Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Does religion keep us from anarchy?

Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 9:21:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
http://www.dothaneagle.com...

"If you take away religion, you can't hire enough police."

Comments?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 9:35:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 9:21:47 AM, Skepticalone wrote:


http://www.dothaneagle.com...

"If you take away religion, you can't hire enough police."

Comments?

When I was an atheist I wasn't thinking, "what wicked evil thing can I do to society today." I was a good citizen who obeyed the laws and never did any harm to anyone.

So no, religion in my opinion is not the causal factor for a person restraining their desire to commit harm. Most cognitively healthy people have no desire for that.
bulproof
Posts: 25,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 9:43:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 9:35:41 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/8/2015 9:21:47 AM, Skepticalone wrote:



"If you take away religion, you can't hire enough police."

Comments?

When I was an atheist I wasn't thinking, "what wicked evil thing can I do to society today." I was a good citizen who obeyed the laws and never did any harm to anyone.

So no, religion in my opinion is not the causal factor for a person restraining their desire to commit harm. Most cognitively healthy people have no desire for that.
Let's see if we can establish some truth here.
How about if you tell us about your alleged atheism before you start making claims. You are 26yrs old and claim that you were once an atheist? Fukin' get over yourself. What did mummy and daddy teach you?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 10:17:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 9:43:32 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/8/2015 9:35:41 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/8/2015 9:21:47 AM, Skepticalone wrote:



"If you take away religion, you can't hire enough police."

Comments?

When I was an atheist I wasn't thinking, "what wicked evil thing can I do to society today." I was a good citizen who obeyed the laws and never did any harm to anyone.

So no, religion in my opinion is not the causal factor for a person restraining their desire to commit harm. Most cognitively healthy people have no desire for that.
Let's see if we can establish some truth here.
How about if you tell us about your alleged atheism before you start making claims. You are 26yrs old and claim that you were once an atheist? Fukin' get over yourself. What did mummy and daddy teach you?

I usually just ignore you, but others might be interested.

I was actually raised Mormon, but left and embraced Atheism at 19 years old. I was an atheist from 19 years of age until 23, during college. So not a huge period of time, but I still was pretty vocal and passionate about it.

I've even won debates on this site from the basis of things that I learned as an athiest. Such as defending Sam Harris' Moral Landscape.

http://www.debate.org...

Or here, where I debate that the New Testament has contradictions (which I do believe still of course).

http://www.debate.org...

I'm certainly no zealot, nor am I ultra conservative and some would label me a bit of a liberal Christian. I'm not big on labels, but it is true to say that I am a Christian Theist, by personal choice.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 10:46:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 9:21:47 AM, Skepticalone wrote:



"If you take away religion, you can't hire enough police."

Comments?

I don't think this is true.

Why? Because there is one country on earth that officially bans religion: North Korea.

It is not a nice place, not by any stretch of the imagination, but one thing it is not is ... anarchy.

It would be better to state that anarchy is the result of the loss of sound governance, and Somalia, for example, which has religion, nevertheless has anarchy.

The Rule of Law, uncorrupted and basically just, is what keeps society in order. Religion, with its commandments to be lawful citizens of a state and support the legitimate leaders of a Nation can aid in that process. People can choose to participate in government for reasons other than religion - which is as it should be.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 11:10:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 10:46:21 AM, neutral wrote:
At 1/8/2015 9:21:47 AM, Skepticalone wrote:



"If you take away religion, you can't hire enough police."

Comments?

I don't think this is true.

Why? Because there is one country on earth that officially bans religion: North Korea.

It is not a nice place, not by any stretch of the imagination, but one thing it is not is ... anarchy.

It would be better to state that anarchy is the result of the loss of sound governance, and Somalia, for example, which has religion, nevertheless has anarchy.

The Rule of Law, uncorrupted and basically just, is what keeps society in order. Religion, with its commandments to be lawful citizens of a state and support the legitimate leaders of a Nation can aid in that process. People can choose to participate in government for reasons other than religion - which is as it should be.

Would you suggest removal of religion would mean an increase in unlawful behavior, or do you disagree with the sentiment altogether?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 11:18:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 11:10:40 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/8/2015 10:46:21 AM, neutral wrote:
At 1/8/2015 9:21:47 AM, Skepticalone wrote:



"If you take away religion, you can't hire enough police."

Comments?

I don't think this is true.

Why? Because there is one country on earth that officially bans religion: North Korea.

It is not a nice place, not by any stretch of the imagination, but one thing it is not is ... anarchy.

It would be better to state that anarchy is the result of the loss of sound governance, and Somalia, for example, which has religion, nevertheless has anarchy.

The Rule of Law, uncorrupted and basically just, is what keeps society in order. Religion, with its commandments to be lawful citizens of a state and support the legitimate leaders of a Nation can aid in that process. People can choose to participate in government for reasons other than religion - which is as it should be.

Would you suggest removal of religion would mean an increase in unlawful behavior, or do you disagree with the sentiment altogether?

Not necessarily. I think it would lead to a reduction in cooperative behavior.

http://www.npr.org...

Science tells us that cooperative behavior gives us a evolutionary boost, and religion helps that. It's 'better' in that sense, but not wrong or necessarily imploding to not have a religion in a society. I do think religion offers a stronger sense of community, and, atheists seem to note the difference on this level at an increasing rate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

If you wander around Europe or the older parts of America, you will see at the center of every little village a church. It was the center of the community, of culture, etc. Remove it? You loose a sense of culture, and community. That doesn't mean we all become pirates ;-)
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 11:46:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 9:21:47 AM, Skepticalone wrote:


http://www.dothaneagle.com...

"If you take away religion, you can't hire enough police."

Comments?

People are going to commit crimes no matter what. You humans have the nasty habit of justifying almost anything. Throughout history christians have been able to justify the murder of gays, "witches", Jews, and whoever happened to be liveing on the land they wanted.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 11:55:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 11:18:33 AM, neutral wrote:
At 1/8/2015 11:10:40 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/8/2015 10:46:21 AM, neutral wrote:
At 1/8/2015 9:21:47 AM, Skepticalone wrote:



"If you take away religion, you can't hire enough police."

Comments?

I don't think this is true.

Why? Because there is one country on earth that officially bans religion: North Korea.

It is not a nice place, not by any stretch of the imagination, but one thing it is not is ... anarchy.

It would be better to state that anarchy is the result of the loss of sound governance, and Somalia, for example, which has religion, nevertheless has anarchy.

The Rule of Law, uncorrupted and basically just, is what keeps society in order. Religion, with its commandments to be lawful citizens of a state and support the legitimate leaders of a Nation can aid in that process. People can choose to participate in government for reasons other than religion - which is as it should be.

Would you suggest removal of religion would mean an increase in unlawful behavior, or do you disagree with the sentiment altogether?

Not necessarily. I think it would lead to a reduction in cooperative behavior.

http://www.npr.org...

Science tells us that cooperative behavior gives us a evolutionary boost, and religion helps that. It's 'better' in that sense, but not wrong or necessarily imploding to not have a religion in a society. I do think religion offers a stronger sense of community, and, atheists seem to note the difference on this level at an increasing rate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

If you wander around Europe or the older parts of America, you will see at the center of every little village a church. It was the center of the community, of culture, etc. Remove it? You loose a sense of culture, and community. That doesn't mean we all become pirates ;-)

To err is human, to ARR is pirate. ;-)

I agree religion can and does give sense of community, and there is no reason to think without it people would suddenly lose control of themselves. Thank you for your thoughts.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 11:59:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 11:46:04 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 1/8/2015 9:21:47 AM, Skepticalone wrote:


http://www.dothaneagle.com...

"If you take away religion, you can't hire enough police."

Comments?

People are going to commit crimes no matter what. You humans have the nasty habit of justifying almost anything. Throughout history christians have been able to justify the murder of gays, "witches", Jews, and whoever happened to be liveing on the land they wanted.

Are you of a different species? :-p
Bad things have been done in the name of religion, but the actions generally always had ulterior motives.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 12:17:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 11:59:50 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/8/2015 11:46:04 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 1/8/2015 9:21:47 AM, Skepticalone wrote:


http://www.dothaneagle.com...

"If you take away religion, you can't hire enough police."

Comments?

People are going to commit crimes no matter what. You humans have the nasty habit of justifying almost anything. Throughout history christians have been able to justify the murder of gays, "witches", Jews, and whoever happened to be liveing on the land they wanted.

Are you of a different species? :-p
Bad things have been done in the name of religion, but the actions generally always had ulterior motives.

Yes just look at my profile pic.
On your other point: You are correct in saying that many have ulterior motives but that doesn't change my original point that people do bad things even while in a religion and sometimes they do things based on that religion (Such as witch burning and assaults on gays). Ultimatly what i'm trying to get at is that we live in a diverse world where peoples actions are not entirely based on the gods they worship.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 12:51:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 12:17:48 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 1/8/2015 11:59:50 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/8/2015 11:46:04 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 1/8/2015 9:21:47 AM, Skepticalone wrote:


http://www.dothaneagle.com...

"If you take away religion, you can't hire enough police."

Comments?

People are going to commit crimes no matter what. You humans have the nasty habit of justifying almost anything. Throughout history christians have been able to justify the murder of gays, "witches", Jews, and whoever happened to be liveing on the land they wanted.

Are you of a different species? :-p
Bad things have been done in the name of religion, but the actions generally always had ulterior motives.

Yes just look at my profile pic.

Interesting.

On your other point: You are correct in saying that many have ulterior motives but that doesn't change my original point that people do bad things even while in a religion and sometimes they do things based on that religion (Such as witch burning and assaults on gays). Ultimatly what i'm trying to get at is that we live in a diverse world where peoples actions are not entirely based on the gods they worship.

I would agree with that.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 2:25:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 9:21:47 AM, Skepticalone wrote:


http://www.dothaneagle.com...

"If you take away religion, you can't hire enough police."

Comments?

Religion and Atheism will still leave with us with anarchy. It's simply the idea of no authority and I don't see that dying anytime soon.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 2:34:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 2:25:29 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 9:21:47 AM, Skepticalone wrote:


http://www.dothaneagle.com...

"If you take away religion, you can't hire enough police."

Comments?

Religion and Atheism will still leave with us with anarchy. It's simply the idea of no authority and I don't see that dying anytime soon.

Except the suggestion was 'taking away'. Are you suggesting that getting rid of atheism would lead to anarchy? If so, I believe you have quite a unique viewpoint! ;-)
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 3:31:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 2:34:41 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/8/2015 2:25:29 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 9:21:47 AM, Skepticalone wrote:


http://www.dothaneagle.com...

"If you take away religion, you can't hire enough police."

Comments?

Religion and Atheism will still leave with us with anarchy. It's simply the idea of no authority and I don't see that dying anytime soon.

Except the suggestion was 'taking away'. Are you suggesting that getting rid of atheism would lead to anarchy? If so, I believe you have quite a unique viewpoint! ;-)

How can atheism be taken away? It's the default view point of anybody who has no belief in a deity. It's not an individual philosophy.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 4:18:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 3:31:44 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 2:34:41 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/8/2015 2:25:29 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 9:21:47 AM, Skepticalone wrote:


http://www.dothaneagle.com...

"If you take away religion, you can't hire enough police."

Comments?

Religion and Atheism will still leave with us with anarchy. It's simply the idea of no authority and I don't see that dying anytime soon.

Except the suggestion was 'taking away'. Are you suggesting that getting rid of atheism would lead to anarchy? If so, I believe you have quite a unique viewpoint! ;-)

How can atheism be taken away? It's the default view point of anybody who has no belief in a deity. It's not an individual philosophy.

I agree atheism is the default position, but I don't understand your statement in context with the thread title.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 4:37:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 3:31:44 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 2:34:41 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/8/2015 2:25:29 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 9:21:47 AM, Skepticalone wrote:


http://www.dothaneagle.com...

"If you take away religion, you can't hire enough police."

Comments?

Religion and Atheism will still leave with us with anarchy. It's simply the idea of no authority and I don't see that dying anytime soon.

Except the suggestion was 'taking away'. Are you suggesting that getting rid of atheism would lead to anarchy? If so, I believe you have quite a unique viewpoint! ;-)

How can atheism be taken away? It's the default view point of anybody who has no belief in a deity. It's not an individual philosophy.

Ignorance is the default position; it is impossible to reject something you've never heard or thought about. So if Atheism is about ignorance, then congrats to them :/ .

Atheism in politics is more along the line of totalitarianism. Can't see anarchy working any better than real democracy.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 4:47:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 4:37:19 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 1/8/2015 3:31:44 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 2:34:41 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/8/2015 2:25:29 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 9:21:47 AM, Skepticalone wrote:


http://www.dothaneagle.com...

"If you take away religion, you can't hire enough police."

Comments?

Religion and Atheism will still leave with us with anarchy. It's simply the idea of no authority and I don't see that dying anytime soon.

Except the suggestion was 'taking away'. Are you suggesting that getting rid of atheism would lead to anarchy? If so, I believe you have quite a unique viewpoint! ;-)

How can atheism be taken away? It's the default view point of anybody who has no belief in a deity. It's not an individual philosophy.

Ignorance is the default position; it is impossible to reject something you've never heard or thought about. So if Atheism is about ignorance, then congrats to them :/ .

Atheism in politics is more along the line of totalitarianism. Can't see anarchy working any better than real democracy.

I rather doubt you've ever seen a real democracy working, since there has never been one.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any god or gods. It's just that. Politics and personal attitudes are as diverse among atheists as with any other group of people.

Sure, it's impossible to reject something you've never heard of but it's also impossible to believe it since you don't even know of its supposed existence. It's the null hypothesis and it is the default for every human being. If you never heard of leprechauns you'd never have to deny they existed since you would not believe it in the first place. That's an absence of information, real or imagined. If a child were raised and never heard about religion, never saw any examples of it, he or she would be, by default, atheist.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 4:57:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 4:37:19 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 1/8/2015 3:31:44 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 2:34:41 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/8/2015 2:25:29 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 9:21:47 AM, Skepticalone wrote:


http://www.dothaneagle.com...

"If you take away religion, you can't hire enough police."

Comments?

Religion and Atheism will still leave with us with anarchy. It's simply the idea of no authority and I don't see that dying anytime soon.

Except the suggestion was 'taking away'. Are you suggesting that getting rid of atheism would lead to anarchy? If so, I believe you have quite a unique viewpoint! ;-)

How can atheism be taken away? It's the default view point of anybody who has no belief in a deity. It's not an individual philosophy.

Ignorance is the default position; it is impossible to reject something you've never heard or thought about. So if Atheism is about ignorance, then congrats to them :/ .

Atheism in politics is more along the line of totalitarianism. Can't see anarchy working any better than real democracy.

You focus on the atheists who are intolerant. I've met others who are tolerant.

Also, I don't see Islam as being much tolerant either. What's the crime for drawing Muhammad? What about adultery? Not much eye for an eye when women are buried in the ground and killed.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 5:13:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 9:21:47 AM, Skepticalone wrote:


http://www.dothaneagle.com...

"If you take away religion, you can't hire enough police."

Comments?

Because of religion we need more police and prisons.
Federal study found 75% of the convicts in prison are Christians. The study was done to rank prison population by their religious affiliations. They found non-Christians and atheists lowest in number and Catholics and Protestants ranked the highest at 75%. This suggests Christianity leads to criminality..
http://www.holysmoke.org...
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 5:25:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 4:47:23 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/8/2015 4:37:19 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 1/8/2015 3:31:44 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 2:34:41 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/8/2015 2:25:29 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 9:21:47 AM, Skepticalone wrote:


http://www.dothaneagle.com...

"If you take away religion, you can't hire enough police."

Comments?

Religion and Atheism will still leave with us with anarchy. It's simply the idea of no authority and I don't see that dying anytime soon.

Except the suggestion was 'taking away'. Are you suggesting that getting rid of atheism would lead to anarchy? If so, I believe you have quite a unique viewpoint! ;-)

How can atheism be taken away? It's the default view point of anybody who has no belief in a deity. It's not an individual philosophy.

Ignorance is the default position; it is impossible to reject something you've never heard or thought about. So if Atheism is about ignorance, then congrats to them :/ .

Atheism in politics is more along the line of totalitarianism. Can't see anarchy working any better than real democracy.

I rather doubt you've ever seen a real democracy working, since there has never been one.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any god or gods. It's just that. Politics and personal attitudes are as diverse among atheists as with any other group of people.

Sure, it's impossible to reject something you've never heard of but it's also impossible to believe it since you don't even know of its supposed existence. It's the null hypothesis and it is the default for every human being. If you never heard of leprechauns you'd never have to deny they existed since you would not believe it in the first place. That's an absence of information, real or imagined. If a child were raised and never heard about religion, never saw any examples of it, he or she would be, by default, atheist.

Asserting non-belief in a deity is superficial; it indicates that an answer which is convenient to the Atheist has been either chosen without thought, or to cover for the Atheist inability to prove his belief.

Unless the person has issues such as short memory or inability to think, there are three rational positions to take when hearing a proposition:

1- Belief that the proposition is true [rejection of 2 & 3].
2- Belief that the proposition is false [rejection of 1 & 3].
3- Belief that the proposition is unknowable ("I need more research" or "It is impossible for humans to know") [rejection of 1 & 2].

Theism lacks of belief that God doesn't exist, does it define the term or tell us what it believes?
If we are to define terms on what they don't believe, then we might as well invent new terms to address each belief individually. I personally suggest: Divine Designism, Divine Naturalism, and Divine Ignorism.

It is a firm position and an active rejection of Theism, and one taken without any evidence of any sort in its defense; a conclusion without premises or basis behind its validity or truth, essentially a blind belief.

Add "dis" and "non" to keywords and your paragraph is meaningless. If you are going to call yourself an Agnostic, then please do so, and then justify your position that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not.

Atheism have what constitutes a religion making your last statement incoherent, but I'll pass that. I believe multiple psychologists concluded that people have tendency to believe in God, so your statement has no basis.
Comparing an arbitrarily contingent being to God is a terrible analogy.

Belief in God is a self-evident axiomatic truth in that it: 1- is cross cultural and not culturally bound, 2- Innate and doesn't require any form of transfer of information, 3- foundational and provides a basis for a coherent worldview (for instance, please explain how logic, human rights, free will, consciousness, or morality are capable of existing in an Atheist world in a non-illusionary form).
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 6:07:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 4:57:01 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 4:37:19 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 1/8/2015 3:31:44 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 2:34:41 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/8/2015 2:25:29 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 9:21:47 AM, Skepticalone wrote:


http://www.dothaneagle.com...

"If you take away religion, you can't hire enough police."

Comments?

Religion and Atheism will still leave with us with anarchy. It's simply the idea of no authority and I don't see that dying anytime soon.

Except the suggestion was 'taking away'. Are you suggesting that getting rid of atheism would lead to anarchy? If so, I believe you have quite a unique viewpoint! ;-)

How can atheism be taken away? It's the default view point of anybody who has no belief in a deity. It's not an individual philosophy.

Ignorance is the default position; it is impossible to reject something you've never heard or thought about. So if Atheism is about ignorance, then congrats to them :/ .

Atheism in politics is more along the line of totalitarianism. Can't see anarchy working any better than real democracy.

You focus on the atheists who are intolerant. I've met others who are tolerant.

Also, I don't see Islam as being much tolerant either. What's the crime for drawing Muhammad? What about adultery? Not much eye for an eye when women are buried in the ground and killed.

I am interested in hearing about an Atheist organization that doesn't push for Humanism. Also, I don't really remember the last Atheist who was positively expressing his belief rather than just trying to attack other religions.

The moral worldview of Atheist is either Consequentialism, which is more popular, or Nihilism (if they wish to be more consistent and less contradictory). These rejects absolutes and make morality subjective with right and wrong actions up to the person to arbitrarily determine. Thus, it eventually leads to either an appeal to popularity or might makes right; which one do you think is easier to accomplish?

By definition, truth is discriminatory against falsehood. Tolerance is relative and based on what you believe is right/wrong or beneficial/harmful to society; you sure seem to not have much tolerant toward Islam.

And let there be [arising] from you a nation inviting to [all that is] good, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong, and those will be the successful. (Quran 3:104)

Drawing the Prophet gonna end up as inaccurate, therefore it is a form of lying. Furthermore, it opens up a door for idol worship (Drawing Jesus to look like royalty 1600 years later...), therefore it is a sin or a crime.
For Adultery, lashes for unmarried folks, and stoning for married people, granted that one of the two requirements is fulfilled: 1- Public admittance without retraction, 2- Four pious witnesses seeing "the ink enter the pot".
There is no eye at all for out of wedlock children, STDs, cheating, prostitution, or promiscuity.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 6:15:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Narrow point of view. It depends on the religion, and on prevalent social conditions. For a lot of European history Christianity was a powerful uniting force, but during the Protestant Reformation it caused civil wars, the solidification of power in the hands of Princes, and an eventual decentralization of the Holy Roman Empire which weakened it for centuries. The same can be seen with Islam under the Caliphate and Islam, without unification, under Western influences in the present day. A stark yes or no answer here won't do the matter justice.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 6:16:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 9:21:47 AM, Skepticalone wrote:


http://www.dothaneagle.com...

"If you take away religion, you can't hire enough police."

Comments?

I'm actually quite sympathetic toward anarchy. I suppose that makes my reaction unusual/complicated, lol.

I do think that religion can and has been used by state powers. Is that a good thing? I'm not so sure.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 6:31:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 5:13:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/8/2015 9:21:47 AM, Skepticalone wrote:


http://www.dothaneagle.com...

"If you take away religion, you can't hire enough police."

Comments?

Because of religion we need more police and prisons.
Federal study found 75% of the convicts in prison are Christians. The study was done to rank prison population by their religious affiliations. They found non-Christians and atheists lowest in number and Catholics and Protestants ranked the highest at 75%. This suggests Christianity leads to criminality..
http://www.holysmoke.org...

Yes, I think the information is interesting, although it could be much more thorough. I would prefer to see a study that was not 18 years old, that had a higher participation rate (I can dream!!), was not limited to federal prisons, and was not limited to one country. Also, I would like the survey to compare the groups secular, nonreligious, agnostic, and atheist in and out of prison at time of survey in the relevant populations. We should not be comparing atheists in prison to atheists, agnostic, non religious, and secular out of prison.

Your conclusion, "Christianity leads to criminality", seems questionable. What percentage of the US population in 1997 was Christian? Did anyone convert to Christianity while in prison, etc., etc.,
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 6:35:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 6:16:02 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/8/2015 9:21:47 AM, Skepticalone wrote:


http://www.dothaneagle.com...

"If you take away religion, you can't hire enough police."

Comments?

I'm actually quite sympathetic toward anarchy. I suppose that makes my reaction unusual/complicated, lol.

I do think that religion can and has been used by state powers. Is that a good thing? I'm not so sure.

Just so I'm clear on your position. You believe religion inhibits lawlessness, or not?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 6:49:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 6:07:27 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 1/8/2015 4:57:01 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 4:37:19 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 1/8/2015 3:31:44 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 2:34:41 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/8/2015 2:25:29 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 9:21:47 AM, Skepticalone wrote:


http://www.dothaneagle.com...

"If you take away religion, you can't hire enough police."

Comments?

Religion and Atheism will still leave with us with anarchy. It's simply the idea of no authority and I don't see that dying anytime soon.

Except the suggestion was 'taking away'. Are you suggesting that getting rid of atheism would lead to anarchy? If so, I believe you have quite a unique viewpoint! ;-)

How can atheism be taken away? It's the default view point of anybody who has no belief in a deity. It's not an individual philosophy.

Ignorance is the default position; it is impossible to reject something you've never heard or thought about. So if Atheism is about ignorance, then congrats to them :/ .

Atheism in politics is more along the line of totalitarianism. Can't see anarchy working any better than real democracy.

You focus on the atheists who are intolerant. I've met others who are tolerant.

Also, I don't see Islam as being much tolerant either. What's the crime for drawing Muhammad? What about adultery? Not much eye for an eye when women are buried in the ground and killed.

I am interested in hearing about an Atheist organization that doesn't push for Humanism. Also, I don't really remember the last Atheist who was positively expressing his belief rather than just trying to attack other religions.

The moral worldview of Atheist is either Consequentialism, which is more popular, or Nihilism (if they wish to be more consistent and less contradictory). These rejects absolutes and make morality subjective with right and wrong actions up to the person to arbitrarily determine. Thus, it eventually leads to either an appeal to popularity or might makes right; which one do you think is easier to accomplish?

By definition, truth is discriminatory against falsehood. Tolerance is relative and based on what you believe is right/wrong or beneficial/harmful to society; you sure seem to not have much tolerant toward Islam.

And let there be [arising] from you a nation inviting to [all that is] good, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong, and those will be the successful. (Quran 3:104)

Drawing the Prophet gonna end up as inaccurate, therefore it is a form of lying. Furthermore, it opens up a door for idol worship (Drawing Jesus to look like royalty 1600 years later...), therefore it is a sin or a crime.
For Adultery, lashes for unmarried folks, and stoning for married people, granted that one of the two requirements is fulfilled: 1- Public admittance without retraction, 2- Four pious witnesses seeing "the ink enter the pot".
There is no eye at all for out of wedlock children, STDs, cheating, prostitution, or promiscuity.

https://www.youtube.com...
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2015 7:28:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 9:21:47 AM, Skepticalone wrote:


http://www.dothaneagle.com...

"If you take away religion, you can't hire enough police."

Comments?

I respectfully agree, but disagree. Religion is like self medication. Many criminally and mentally ill people are attracted to religion. This is made evident by the number of convicts who turn to religion as part of their reform within the prison system. There should always be freedom of religion. Because it's true, without religion some people have no concept of right from wrong. But on the flip side, some people also use religion to justify wrongs. I'm not sure what's worse, mentally and criminally ill people taking their daily dose of region or mentally ill people who don't have to answer to a higher set of morals.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 8:25:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/8/2015 5:25:34 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 1/8/2015 4:47:23 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/8/2015 4:37:19 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 1/8/2015 3:31:44 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 2:34:41 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/8/2015 2:25:29 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 9:21:47 AM, Skepticalone wrote:


http://www.dothaneagle.com...

"If you take away religion, you can't hire enough police."

Comments?

Religion and Atheism will still leave with us with anarchy. It's simply the idea of no authority and I don't see that dying anytime soon.

Except the suggestion was 'taking away'. Are you suggesting that getting rid of atheism would lead to anarchy? If so, I believe you have quite a unique viewpoint! ;-)

How can atheism be taken away? It's the default view point of anybody who has no belief in a deity. It's not an individual philosophy.

Ignorance is the default position; it is impossible to reject something you've never heard or thought about. So if Atheism is about ignorance, then congrats to them :/ .

Atheism in politics is more along the line of totalitarianism. Can't see anarchy working any better than real democracy.

I rather doubt you've ever seen a real democracy working, since there has never been one.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any god or gods. It's just that. Politics and personal attitudes are as diverse among atheists as with any other group of people.

Sure, it's impossible to reject something you've never heard of but it's also impossible to believe it since you don't even know of its supposed existence. It's the null hypothesis and it is the default for every human being. If you never heard of leprechauns you'd never have to deny they existed since you would not believe it in the first place. That's an absence of information, real or imagined. If a child were raised and never heard about religion, never saw any examples of it, he or she would be, by default, atheist.

Asserting non-belief in a deity is superficial; it indicates that an answer which is convenient to the Atheist has been either chosen without thought, or to cover for the Atheist inability to prove his belief.

Unless the person has issues such as short memory or inability to think, there are three rational positions to take when hearing a proposition:

1- Belief that the proposition is true [rejection of 2 & 3].
2- Belief that the proposition is false [rejection of 1 & 3].
3- Belief that the proposition is unknowable ("I need more research" or "It is impossible for humans to know") [rejection of 1 & 2].

Theism lacks of belief that God doesn't exist, does it define the term or tell us what it believes?
If we are to define terms on what they don't believe, then we might as well invent new terms to address each belief individually. I personally suggest: Divine Designism, Divine Naturalism, and Divine Ignorism.

It is a firm position and an active rejection of Theism, and one taken without any evidence of any sort in its defense; a conclusion without premises or basis behind its validity or truth, essentially a blind belief.

Add "dis" and "non" to keywords and your paragraph is meaningless. If you are going to call yourself an Agnostic, then please do so, and then justify your position that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not.

Atheism have what constitutes a religion making your last statement incoherent, but I'll pass that. I believe multiple psychologists concluded that people have tendency to believe in God, so your statement has no basis.
Comparing an arbitrarily contingent being to God is a terrible analogy.

Belief in God is a self-evident axiomatic truth in that it: 1- is cross cultural and not culturally bound, 2- Innate and doesn't require any form of transfer of information, 3- foundational and provides a basis for a coherent worldview (for instance, please explain how logic, human rights, free will, consciousness, or morality are capable of existing in an Atheist world in a non-illusionary form).

Totally unsupported assertion totally ignoring the civilizations and other groups of people that existed long before the proselytizing horde of Christians started going around the world. If it were truly self-evident and axiomatic there would be only one concept of God, one message, one set of rules. That is not the case, nullifying your primary assertion.

Again, definition of atheism. Lack of belief in any deity. I don't have to reject something that has no evidence of existence, I simply choose not to accept a baseless assertion.

Show me evidence I can test and a valid theory I can attempt to falsify and we might have something to discuss. Until you can do that all you have are millennia old myths written by people with no real clue about how the universe worked outside their tiny little spheres of existence.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2015 7:33:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/9/2015 8:25:03 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/8/2015 5:25:34 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 1/8/2015 4:47:23 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/8/2015 4:37:19 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 1/8/2015 3:31:44 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 2:34:41 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/8/2015 2:25:29 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/8/2015 9:21:47 AM, Skepticalone wrote:


http://www.dothaneagle.com...

"If you take away religion, you can't hire enough police."

Comments?

Religion and Atheism will still leave with us with anarchy. It's simply the idea of no authority and I don't see that dying anytime soon.

Except the suggestion was 'taking away'. Are you suggesting that getting rid of atheism would lead to anarchy? If so, I believe you have quite a unique viewpoint! ;-)

How can atheism be taken away? It's the default view point of anybody who has no belief in a deity. It's not an individual philosophy.

Ignorance is the default position; it is impossible to reject something you've never heard or thought about. So if Atheism is about ignorance, then congrats to them :/ .

Atheism in politics is more along the line of totalitarianism. Can't see anarchy working any better than real democracy.

I rather doubt you've ever seen a real democracy working, since there has never been one.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any god or gods. It's just that. Politics and personal attitudes are as diverse among atheists as with any other group of people.

Sure, it's impossible to reject something you've never heard of but it's also impossible to believe it since you don't even know of its supposed existence. It's the null hypothesis and it is the default for every human being. If you never heard of leprechauns you'd never have to deny they existed since you would not believe it in the first place. That's an absence of information, real or imagined. If a child were raised and never heard about religion, never saw any examples of it, he or she would be, by default, atheist.

Asserting non-belief in a deity is superficial; it indicates that an answer which is convenient to the Atheist has been either chosen without thought, or to cover for the Atheist inability to prove his belief.

Unless the person has issues such as short memory or inability to think, there are three rational positions to take when hearing a proposition:

1- Belief that the proposition is true [rejection of 2 & 3].
2- Belief that the proposition is false [rejection of 1 & 3].
3- Belief that the proposition is unknowable ("I need more research" or "It is impossible for humans to know") [rejection of 1 & 2].

Theism lacks of belief that God doesn't exist, does it define the term or tell us what it believes?
If we are to define terms on what they don't believe, then we might as well invent new terms to address each belief individually. I personally suggest: Divine Designism, Divine Naturalism, and Divine Ignorism.

It is a firm position and an active rejection of Theism, and one taken without any evidence of any sort in its defense; a conclusion without premises or basis behind its validity or truth, essentially a blind belief.

Add "dis" and "non" to keywords and your paragraph is meaningless. If you are going to call yourself an Agnostic, then please do so, and then justify your position that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not.

Atheism have what constitutes a religion making your last statement incoherent, but I'll pass that. I believe multiple psychologists concluded that people have tendency to believe in God, so your statement has no basis.
Comparing an arbitrarily contingent being to God is a terrible analogy.

Belief in God is a self-evident axiomatic truth in that it: 1- is cross cultural and not culturally bound, 2- Innate and doesn't require any form of transfer of information, 3- foundational and provides a basis for a coherent worldview (for instance, please explain how logic, human rights, free will, consciousness, or morality are capable of existing in an Atheist world in a non-illusionary form).

Totally unsupported assertion totally ignoring the civilizations and other groups of people that existed long before the proselytizing horde of Christians started going around the world. If it were truly self-evident and axiomatic there would be only one concept of God, one message, one set of rules. That is not the case, nullifying your primary assertion.

Again, definition of atheism. Lack of belief in any deity. I don't have to reject something that has no evidence of existence, I simply choose not to accept a baseless assertion.

Show me evidence I can test and a valid theory I can attempt to falsify and we might have something to discuss. Until you can do that all you have are millennia old myths written by people with no real clue about how the universe worked outside their tiny little spheres of existence.

There are many theories, if there was a correct one, then it would have been universally agreed and no expert would disagree. Therefore, there are no historical truths or truth about matter?

We are not talking about religion; we are talking about the existence of a necessarily-existent creator for the universe.
Universality doesn't mean that every single person believes it, a cross cultural consensus is enough evidence. In spite of Atheists, evidently there are more theists than Atheists in the world, and this has always been the case from the beginning of recorded history.
And second of all, self-evident truths and axioms don't have to be universal. Many of us intuitively believe that our mothers are our biological mothers, without having to use a DNA test kit or hiring someone to track documents.

To challenge this thesis, you need to demonstrate that God is not a self-evident truth. This is done by explaining how God is not a foundational belief, is culturally bound, and is only acquired via information transfer.

As I explained, you actively reject theist theories, and you have an intellectual obligation to provide reasoning. Having no presentable reasons implies that you have none or they are emotional; both are based on irrationality.
Furthermore, you are trying to avoid supporting your view, which is either "God doesn't exist", "It is impossible to know whether God exists or not". Simple: If you can't defend it, then you shouldn't bother trying to spread it.

Lol, why don't you do a test that he doesn't exist if you are so confident, lazy?
But if you insist: If there are such things as logic, human rights, free will, consciousness, or morality that exist in a non-illusionary sense, then if Atheism cannot account for them, it would be the case that the alternative, and direct opposite, theism is true.

I foresee of two conclusions; it is admittedly hard to predict the results, however I am confident that they will be fascinating: You deny the existence of such things as logic, thus invalidating all arguments and self-refuting your position. Or it would be the case that theism is true.

The tone of the discussion is theism vs Atheism, if you desperately want me to proselytize my belief, Aka "the truth", then simply say so.
As far as I know, religious books are suppose to be books of signs, not books of science. So I don't see how knowledge about the universe have an integral part to do with it. It is more of an exercise in philosophical questions: Th