

Why should you care if they turned to some faith healer? The doctors already gave him a death sentence.

 

I care because that child had no input into his treatment, and would have lived for another two years.

 

We are all under a death sentence. Why go to a doctor at all?

 

What kind of propaganda films have you been watching? What kind of propaganda pamphlets have you been writing?

 

History books. The library is full of them. You should check them out.

 

I guess religion leads people to kill most of the time. Everybody, watch out, your neighbors are coming to get you!!!

Moai is either the athiest messiah or a total wacko.

 

Your neighbors very well may. Your fellow believers had no trouble threatening that student with death, threatening Harvey Milk with death (and eventually killing him), killing abortion doctors, lying to the uneducated in order to get them not to use condoms, at the cost of their lives...again, I could go on and on.

[Moai]

I had the impression that you were fully supportive of his behavior.

 

I'm not, but even less in support of the reaction to his behavior.

I just don't think that people should threaten to kill others for stealing crackers, no matter the superstition involved.

So theft for presumably good cause is okay in your book.

 

What????? So you are saying that murder for leaving with a cracker is ok in your book?

 

If I steal something, does it become mine when I take it home?

 

He didn't steal it, the priest gave it to him, so technically it was his property to do with as he saw fit. Custom says that he should have eaten it, but there is no law that says he had to.

Do you have the right to infringe on the beliefs of others?

Analyzing and critiquing someone's beliefs does not equal infringement.

[Moai]

Maybe your father was a Baptist, but there is no reason to belive you are being honest.

 

You have no reason to believe otherwise, either.

It actually is hate, and it is irrational. I recommend you get some professional help.

 

I have no reason to believe that your assessment of my mental health is valid, and given your posts I can definitively say that you do not understand what is rational and what isn't.

 

You are the one holding on to a delusion, not I.

[sally4sara]

The AP. You haven't seen anything about the kid with cancer whose mom refused to take him to the doctor in favor of faith healing, and a jusge ordered that he be taken to the hospital?

 

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/46311512.html?elr=KArksi8D3PE7_8yc+D3aiUo8D3PE7_eyc+D3aiUeyc+D3aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr

 

Here's another:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/31/cult.child.death/index.html

 

I could go on and on.

 

Rejected without reading, obviously. The study was an examination of cases that are part of the public record, and includes quotes as well.

I'm not the one who believes in magic. How much of your money lies at the bottom of Vatican coffers?

 

I care because that child had no input into his treatment, and would have lived for another two years.

We are all under a death sentence. Why go to a doctor at all?

History books. The library is full of them. You should check them out.

Your neighbors very well may. Your fellow believers had no trouble threatening that student with death, threatening Harvey Milk with death (and eventually killing him), killing abortion doctors, lying to the uneducated in order to get them not to use condoms, at the cost of their lives...again, I could go on and on.

 

I've always been dismayed at how a group of people could be so vehemently against a woman's right to chose to abort, citing the child's rights, and then turn around and deny a born child's rights to life saving medical care.

On top of that, many christian sects assert baptism or being saved before the age of understanding cannot happen sincerely. The child is not informed enough to make a pledge so weighty. So how can parents who screech about an unborn child's rights deny the rights of a minor for THEIR pledge to THEIR god, while still requiring a sincere and informed pledge for to be saved and baptised?

[clv0116]

I've always been dismayed at how a group of people could be so vehemently against a woman's right to chose to abort, citing the child's rights, and then turn around and deny a born child's rights to life saving medical care.

 

You should admit that the faith healing whackos are a very small minority.

[FleshNBones]

What????? So you are saying that murder for leaving with a cracker is ok in your book?

 

He didn't steal it, the priest gave it to him, so technically it was his property to do with as he saw fit. Custom says that he should have eaten it, but there is no law that says he had to.

Let's be honest here. You called it stealing. Now what would give you that idea?

[FleshNBones]

I've always been dismayed at how a group of people could be so vehemently against a woman's right to chose to abort, citing the child's rights, and then turn around and deny a born child's rights to life saving medical care.

Dying from a terminal illness is one thing. Killing someone is a little different.

On top of that, many christian sects assert baptism or being saved before the age of understanding cannot happen sincerely. The child is not informed enough to make a pledge so weighty. So how can parents who screech about an unborn child's rights deny the rights of a minor for THEIR pledge to THEIR god, while still requiring a sincere and informed pledge for to be saved and baptised?

I think there are plenty of bitter athiests here who had no trouble revoking their baptismal pledge.

[FleshNBones]

You should admit that the faith healing whackos are a very small minority.

That would require perspective.

[Island Girl]

Why should you care if they turned to some faith healer? The doctors already gave him a death sentence.

 

The child was issued a death sentence but could have lived another 2 years.

His parents could have enjoyed their child for another 2 years.

 

To you, a Catholic (which by definition is one who holds life so precious - correct?), that clearly means nothing.

 

To me, an atheist, that was the only time we are given and therefore precious time they lost with him forever. Tragic.

 

Not only that but I find it even more horrifying that these people now take on the guilt (irrational and untrue) that their belief was not strong enough.

So now because of religion they get to carry that around with them too as if grieving their lost child wasn't enough.

 

The fact that you can dismiss a case such as this so flippantly is telling. It just doesn't tell me anything I don't already know.

[sally4sara]

Dying from a terminal illness is one thing. Killing someone is a little different.

 

Its killing when there is a medical means for curing or correcting the illness and the parents decide to let god handle it instead.

 

I think there are plenty of bitter athiests here who had no trouble revoking their baptismal pledge.

 

How does this relate? It's the parents pledge, one they think the kid cannot yet make, that is the platform for their decision.

 

Since you bring up the baptismal pledge and revoking, I was taught that once you're saved there is no undoing it. Your soul is saved permanently. God knows everything you've done and will do and he forgives it all, including any wish one might have to revoke it.

[Island Girl]

similarly, if i believe that a carrot is the transubstantiated body of my carrot god and you eat a carrot, have you eaten my god? or have you eaten a carrot because you don't believe in my carrot god?

 

I laughed out loud dobler33.

 

It is too bad they can't see that it is completely the same thing.

 

 

Believer - "Oh that isn't the same thing at all."

 

Atheist - "How is it different?"

 

Believer - 1. *silence*

2. A mad irrational stream of nonsense that never addresses the question

 

 

It looks like you got answer number one here. LOL

 

 

there is absolutely no valuative bias or intolerance involved here. you are rather touchy, especially when it comes to inarguable logic.

 

Too true.

[sally4sara]

That would require perspective.

 

Ahh, but this perspective should include that very literal followers, like faith healers would be, are also likely to take that devout attitude and also apply it to abortion.

 

Do you know any pro-choice faith healers? I mean, how does one so willing to take no action in the face of god find the gumption to decide to abort a child?

 

THAT would be not letting god decide.

[FleshNBones]

He didn't steal it, the priest gave it to him, so technically it was his property to do with as he saw fit. Custom says that he should have eaten it, but there is no law that says he had to.

It is not freely given.

He must say "amen" to recieve it. If he did, he lied, and deceived whoever gave it out.

[Island Girl]

I think there are plenty of bitter athiests here who had no trouble revoking their baptismal pledge.

 

I haven't seen any comments that would lead me to believe any of the atheists participating are bitter.

 

I'd love to revoke my baptismal pledge (especially since I had no say in it being I was an infant and had no idea what that little sprinkling of water was believed to mean).

Who do I see about that?

[Island Girl]

It is not freely given.

He must say "amen" to recieve it. If he did, he lied, and deceived whoever gave it out.

 

And that means what?

 

Let's say I go to a Catholic church and say "amen" to receive a cracker. And I get the cracker. But rather than eat it, I keep it.

What happens then?

 

Who really cares if I didn't eat my cracker. You? Did you not get your own cracker?

 

If I choose to denounce God why does it matter at all to you?

 

Isn't up to God on "Judgment Day" to take care of whatever needs to be taken care of?

 

Do you trust "Him" enough to do that job?

[FleshNBones]

Let's say I go to a Catholic church and say "amen" to receive a cracker. And I get the cracker. But rather than eat it, I keep it.

What happens then?

 

Who really cares if I didn't eat my cracker. You? Did you not get your own cracker?

It is a combination of trickery, and infringing on a religious rite that is offensive. It is also trespassing.

[dunstable]

It is not freely given.

He must say "amen" to recieve it. If he did, he lied, and deceived whoever gave it out.

I am not much interested in the above but I am burning with curiosity on one point.

 

I read that eventually he gave the cracker back. What I want to know is what will happen to the cracker. After it was blessed, I understand that it became the literal body of Christ. Will the cracker be destroyed? If so, won't it be a terrible sacrilege to destroy the body of Christ? Will it be given to someone else to eat at a future communion? Can it be unblessed so that it just reverts to being an ordinary cracker again? Or will it need to be put in a jar and preserved for ever more as holy relic? FNB, please give us the benefit of your knowledge on these matters.

[sally4sara]

It is a combination of trickery, and infringing on a religious rite that is offensive. It is also trespassing.

 

I was taught that the churches receive their tax break, in part, for being public domain. Private churches receive no tax break.

 

Was the church in question a private church?

[sb129]

Committing taboos is legal. Deceiving people is legal. Hating people is legal. These are things you and your buddies have embraced. Society considers these things immoral. So I guess the athiests, or at least the ones here, are immoral.

 

How do you get that from this thread? Have you seen every atheist on the thread admit to deception and hatred? I haven't. Are we reading the same thread?

 

The people who are truly dangerous are those who I call "True Believers"; who 1) are "devout" in matters religious, political, or ethnic/racial, and who 2) believe that their way is the only way and 3) that their way should be implemented regardless of costs. Witness the Inquisition, jihads of various stripes, nazis, communists (no religious person can hold a candle to communists when it comes to sheer body count), the Rwandan massacre of 1994, etc., etc., etc. ...

 

Thankfully, only a small percentage of religious people meet all three criteria.

 

yes, thankfully- but a small percentage is still a percentage too many IMO.

 

Yes, thankfully. That's why I totally reject the idea that religiosity is what drives people into criminal behaviors.

I don't think that religious people are more moral than non-religious. I think the OP's religious leaders did her a disservice if they taught her that her religion is the only source of her morals.

Morality has nothing to do with religion, IMO. Religions might have their own additional morals, but they aren't the beginning and ending of morals for most (even those that follow religions will readily admit this - most of the time LOL)

 

Thanks NID- you are a believer, am I right?

It is possible for believers and non-believers to have a sensible discussion about some stuff- AND for them to agree on occasion.

 

I was amused when he said he could easily prove his points with "conditional probabilities" but chose not to because we wouldn't understand the math. I invited him to provide the data and let us see whether we understand it but of course nothing was forthcoming.

 

Hey I don't know about you but I studied calculus and statistics at university level- surely the math wouldn't be at a level higher than that?

Bring it on, I say.

 

Clearly, you don't respect boundaries.

 

You are completely intollerant.

 

Said the pot to the kettle.....

 

I agreed with S4S statement about pro-lifers screaming about the rights of the unborn child yet in the same breath can refuse medical treatment for a child and not give a second thought to that childs 'rights'.

Hypocrisy at its finest.