What's new

Welcome to Kingdom Hearts Insider

Join us now to get access to all our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, and so, so much more. It's also quick and totally free, so what are you waiting for?

Ask question

Ask Questions and Get Answers from Our Community

Ask a Mod

Ask Questions from your staff

Contact Staff

If you need additional information or have a concern please contact us.

  • Hello everybody! We have tons of new awards for the new year that can be requested through our Awards System thanks to Antifa Lockhart! Some are limited-time awards so go claim them before they are gone forever...

    CLICK HERE FOR AWARDS

10 Things Christians and Atheists Can Agree On



REGISTER TO REMOVE ADS
Status
Not open for further replies.

Virus

حلم في ا&#1604
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
2,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
إرَم ذات العماد
Website
www.willyouresist.com

Orion

Prepared To Die
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
20,384
Reaction score
2
Points
37
Awards
6
1 - Atheism doesn't command nor condem the horrific treatment of others. Atheism, being a non-belief, cannot have anything to say about these. The only space 'within' atheism that allows for the non-punishment of evil-doers comes from the naturally violent nature of humanity or philosophies that can exist alongside atheism.

2 - Is completely a given and pointless to mention.

3 - Overall, no, but how people arrive at their similar decisions and actions can come about from vastly different worldviews. If presented with a tough situation, an atheist may act based on what seems sensible at the time, whereas a Christian may do the same action but attribute it to something divine.

4 - Duh.

5 - And I feel sorry for someone who is offended at such a worldview alone, before actions or teachings are even carried out. I've no qualms with any particular religion on its own, it's how they can be practiced, or how people can (but not in all cases do) use them to justify questionable or evil acts - that's where one of my disagreements with most religions comes from.

6 - Again, duh.

7 - Yup.

8 - Focussing purely on them is stupid, yes, but there's nothing bad about drawing attention to them, especially when that which makes religions good or do good things is either questionable in its existence/source or in no way exclusive to religion, theism, deism, or any other spiritual outlook on the world. For instance, the charity that some claim can only come from religion is a trait inherent in human society, not any worldview in particular.

9 - Stemming from the above, there's no doubt good has been brought to the world by religion, but there's nothing good done by religions that couldn't have been done by any other spiritual or philosophical worldview that wasn't religious. Moreover, with there being bad things in some ways exclusive to religions, and the good things not so, it seems to me redundant that religions would be kept around on the 'merit' of the good 'they' do.

10 -
Atheists, same thing. you want to show me that atheism is the key to a balanced, satisfying, confident life? Show me.
This is stupid, since the point of atheism isn't about living a balanced, satisfying or confident life. Atheism is the non-belief in a God, and has nothing to say about how you live your life. That's up to you to personally decide or to discover through exploration of various world philosophies.

But number 10 is - on the whole nevertheless right, at least in the idealistic way: the best, most honest way to 'sway' people to their side is to argue and debate for it and make use of effective education. It's just saddening to see such intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt moves made as groups trying to sneak creation science, intelligent design and the like into science classes.
 

Solar

nothing ever ends
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
8,384
Reaction score
0
Points
38
Awards
6
Website
www.youtube.com
Atheism doesn't command nor condem the horrific treatment of others. Atheism, being a non-belief, cannot have anything to say about these. The only space 'within' atheism that allows for the non-punishment of evil-doers comes from the naturally violent nature of humanity or philosophies that can exist alongside atheism.

I am Canadian-Pakastani. I am the absence of all other legal national identities. However, in my hatred for these other nationalities, I can still commit horror. Atheism and religion are not living entities, or at least the way we treat them. However, our personal takes on both can influence (not command)us to do horrible actions.

Focussing purely on them is stupid, yes, but there's nothing bad about drawing attention to them, especially when that which makes religions good or do good things is either questionable in its existence/source or in no way exclusive to religion, theism, deism, or any other spiritual outlook on the world. For instance, the charity that some claim can only come from religion is a trait inherent in human society, not any worldview in particular.

Also questionable though I generally agree but still, elaborate: what negative thing(s) can religion do that is exclusive to it and what are good things inclusive to it?

But number 10 is - on the whole nevertheless right, at least in the idealistic way: the best, most honest way to 'sway' people to their side is to argue and debate for it and make use of effective education. It's just saddening to see such intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt moves made as groups trying to sneak creation science, intelligent design and the like into science classes.

Amen. Badum tsh. I went to a Catholic high-school and I found my academic pursuits intact because of how liberal, or I suppose non-asinine, the institution was. They defined inner realities through a Catholic lens very rarely (the implications of their beliefs in accordance with the humanities courses, basically) and that was about it; it didn't intrude on what schools all over teach as fact.
 

Orion

Prepared To Die
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
20,384
Reaction score
2
Points
37
Awards
6
However, our personal takes on both can influence (not command)us to do horrible actions.
What of those who take holy books as literal and do shit like hound homosexuals? I mean obviously the smart thing to do is to not take a centuries-old scripture as literal truth in the modern world, but what of those who do?


Also questionable though I generally agree but still, elaborate: what negative thing(s) can religion do that is exclusive to it and what are good things inclusive to it?
Shit like actively condemning people of other - not even necessarily opposing - beliefs, likewise those of alternative lifestyles or persuasions. When interpreted smartly, religions do not command violence or horrors, but there is room within interpretations for people to see such actions as permissible if not commanded of them. My main point was positing that there is no room within atheism itself for similar interpretations, since the only thing atheism is about is a non-belief in a God - there are no secondary or extraneous ideas presented within 'core' atheism to encourage (nor condemn) terrible acts. Anything of the sort observed with atheists - I believe - exists because of additional philosophical beliefs, or the implications made by atheism that are not actually addressed by 'core' atheism.
 

Solar

nothing ever ends
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
8,384
Reaction score
0
Points
38
Awards
6
Website
www.youtube.com
What of those who take holy books as literal and do shit like hound homosexuals? I mean obviously the smart thing to do is to not take a centuries-old scripture as literal truth in the modern world, but what of those who do?


Shit like actively condemning people of other - not even necessarily opposing - beliefs, likewise those of alternative lifestyles or persuasions. When interpreted smartly, religions do not command violence or horrors, but there is room within interpretations for people to see such actions as permissible if not commanded of them. My main point was positing that there is no room within atheism itself for similar interpretations, since the only thing atheism is about is a non-belief in a God - there are no secondary or extraneous ideas presented within 'core' atheism to encourage (nor condemn) terrible acts. Anything of the sort observed with atheists - I believe - exists because of additional philosophical beliefs, or the implications made by atheism that are not actually addressed by 'core' atheism.

Ahhh but see this is where I was curious. The interesting and dangerous thing about religion is convictions and myth and the danger when the two over-lap and I thought how different codes of conduct or philosophy or ethics might be equally dangerous. Nihilism, for example, can be turned into "life is pointless and i think its miserable so everyone should die". The concept itself comes with connotations positive and negative depending on the person viewing it but the mental stability and code of morals a person subscribes to on an individual basis are what define how they treat any way of living. I agree, Atheism in itself does not allow room for that (though it is possible to take subjective morality and bend it to cruel extremes) but nonetheless I was referring to idealologies and philosophies in general. Though we may lack these modes of thinking, our thoughts about these modes can still be taken in all sorts of directions. Violently imposed secularism in former Communist governments are an easy example.

As I said, a book can't physically make you do anything. Hats don't kill people, people in hats kill people and all that. But you're right, objective values (which many religions have) have a far more different potential than subjective ones (common to skeptical thought).
 

Nyangoro

Break the Spell
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
12,503
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Awards
5
Age
30
Location
Somewhere 2D
Shit like actively condemning people of other - not even necessarily opposing - beliefs, likewise those of alternative lifestyles or persuasions. When interpreted smartly, religions do not command violence or horrors, but there is room within interpretations for people to see such actions as permissible if not commanded of them.

But people do that whether they have religious beliefs or not. That's the nature of opposing ideas in general. It's just easier to pick out a group than an individual. People will argue over their beliefs, often condemning one another for them (and I'm not referring to "spiritually," as in religion, but in a general sense). You could talk about instigation and all of that, but it's still no different. No one walks up to and condemns an individual until they know (or simply think) that a person's views are different from them. It's the same for inwardly condemning other views as well. You believe what you believe, regardless of whether you say it outwardly or not; and all things considered, there really isn't much difference.

My main point was positing that there is no room within atheism itself for similar interpretations, since the only thing atheism is about is a non-belief in a God - there are no secondary or extraneous ideas presented within 'core' atheism to encourage (nor condemn) terrible acts. Anything of the sort observed with atheists - I believe - exists because of additional philosophical beliefs, or the implications made by atheism that are not actually addressed by 'core' atheism.

I don't really agree. I think these "additional" beliefs (at least to an extent) can be factored in as well. Take Christianity for example. What do you need to be a Christian? To have faith that Jesus Christ yada yada yada (you all know it by now, lol). That is all that it takes to be a Christian. Morality is very much a part of the overall worldview (and is influenced by Christian doctrine, of course), but at its absolute base, being a Christian is merely what I said above. By the same token, atheism, at its absolute base, is a belief that there is no god/deity/etc (and if you dare argue semantics, I will slap the hell out of you :p). However, additional beliefs tend to use other aspects of a person's worldview as a basis. A nihilistic person is far more likely to be atheist than Christian (by the way, I'm using nihilism only as an example; I'm not implying that all atheism-based beliefs are depressing, lol), since the lack of a god makes the concept of nihilism far easier to believe.
 

Alaude Drenxta

\+The Devil's+/ .{Advocate}.
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
7,306
Reaction score
0
Points
35
Age
30
Location
My house?
The sad part about this article is that all of this seems clear and obvious to anyone, but regardless of its mention, it can never be implemented due to the stubbornness of the radicals on either side. Radical people will always clash, regardless of the argument.
 

Gildragon

Theatre Messiah
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
3,569
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Awards
3
Age
34
Location
Spokane, WA
Website
www.youtube.com
This post makes me debate the man did any real study into the essential fundamental Beliefs of Christianity, and alternatively that he wasn't all that educated on the Athiest side either. I stopped reading after #5
 

Nutari

The Scotsman
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
2,855
Reaction score
0
Points
35
Awards
3
Location
Milwaukee
But number 10 is - on the whole nevertheless right, at least in the idealistic way: the best, most honest way to 'sway' people to their side is to argue and debate for it and make use of effective education. It's just saddening to see such intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt moves made as groups trying to sneak creation science, intelligent design and the like into science classes.

Not really attacking you on this, but for the sake of political correctness, shouldn't they teach a little creationism? My governement class had a debate on this a few weeks ago and it was pretty evenenly split. I think it would be proper to teach it because there are other theories as to how the universe came to be. Yes you would have to get into ALL of the different theories, but in a school like mine where there are only whites and a few blacks, christians and non christians, thats all you would need to really include. I would like you to explain the intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt part though. I don't see how giving an alternate creation theory is so bad.
 

Orion

Prepared To Die
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
20,384
Reaction score
2
Points
37
Awards
6
Not really attacking you on this, but for the sake of political correctness, shouldn't they teach a little creationism?
Never, ever as part of a science class. The only time it should ever make its way into a science class is when students are given the exercising of learning what is and isn't science. Creationism shares none of the several key traits that all legitimate fields of science each possess.
I think it would be proper to teach it because there are other theories as to how the universe came to be.
That's fine, but as said, not as part of science curriculum.
I would like you to explain the intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt part though. I don't see how giving an alternate creation theory is so bad.
It's intellectually dishonest because most legislators on the issue want something non-scientific to be taught in science classes as though it were science, and its morally bankrupt because these people can see their faith is losing favour in the mainstream, and so try to dress up a 'sciencey' version of it as a gateway method, giving it apparent legitimacy, as a way of getting people into the faith.
 

Nutari

The Scotsman
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
2,855
Reaction score
0
Points
35
Awards
3
Location
Milwaukee
Ah, I see what you mean. And the whole separation of church and state things plays a part I would think. Thanks for clearing that up Orion!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Top