The saddest joke ever.

[JF_Aidan_Pryde]

What does religious affiliation have to do with ethical standards? A man who is evil is evil whether he is aetheist, Christian or Muslim. Talking about the general statistics of which group is more "moral" makes as much sense as debating which race is more "superior".

 

[MrsSkywalker]

arjan de lumens: The quotes you linked were interesting. However they were mostly from Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams. While these men had large roles in founding the country, they were not alone. They all believed in God, and they all believed in the freedom to believe what you will. I don't know how you surmised they were deists from these few quotes, but it doesn't matter at all. This country was founded on God, and that was my point. I doubt God has a demonination.

 

[Gubbi]

What does religious affiliation have to do with ethical standards? A man who is evil is evil whether he is aetheist, Christian or Muslim. Talking about the general statistics of which group is more "moral" makes as much sense as debating which race is more "superior".

The concept of Good and Evil, Right and Wrong are absolutes in religion (christianity anyway). Not so for atheists. And hardly ever so in politics (the craft of pragmatism).

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[kyleb]

In my opinion, if all this snobby elitist can find to harp on the US about is our collective belief in God (or higher power), that's fine by me!

but what about when sobby elitist think that there are many levels of gods and they are closer to that level that the rest of us? what about when they think that they have the power over good and evil to shape the world into their own graven image?

Deut. 27:15; Ps. 97:7 (Hebrew: pesel), refers to the household gods of idolaters

"Every nation and city had its own gods...Yet every family had its separate household or tutelary god."

we don't just have these stroies around for no reason you know.

 

[Heathen]

So, athiests, agnostics, and humanists: What made me stop if not God?

The laws of Physics.

 

[MrsSkywalker]

but what about when sobby elitist think that there are many levels of gods and they are closer to that level that the rest of us?

Then God will smite them! Bwahahaa!

what about when they think that they have the power over good and evil to shape the world into their own graven image?

Watched the news lately?

 

[Heathen]

The concept of Good and Evil, Right and Wrong are absolutes in religion (christianity anyway). Not so for atheists.

Thanks, it probably just means we're better equipped to live in the real world.

A serious question for you though. Mayans, good or evil?

 

[Sabastian]

What does religious affiliation have to do with ethical standards? A man who is evil is evil whether he is aetheist, Christian or Muslim. Talking about the general statistics of which group is more "moral" makes as much sense as debating which race is more "superior".

The concept of Good and Evil, Right and Wrong are absolutes in religion (christianity anyway). Not so for atheists. And hardly ever so in politics (the craft of pragmatism).

Cheers
Gubbi

If indeed there is no truth then relativism itself becomes an absolute dissolving itself as an absolute truth. The truth is good and lies may very well be precieved as something other then good even evil. I might add that absolutes are a necessary part of science. Also it is the belief that people can behave poorly or good that creates the natural hiarchy of moral values. This is something that relativist quite despise and need to discredit. This tendency of atheist to discredit this hiarchy of moral behavior is based on the Jewish/Christian philosophy that if one behaves poorly they have sinned(or what have you.) and one whom behaves good is trying to do the best they can and this is appreciated by god. Who was it ... someone say that atheists carry a greater moral agency then Christians? .. Sounds like hypocricy to me. The idea to level all human acts to something that are equal as a result of socialization (theories) and that matters of morality and what is good and bad behavior is atheist/humanist in nature because they need to destroy the ideas of good and bad and replace them with egalitarian mentalities of what is good and bad. The whole thing is so hypocritical it really isn't funny. An atheist is almost fanatical in their belief that there is not a god when even some of the greatest minds of of our century can't say for certain that indeed there is no god. I think the most legitimate scientific finding was about 50/50 either way. In other words no one knows and so I find the atheist belief that there is no god ..... religious like in their dogmatic approach on the matter..

 

[JF_Aidan_Pryde]

I guess that's where the distinction between aetheists and agnostics come into play. Aetheism is now so jaded in definition that it pretty much means belief in 'no god' while agnostic is the "I don't know" , which is the best response IMO as it leaves room for change and rethinking.

 

[kyleb]

i am pretty sure that is not jaded but rather the way the words have been. atheist being the antonym of theist, one who claims to know of the existence of god; and agnostic as the opposite of gnostic, one who claims to have knowledge of the divine. unlike the theism discussed in this article i am actually an agnostic-theist; because while i do belive in god i also accept that my knowledge is only mortal.

 

[Gubbi]

What does religious affiliation have to do with ethical standards? A man who is evil is evil whether he is aetheist, Christian or Muslim. Talking about the general statistics of which group is more "moral" makes as much sense as debating which race is more "superior".

The concept of Good and Evil, Right and Wrong are absolutes in religion (christianity anyway). Not so for atheists. And hardly ever so in politics (the craft of pragmatism).

Cheers
Gubbi

If indeed there is no truth then relativism itself becomes an absolute dissolving itself as an absolute truth. The truth is good and lies may very well be precieved as something other then good even evil. I might add that absolutes are a necessary part of science. Also it is the belief that people can behave poorly or good that creates the natural hiarchy of moral values.

Please dont draw parallels between moral concepts (meta physical phenomena) and natural constants (physical phenomena), it only discredits you.

I never mentioned that atheists doesn't have a notion of what is good or bad (evil) only that their value system is not formulated anywhere with ultimate authority (like the Bible for jews/christians), but instead formed by pragmatic thinking.

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[kyleb]

exactly, i challenge anyone to name one just one religion that has not been though variation in their theology. sure many parts of the various religions also remain the same, but that is also an element of pragmatism.

 

[Heathen]

an element of pragmatism.

That's the Crux, the core theology and thinking remains static with only a minor amount of evolution. Athethists generally do it alone and is almost completely pragmatic in approach, whereby Religion is in bulk Dogmatic.

As I said, it leaves most Agnostics/Atheists better equipped to deal with the real world.

 

[overclocked]

I must ask you how live in US what you think had been the difference(if any big) betwen the politics if Al Gore had been the big man instead?

 

[Nagorak]

This topic is a waste of time. The reason people are religious is simple: they don't want to die.

I don't either, but unfortunately, I'm not naive to think that by just believing otherwise will make it so.