• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Faith and politics[W:398]

LOL. Do you think atheists do less harm than the faithful? Pretty sure both sides are in a dead heat.

You're full of ****. We aren't in a decades long struggle against atheist terrorists. How you can imagine that the massive amount of blood and treasure we spend on fighting religious fanatics is not proof of what I just said is more magical thinking.
 
LOL. You stated opinion about what you believe other people believe. There is no such thing as true opinion.

My opinion is based upon the truth.

Huh? That is not how I responded. I stated I am perfectly happy in my life and my beliefs and was miserable as an atheist. If you are happy then good for you. Just stop showing your ignorance by claiming you know what others feel about their life choices.

If theists didn't articulate their paranoia, I would have had to guess. However, it is a common theme that everyone must fear their god.

False. Even without Heaven and Hell the 10 Commandments are still a solid blueprint for human civilization.

That's utter BS. Half of the commandments are about maintaining loyalty to the Jewish god. There are and have been many civilizations that didn't consider that deity at all and did quite well. Also, there have been different versions of the commandments.


It's funny because you are doing some hefty projection there. I haven't threatened you with Hell and yet there you are lecturing us on the joy we are missing if we don't believe as you do.

Quit treating a respect for the empirical as a belief. It is the magical worldview of theists that should be questioned but, so often, isn't.
 
You're full of ****. We aren't in a decades long struggle against atheist terrorists. How you can imagine that the massive amount of blood and treasure we spend on fighting religious fanatics is not proof of what I just said is more magical thinking.

And yet we are in an even more protracted conflict against an atheistic ideology that is responsible for murdering 100 million people in the last century. Islamic radicalism is small time compared to Communism.
 
Has anyone stopped to think religion is like anything else in life...it's not all or nothing...that there is good and bad in religion just like there is good and bad in atheists...good and bad in blacks...good and bad in whites? This all or nothing business is bull...
 
Definitely a conflict of interest...either be a minister of God's Word or a secular judge...you can't do both well..

id recommend you go secular when dealing with laws and what you try to force on other people then do what you like religiously in your free time ( hopeful that wont include condemning others based on faith but you can if you want i guess )
 
id recommend you go secular when dealing with laws and what you try to force on other people then do what you like religiously in your free time ( hopeful that wont include condemning others based on faith but you can if you want i guess )

I'm not in a secular position nor do I wanna be...I will always uphold what God's Word says...I would never attempt to do both...but if God's Word condemns...then so be it...
 
My opinion is based upon the truth.

In your opinion.


If theists didn't articulate their paranoia, I would have had to guess. However, it is a common theme that everyone must fear their god.

LOL! Again, you are the one making an argument about how the other people's beliefs ruin lives. You are no different than the fire and brimstone Christians you fear. I disagree with both of you.

That's utter BS. Half of the commandments are about maintaining loyalty to the Jewish god. There are and have been many civilizations that didn't consider that deity at all and did quite well. Also, there have been different versions of the commandments.

Pro-Tip: Any set of rules only work if they are followed. As a former social worker who counseled people in secular recovery from addiction, there is no doubt that the first rule of any course of recovery treatment is that the patient believe in it.

Also ,4 of the Commandments establish the authority for the 6 that are the foundation of human civilization.

Quit treating a respect for the empirical as a belief.

I'm not. I am pointing out that you have a bizarre impression of what "empirical" is, and show no signs of actually comprehending what you believe is empirical AND that your arguments are built of the very same tropes of the average fire and brimstone sermon. In short, you are more religious than most Christians I know.

It is the magical worldview of theists that should be questioned but, so often, isn't.

I question it all the time. I spent my late teens and most of my 20s as your kind of atheist. My adolescent mind rejected what I saw as the confined of religion only to be beat down by the realities of what I saw as a life of "freedom" which was really just servitude to secular vices that never actually made me happy. It was finding a monogamous relationship, a rejection of vice, and the responsibility of unexpected parenthood that finally proved to me exactly how bull**** the atheistic model really is.

It was at that point I became a conservative atheist, believing that the rules as stated in the Bible were actually not just sound, but essential to a healthy mind. Some time later than that, as I was reading a book on ancient history, that I realized exactly how far the Christian ideal was from what would be expected from what I was told was a thinking animal. I saw capitalism and communism of the modern era as competing manifestations of the same animal instincts and Christian philosophy as an unexplained yet important bridge between these two ideologies. The birth of Christian philosophy, regardless of its source, would be a miracle even in the modern age... that it sprung from the brutal deserts of ancient Judea 2000 years ago is even more astounding.

It was some time after this that I had my moment of religious awakening and I felt God. I can't really explain it to a person that hasn't felt it, but it was great.

Everyone is entitled to their own experience, I'm not hereto change you. I am here to tell you that you would be better served as a true atheist in arguing what Atheism has done for you than guessing at what Christianity has denied other people. People who argue like you always sound like a late night infomercial comparing your product to the leading brand.
 
I'm not in a secular position nor do I wanna be...I will always uphold what God's Word says...I would never attempt to do both...but if God's Word condemns...then so be it...

Again, that could have been written by a Muslim. You supposedly have the same god as they do, but with two completely different concepts of "God's Word". At least one of you is wrong. Very, very wrong.
 
And yet we are in an even more protracted conflict against an atheistic ideology that is responsible for murdering 100 million people in the last century. Islamic radicalism is small time compared to Communism.

Communists kill in the name of communism, not atheism.

Islamic mujahadeen kill in the name of Islam. See the difference?
 
Again, that could have been written by a Muslim. You supposedly have the same god as they do, but with two completely different concepts of "God's Word". At least one of you is wrong. Very, very wrong.

Well I agree with your comment to an extent...one of us is right and one of us is wrong but I won't tell you which...I'll keep you in suspence...;)

There is one HUGE difference...I will wait on God to take action because that is what the Bible commands us to do...

“Take your position, stand still and see the salvation of Jehovah in your behalf.” 2 Chronicles 20:17
 
Well I agree with your comment to an extent...one of us is right and one of us is wrong but I won't tell you which...I'll keep you in suspence...;)

There is one HUGE difference...I will wait on God to take action because that is what the Bible commands us to do...

“Take your position, stand still and see the salvation of Jehovah in your behalf.” 2 Chronicles 20:17

There is a third position that you are not considering. The third position you both are wrong.
 
And yet we are in an even more protracted conflict against an atheistic ideology that is responsible for murdering 100 million people in the last century. Islamic radicalism is small time compared to Communism.

Communism is not founded in atheism and that argument is as tired as ****. It is a very dishonest and manipulative justification for the religious violence that plagues ALL of human history.

Lets say we were having this discussion prior to Stalin's reign. What's your next best example for claiming that atheism is as bloody? There isn't one.

Pretending that atheism is the eqivolent of magical faith is profoundly ignorant. When I do a job at the VA hospital, it's not a battle against radical atheism (a ridiculous concept) that is responsible for all of the legless, armless and head injured young men.

Atheism is the default condition for human beings, not a philosophy, not a reason to kill. Stalin was a practitioner of his own self-agrandizing power, not humanism.
 
In your opinion.




LOL! Again, you are the one making an argument about how the other people's beliefs ruin lives. You are no different than the fire and brimstone Christians you fear. I disagree with both of you.



Pro-Tip: Any set of rules only work if they are followed. As a former social worker who counseled people in secular recovery from addiction, there is no doubt that the first rule of any course of recovery treatment is that the patient believe in it.

Also ,4 of the Commandments establish the authority for the 6 that are the foundation of human civilization.



I'm not. I am pointing out that you have a bizarre impression of what "empirical" is, and show no signs of actually comprehending what you believe is empirical AND that your arguments are built of the very same tropes of the average fire and brimstone sermon. In short, you are more religious than most Christians I know.



I question it all the time. I spent my late teens and most of my 20s as your kind of atheist. My adolescent mind rejected what I saw as the confined of religion only to be beat down by the realities of what I saw as a life of "freedom" which was really just servitude to secular vices that never actually made me happy. It was finding a monogamous relationship, a rejection of vice, and the responsibility of unexpected parenthood that finally proved to me exactly how bull**** the atheistic model really is.

It was at that point I became a conservative atheist, believing that the rules as stated in the Bible were actually not just sound, but essential to a healthy mind. Some time later than that, as I was reading a book on ancient history, that I realized exactly how far the Christian ideal was from what would be expected from what I was told was a thinking animal. I saw capitalism and communism of the modern era as competing manifestations of the same animal instincts and Christian philosophy as an unexplained yet important bridge between these two ideologies. The birth of Christian philosophy, regardless of its source, would be a miracle even in the modern age... that it sprung from the brutal deserts of ancient Judea 2000 years ago is even more astounding.

It was some time after this that I had my moment of religious awakening and I felt God. I can't really explain it to a person that hasn't felt it, but it was great.

Everyone is entitled to their own experience, I'm not hereto change you. I am here to tell you that you would be better served as a true atheist in arguing what Atheism has done for you than guessing at what Christianity has denied other people. People who argue like you always sound like a late night infomercial comparing your product to the leading brand.

When I get on an airplane, I'm not worried that some atheist is going to kill us all. You forgive too much in the name of magic. If you want to know what atheism has done for me, it's freed me from having to share responsibility for all of the stupid and crazy things that are done in god's name. It has allowed me to see religion as an evolved behavior and not a mandate to magic. I agree there's no magical comfort in it, like with faith. The comfort lies in hope that human evolution can lead us away from a history full of magical violence and oppression, toward a more human potential.
 
There is a third position that you are not considering. The third position you both are wrong.

Actually, that's the most likely by far.
 
You have no problem telling us we don't get it, so why not expand that list?

I'm telling you that you don't get it based on what you tell me MY experience. You don't get it because you aren't describing my experience.
 
Communists kill in the name of communism, not atheism.

False. Communists have a history of rounding up and executing clergy for the crime of having a religion. They kill in the name of eradicating religion, which is in fact killing in the name of atheism.

Islamic mujahadeen kill in the name of Islam. See the difference?

There is not a difference. On top of the slaughter of people for practicing religion these countries all murdered millions in pursuit of a broken secular cult of science.. be it in eugenics, or failed farm policy or flawed civil engineering projects that couldn't be questioned because the state in these Communist countries were deemed infallible.
 
When I get on an airplane, I'm not worried that some atheist is going to kill us all. You forgive too much in the name of magic. If you want to know what atheism has done for me, it's freed me from having to share responsibility for all of the stupid and crazy things that are done in god's name. It has allowed me to see religion as an evolved behavior and not a mandate to magic. I agree there's no magical comfort in it, like with faith. The comfort lies in hope that human evolution can lead us away from a history full of magical violence and oppression, toward a more human potential.

It's funny because most progressives tell people they shouldn't worry about Islamic terror because the chances it will effect you is very low. But this is also a question you should speak with a Muslim about... you certainly aren't fearing Christian terrorists when you get on that plane.
 
False. Communists have a history of rounding up and executing clergy for the crime of having a religion. They kill in the name of eradicating religion, which is in fact killing in the name of atheism.



There is not a difference. On top of the slaughter of people for practicing religion these countries all murdered millions in pursuit of a broken secular cult of science.. be it in eugenics, or failed farm policy or flawed civil engineering projects that couldn't be questioned because the state in these Communist countries were deemed infallible.

Would you please support the statement that the reason communist government rounded up clergy was 'in the name of atheism'. Let's see you support that claim in something other than a ultra religious web site.
 
Communism is not founded in atheism and that argument is as tired as ****.

LOL. Who was it who argued that religion is the opiate of the masses? Didn't he have something to do with Communism? :lamo

Lenin argued that Atheism is inseparable from Communism.

The Soviet state promoted Atheist terror organizations like the "League of Militant Atheists" to terrorize Soviet citizens who tried to retain their religion in the atheist state.

It is a very dishonest and manipulative justification for the religious violence that plagues ALL of human history.

As does non-religious violence. In fact, non-religion violence is much more prevalent in human history. It turns out that humans like to kill each other. Christianity is one of the few ideologies in this world that teaches not to kill one another.

Lets say we were having this discussion prior to Stalin's reign. What's your next best example for claiming that atheism is as bloody? There isn't one.

What religion were the Huns murdering in the name of? I would say that Atheism wasn't fully weaponized until Communism, but violence without religious justification is rampant throughout human history.

Pretending that atheism is the eqivolent of magical faith is profoundly ignorant. When I do a job at the VA hospital, it's not a battle against radical atheism (a ridiculous concept) that is responsible for all of the legless, armless and head injured young men.

It would have been in Korea and Vietnam.. were there fewer war wounds in those confrontations?

Atheism is the default condition for human beings, not a philosophy, not a reason to kill. Stalin was a practitioner of his own self-agrandizing power, not humanism.

LOL. Absolutely false. Humans seek a higher power at all times. Atheism was derived from a search for meaning without a deity. Can you name a time in the history of the human race where the majority of humankind was atheist? If you can't then how can you claim that atheism is the default?
 
LOL. Who was it who argued that religion is the opiate of the masses? Didn't he have something to do with Communism? :lamo
And, what do you think Marx meant by that, when that phrase is taken in context? Do you know?? Can you address that ?? Do you know the full quote?? Not many people actually look at the full sentence as was written, but rather just a bit of it.

The full sentence is

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people".

The full paragraph is

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo

Now, a bit if historical context. At that time, opium was used in medicine as pain relief. What Marx was saying is that religion (in specific organized religion), provided comfort for the oppressive conditions that the poor endured. However, like opium, that relief in pain weakened them, and took away their will to fight the oppressiveness that Marx attributed to the capitalist society of that day.

In context, it's quite a bit different than how you are using it.
 
Would you please support the statement that the reason communist government rounded up clergy was 'in the name of atheism'. Let's see you support that claim in something other than a ultra religious web site.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perse...ion#Anti-religious_campaign_1928.E2.80.931941

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_persecution_in_Communist_Romania

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-bandow/north-korea-the-worlds-wo_b_12969994.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dougba...ngton-liberalizes-economic-ties/#5816bfa31912


Literally under a minute... you "fact based" atheists sure seem to be short of facts most of the time. Why do you suppose these atheists states imprison and kill religious people if not for the purposes of promoting atheism?
 
In a recent discussion of abortion, I was reminded by a philosophical ally that there are those who have faith AND believe in human rights for women. It got me thinking about the difference, not really in the definition of faith, but how its applied. It seems to me there are two ways that faith exists.

For some people their faith is a product of their morality and, by learning the truth, they come to know god. For others, their morality is a product of faith and truth is a pre-existing shape to which reality must be molded. No doubt, some people possess such a rigid idea of morality and faith that no new information can be allowed to challenge it. Others are happy to see their morality and faith evolve with the addition of new facts.

So, my question is, does anyone believe that what their god prefers can be different than what makes sense for human, civil society? Or, do you believe that what is right for humans MUST naturally be consistent with morality and adjust your faith accordingly.

Would you describe your faith as rigid or flexible and how does that make it work better for you?

How do you reconcile your faith when what your faith demands is inconsistent with what you or others need to be happy?

Just curious...

I am a firm believer that society condones or embraces may things that grieve the God I know. There are many many things that are legal that I believe honorable people, whether religious or not, and people of faith should not do. We MUST do what we can to constructively intervene when innocent people are being harmed. I believe we can be led to speak out on what we believe is the right thing when it is appropriate to do so.

But I think we also accept that we are powerless over the choices that other people make or the beliefs they hold, even when we believe they are destructive mostly to the one doing or expressing, and it is not appropriate to intervene or demand that somebody else behave or speak as we believe to be correct. And I admit to cowardice and feet of clay at times when I know it would have been right to speak out, such as a husband deliberately putting down his wife at a social gathering, or a parent inappropriately disciplining a child, or somebody being boorish and a jerk and spoiling everybody else's experience. Too often I wimp out on intervention in such things and accept my sense of shame for doing so.

I know that is a flimsy answer to your question here, but basically yes, I think God wants much better of us than what we choose in many things.
 
And, what do you think Marx meant by that, when that phrase is taken in context? Do you know?? Can you address that ?? Do you know the full quote?? Not many people actually look at the full sentence as was written, but rather just a bit of it.

Now, a bit if historical context. At that time, opium was used in medicine as pain relief. What Marx was saying is that religion (in specific organized religion), provided comfort for the oppressive conditions that the poor endured. However, like opium, that relief in pain weakened them, and took away their will to fight the oppressiveness that Marx attributed to the capitalist society of that day.


Aaaand how is this any different than the context in which I used it? You are literally agreeing with me that Marx felt that Religion was bad for humanity and --in historical context -- he saw Communism was the real cure. This is the whole freaking reason why Communism and Atheism have been inextricably linked throughout Communism's sordid history. Atheism and Communism have always been connected because Marxists literally believe that religion is an addiction making the population sick and communism as the cure for that addiction.

In context, it's quite a bit different than how you are using it.

LOL! No, in context it is exactly the same. Marx saw religion as weakening the population and Communism as the cure. That is absolutely what can be derived directly from the attributed quote.

RAMOSS coming to the defense of atheism:

giphy.gif
 
I am a firm believer that society condones or embraces may things that grieve the God I know. There are many many things that are legal that I believe honorable people, whether religious or not, and people of faith should not do. We MUST do what we can to constructively intervene when innocent people are being harmed. I believe we can be led to speak out on what we believe is the right thing when it is appropriate to do so.

But I think we also accept that we are powerless over the choices that other people make or the beliefs they hold, even when we believe they are destructive mostly to the one doing or expressing, and it is not appropriate to intervene or demand that somebody else behave or speak as we believe to be correct. And I admit to cowardice and feet of clay at times when I know it would have been right to speak out, such as a husband deliberately putting down his wife at a social gathering, or a parent inappropriately disciplining a child, or somebody being boorish and a jerk and spoiling everybody else's experience. Too often I wimp out on intervention in such things and accept my sense of shame for doing so.

I know that is a flimsy answer to your question here, but basically yes, I think God wants much better of us than what we choose in many things.

Indeed. This is why over the years I have realized that most arguments in favor of religion versus atheism are kind of pointless. I can only speak to my own journey and nobody else's. Having been on both sides I do find it hard to imagine people actually enjoying the life I left... if they do then good for them, I guess?
 
Back
Top Bottom