This is just mean.I think you inferred too much from my simply statement. I don't expect an atheist to be in church on Sunday worshiping God because he doesn't believe in God. That's the kind of action I was talking about. As far as the moral and ethics of the individual atheist, that would depend on whatever set of ethics he believes in and practices.
Atheists are underrepresented in the prison population and Christians are overrepresented. That has to tell you something about how believers and atheists live their lives. Atheists have a much lower divorce rate, too. I guess it's just a coincidence. LoisActually what that tells me is that this country has been traditionally Christian, and many people call themselves Christians because that's what their mothers told them they were, not because they actually understand and practice that faith.
Nah, it’s mainly the dumber criminals who get caught and go to jail, so you’d expect them to be predominantly religious. :lol:
Occam
You do have a putative obligation to support your contention if you state publicy that there is a god. That means you are making a claim and when you make a claim the burden is on you to support it. It doesn't matter that you insert the word believe. If you really don't want to be challenged, don't make your beliefs public, especially don't state them on a freethinker forum. When atheists challenge your stated belief they are not stating their belief. Atheists have no belief to state. They are rejecting your claim because you have failed to support it. Most atheists don't say there is no god. When you catch one saying that demand support for his claim.I have no obligation to prove God exists simply because I believe God exists. I'm not expecting you to prove God doesn't exist simply because that is your belief. Who's putting this burden on me to support my claim? You? If it's against the rules of this forum called "Religions and Secularism" for a Christian to post, let me know and I will leave. An atheist on this board stated: "Actually Lausten, I truly do not believe in a god, and that is how I live my life." I think that qualifies as a stated belief. I won't demand proof, because I know there isn't any. I will respect his belief.
Nah, it's mainly the dumber criminals who get caught and go to jail, so you'd expect them to be predominantly religious. :lol: OccamI guess this is an example of an atheist's respect for others? The moderator no less.
If it’s against the rules of this forum called “Religions and Secularism" for a Christian to post, let me know and I will leave.It's a legal, philosophic and scientific "burden". I would consider it common decency. No one here made it up. Believers commonly consider themselves exempt from this rule. That doesn't mean that they should be excused.
not because they actually understand and practice that faithOh, my absolute favorite, the "not real Christians" defense. Sorry LilySmitth, I might revel in this for a little bit. I'm so looking forward to you explaining exactly what the "right" kind of Christian is, and how know you that.
LilySmith, there is no rule against Christians posting here, but if you are going to make a claim about a god existing don’t get defensive about people expecting some evidence. This is a skeptical forum, after all. If you want to believe in a magic sky fairy that is your prerogative, but your insistence that not believing in a god because of a lack of evidence is equivalent to faith in god without evidence is ludicrous.
And I note you have not responded to my Bible passages (in another thread, I believe) where Jesus killed a fig tree, said to follow him you have to hate your family, and said he came to bring war, not peace. You said that wasn’t in the Bible. I quoted chapter and verse. You remain silent on that. Yet more evidence that atheists know the Bible better than Christians.
What's a legal, philosophic and scientific "burden?" To prove my belief that God exists? But you don't have to prove your belief that God doesn't exist? Who made up that silly rule and called it common decency? I admit there is no proof either way. Why can't you do the same?If it’s against the rules of this forum called “Religions and Secularism" for a Christian to post, let me know and I will leave.It's a legal, philosophic and scientific "burden". I would consider it common decency. No one here made it up. Believers commonly consider themselves exempt from this rule. That doesn't mean that they should be excused.
Oh, my absolute favorite, the "not real Christians" defense. Sorry LilySmitth, I might revel in this for a little bit. I'm so looking forward to you explaining exactly what the "right" kind of Christian is, and how know you that.Well let me educate you on the reality of a religion. They are a set of beliefs about God and what God requires of man. When a man doesn't believe or live according to the teachings, then yes, he has left the teachings of the religion. I didn't say anything about anyone not being a real Christian. You have a bad habit of inferring things I didn't say. Clearly if a man follows the teachings of Christianity, he knows that it is wrong to murder, steal and break the laws of the country in which he lives. A man who does that is not following the teachings of Christ. That's pretty basic.
LilySmith, there is no rule against Christians posting here, but if you are going to make a claim about a god existing don't get defensive about people expecting some evidence. This is a skeptical forum, after all. If you want to believe in a magic sky fairy that is your prerogative, but your insistence that not believing in a god because of a lack of evidence is equivalent to faith in god without evidence is ludicrous.No, it's not ludicrous at all. You all just don't want to live by the same level of evidence you hold others to. You have no proof about the existence of God, so you say it's the default position that no God exists, and anyone who believes in God must prove it. Very clever, but nonsense. Until there is proof either way, you have no more right to claim your view is more correct than I do.
And I note you have not responded to my Bible passages (in another thread, I believe) where Jesus killed a fig tree, said to follow him you have to hate your family, and said he came to bring war, not peace. You said that wasn't in the Bible. I quoted chapter and verse. You remain silent on that. Yet more evidence that atheists know the Bible better than Christians.The point of the fig tree was a lesson about fruit. It's a concept that exists throughout the bible. The passage about hating your family comes after a parable about the kingdom of heaven which gives insight into the meaning. Jesus told Christians to love their brothers, neighbors and even their enemies, so no, he wasn't teaching them to hate. He was teaching them about priorities. If you read the preceding parable you can see the concept. Jesus didn't come with an army, nor did he raise a Christian army to go to war. The idea there is that he came to bring mankind peace with God. Those who accept peace with God will get along with others who do the same. Those who reject God will be at enmity with those who accept him--that's the division he was talking about and I think it's clear that it happens.
What's a legal, philosophic and scientific "burden?" To prove my belief that God exists? But you don't have to prove your belief that God doesn't exist? Who made up that silly rule and called it common decency? I admit there is no proof either way. Why can't you do the same?If it’s against the rules of this forum called “Religions and Secularism" for a Christian to post, let me know and I will leave.It's a legal, philosophic and scientific "burden". I would consider it common decency. No one here made it up. Believers commonly consider themselves exempt from this rule. That doesn't mean that they should be excused.
Oh, my absolute favorite, the "not real Christians" defense. Sorry LilySmitth, I might revel in this for a little bit. I'm so looking forward to you explaining exactly what the "right" kind of Christian is, and how know you that.Well let me educate you on the reality of a religion. They are a set of beliefs about God and what God requires of man. When a man doesn't believe or live according to the teachings, then yes, he has left the teachings of the religion. I didn't say anything about anyone not being a real Christian. You have a bad habit of inferring things I didn't say. Clearly if a man follows the teachings of Christianity, he knows that it is wrong to murder, steal and break the laws of the country in which he lives. A man who does that is not following the teachings of Christ. That's pretty basic. Yet the Christian god commands people to enslave people, commit genocide, stay overnight in whorehouses and bash babies heads against rocks. That is Christian morality. You cannot educate us on the reality of religion because we understand it better than do you.
Actually Lausten, I truly do not believe in a god, and that is how I live my life. I believe this is our only chance at life and there is no redemption for a life poorly lived, so I strive to treat people fairly and do what I can to make this world a little better place than I found it. Ethics come from within us, not from an outside agent.You're right, DarronS. Ethics and morals come from within religious people in exactly te same way. They wrongly attribute it to their religion. Lois
No, it's not ludicrous at all. You all just don't want to live by the same level of evidence you hold others to. You have no proof about the existence of God, so you say it's the default position that no God exists, and anyone who believes in God must prove it. Very clever, but nonsense. Until there is proof either way, you have no more right to claim your view is more correct than I do.Bullshit. There is no evidence a god exists. The null hypothesis is no god exists. If you knew anything about logic you'd understand this.
And I note you have not responded to my Bible passages (in another thread, I believe) where Jesus killed a fig tree, said to follow him you have to hate your family, and said he came to bring war, not peace. You said that wasn't in the Bible. I quoted chapter and verse. You remain silent on that. Yet more evidence that atheists know the Bible better than Christians.The point of the fig tree was a lesson about fruit. It's a concept that exists throughout the bible. The passage about hating your family comes after a parable about the kingdom of heaven which gives insight into the meaning. Jesus told Christians to love their brothers, neighbors and even their enemies, so no, he wasn't teaching them to hate. He was teaching them about priorities. If you read the preceding parable you can see the concept. Jesus didn't come with an army, nor did he raise a Christian army to go to war. The idea there is that he came to bring mankind peace with God. Those who accept peace with God will get along with others who do the same. Those who reject God will be at enmity with those who accept him--that's the division he was talking about and I think it's clear that it happens. Jesus did tell people they has to hate their families to follow him, if you believe the Biblical writings. He also told people to love one another. That is a contradiction, isn't it? He also said, according to Biblical mythology, that he came not to bring peace but to bring a sword. Rationalize it all you want, but these alleged sayings are nothing more than men writing what they want people to believe so they can control their followers. Furthermore, while we're on the topic of ethics (go back a few posts), my ethics are better than your god's ethics.
This is just mean.I think you inferred too much from my simply statement. I don't expect an atheist to be in church on Sunday worshiping God because he doesn't believe in God. That's the kind of action I was talking about. As far as the moral and ethics of the individual atheist, that would depend on whatever set of ethics he believes in and practices. It's exactly the same with believers. It has nothing to do with religion. We all get our ethics and morals fron the same place, inside us, based on our genes, environment and experience. And we have no control over it, though many people have learned to pretend to be better than they are. Loos
If I know something, is it necessary that I believe it? On the other hand, if I believe something, does it assure that I know it? You define "faith" as a conviction that your opinion is true. This seems fair. So does faith require comparable status to "knowledge" or "belief"? Or does it make better sense to think of faith as a non-status (non-static) condition of behavior motivated by both knowledge or belief? That is, does faith as a conviction necessitate action?You've added a new element--knowledge. Knowledge can be of something that is a known fact. Belief and faith are the acceptance of something that is not proven; not a fact. For example, I have knowledge of what Christianity teaches and that knowledge is factual. However, the idea that what Christianity teaches is true is based on belief, or faith. You know for certain that atheists don't believe in God. That's a fact. But the belief that God does not exist is based on faith since it cannot be proven. That's my understanding. When we have the conviction that what we have faith in is true, it should be seen in our actions. For example, if your wife came in and told you the house was on fire and you believed her even though you didn't see it for yourself, the conviction that your wife was telling you the truth would spur you towards action. If a Christian truly believes in the message of Christ, that should be seen in his actions--his behavior. If an atheist truly doesn't believe in God, that too should be seen in the way he lives his life. The point I am making by adding "knowledge" with, "belief" and "faith" is to demonstrate their differences for clarity. It seems that we understand the meaning of knowledge. But with belief, the term gets confused with many because they don't necessarily recognize that although belief does not necessitate knowledge, if you know something for certain, you are guaranteed to believe it also. Belief and knowledge are related in that they are both states of mind that may or may not lead to action. Faith, on the other hand, is an action based on belief. So it should be clear that anyone who knows something with certainty, using observation and reasoning, must always believe it and, if and when they choose to act on it, they too have faith. So whether you are religious or atheist, everyone has belief and faith to something. The differences relate to what one actually credits their knowledge too. When you say an atheist has a proportionate power of belief or faith with religious people, it doesn't fit appropriately because the relevance of source of those beliefs and the acts that you think they both impose by their beliefs do not arise similarly. Faith, being an act, merely makes it a gamble to behave according to your beliefs. But this enters probability into the picture. When you know something from experience, such as your wife, behaving according to your belief in her, your faith, has a probability that is higher than acting on your belief that a book like the Bible has authority to assure the existence of a real God. Undeniably, both an atheist or a believer has justification to act (have faith) in someone they know because it is a type of experience related to what we all are capable of experiencing. A belief, and its acts of faith, with regards to religious matters are based on more improbable grounds, especially because they are not subject to being knowledge. [Don't confuse the other meaning of knowledge as a collection of data with the one intended here.] An atheist is only a comparative term that doesn't represent anyone without some positive proposition about the existence of a God or gods. It means that if you have a group of people with no beliefs except for even one person who does, even without any declaration, there exists one with a positive belief while the rest are irrelevant to that position. Those non-believers therefore are absent of belief of one who does hold one. If a person declares their positive belief, such as "Christianity is true, (for me)", whether some people with that absence of your belief may present an active position or set of arguments to defeat that belief or not does not in itself impose the non-believer to require disproving the believer's position. That is why the burden of proof rests on the person who proposes the belief. The reactionary faith of an atheist to use justification for skepticism isn't one of equal probable force because the trust which leads to their gamble is based on the default understanding of reality that everyone, including the believer, is subject to: observation and reason. Terms like, "Evil", "bad", "good", or "angelic", by default, are learned and understood innately to originate with one's selfish position or perspective in life. As a child, you naturally accord anything that is unfavorable to your personal desires as "bad" and those that favor you, "good". Even though we are taught to associate those morals with external reality beyond ourselves, we cannot avoid understanding them without respect to oneself. Even if someone takes pride in doing something "evil", to remain consistent, their actual understanding is that the use of term only means that they do not agree to what others mean by it. That is, their personal preference to behave "evil" is actually internalized as behaving "good", to themselves. By default, morality is arbitrary and lacks real authority except by those conventions we create to act as rules that we agree to enforce. The function of skepticism is not owned by being atheist. It is an act that belongs to everyone who has cause to ask questions for something that they do not find fits their (personal) understanding of truth. So your presence here, is as a skeptic, whether your religious or not. The reason that motivates the atheist to argue in what you may think is the motive to disprove God or gods is not correctly accounted for by their beliefs or convictions. It is the prevalence of those sets of positive religious beliefs within our society as a whole that assert their actions for moral conventions on their belief that morality is absolute and decreed by their particular gods. Where a religious politician, for instance, declares justification for a moral law from certain knowledge or wisdom based on the words or authority of their God, the non-believer appears to be insignificant because they do not assert the power of knowledge, wisdom, or the conviction to declare moral absolutes. It grants the religious claims undeserved authority to alter societies laws. This creates a reactionary burden upon the non-believer to set up a forum of inquiry but does not impose upon them to have the burden to disprove one's positive belief. The believer, by default, has more influential powers of persuasion that effects how laws are made because only they assert particular wisdom of absolute morality. While the true nature of morality is still based on everyone's natural relation to themselves, whether you are religious or non-religious, the lack of declaration of superior wisdom by non-believers places them at a serious disadvantage. So when an atheist proposes the religious person to defend (argue) their position, the religious person is required to be accountable to justify their supposed wisdom and convictions. Example of reasoning: Assume that someone in your community proposed the belief that you are and have done something despicable and evil. Although it may be untrue and your beliefs differ, if you chose not to respond to it, who has the more power to convince? Obviously, the one who made the proposal. You are forced to announce your difference of belief in order for your self-preservation. It places a necessary burden for you to react, but does it not place the burden of the accuser (positive believer) to put forth evidence for their claims? Even if they never meant for you to hear their accusation (they are not directly making claims of their positive belief to you), does that diminish their responsibility to prove their case? If you declare that you are a proud Christian, you alone own the burden to present what you mean and why. While there are unique reasons for your belief, there are an infinity of reasons for why someone is NOT a Christian. Besides just the atheist, there are an infinite alternate possibilities to believe in other religions, too. Hiding your justification behind the veil of equal-burden, is not fair because your positive claims have real impact on others. You, for instance, are able to force your own children to go to church; The non-believer, on the other hand, doesn't have the same power because they are not even proposing any action that their child must obey or not. So, you, as a religious person, has more power to promote truths and actions upon society by the default of merely presenting your positive view, while an atheist may not have presented any view. So good and evil gets to be publicly defined by those who speak up for it, the religious. But this doesn't prove the soundness of their beliefs. You argued that America was founded by Christianity which provides the superior morality of its society. That origin is both irrelevant and also misplaced. The U.S.A. was originated in the Age of Reason, an era of skepticism of everything. Even if secular ideology was the cause of its formation, the absence of its credit to absolute certainty will give credence to those who do assert them in its history. Since there are certain to be Christians who will credit their foundation upon it for their status, it will appear to you as confirmation that America was founded on it, regardless of the truth. So I ask of you to provide an argument for believing that evil exists with respect to all believers and non-believers alike?
Rationalize it all you want, but these alleged sayings are nothing more than men writing what they want people to believe so they can control their followers.I've argued these from the other side, and it's a valid exercise to do so. The "hate" references can be interpreted as LilySmith said, about priorities. Even the word may be a mistranslation, that is, it could mean "love less", not hate. Still, even in it's best phrasing, it is a prescription that you should first honor your relation to God, then to your spouse, then your family, then community. As for the "sword", I see that as symbolic, and LilySmith explained it well. Anyone coming to preach about loving your enemies and questioning authorities is going to create some division. There is a worse passage, just before the passage in the garden of Gethsemane where Jesus tells one of the disciples to gather up weapons, but then nothing is ever done with those weapons. The more memorable passage is Jesus saying "put away your sword" when he gets arrested. It's all pretty contradictory and not very useful if you attempt to pick apart every word as if it comes straight from God. I still think it is a great myth. Usually when gods come down in human form, they trick people or deceive them or don't stay long or they start wars. They rarely stick around and live regular lives and get crucified. And the earlier corn-gods who did were pretty flat characters, they didn't do the type of teaching Jesus did. Anyway, off topic a bit, but I don't want to beat up on LilySmith too much. There are reasons Christianity has survived. FYI, LilySmith, when I said "burden" earlier, I meant "burden of proof", you can look that up yourself. If we don't use that principle, then nothing can ever be determined, anyone could be said to be right about anything. That would be a difficult world to live in.
Nah, it's mainly the dumber criminals who get caught and go to jail, so you'd expect them to be predominantly religious. :lol: OccamI guess this is an example of an atheist's respect for others? The moderator no less. Yea, I noticed that too. Have to re-evaluate my opinion.
Umm....Lausten here is the original quote based on Lois' comment.not because they actually understand and practice that faithOh, my absolute favorite, the "not real Christians" defense. Sorry LilySmitth, I might revel in this for a little bit. I'm so looking forward to you explaining exactly what the "right" kind of Christian is, and how know you that.
Atheists are underrepresented in the prison population and Christians are overrepresented. That has to tell you something about how believers and atheists live their lives. Atheists have a much lower divorce rate, too. I guess it's just a coincidence. LoisActually what that tells me is that this country has been traditionally Christian, and many people call themselves Christians because that's what their mothers told them they were, not because they actually understand and practice that faith. I think she is talking statistically. There are degrees of quality, and levels of investment that anyone makes in their field of interest. The original statement wasn't particularly sincere, pretty irrational. Which I'm assuming means Lois doesn't respect LilySmith's efforts to debate. Which so far has been at a pretty high level. Another possibility is, that he's not that invested in the conversation. Just likes to vent. I hesitate to mention it but I think that you also jumped to an habitual response. One based on dealings with less intelligent opponents where it might actually be justified.
Nah, it's mainly the dumber criminals who get caught and go to jail, so you'd expect them to be predominantly religious. :lol: OccamI guess this is an example of an atheist's respect for others? The moderator no less. Yea, I noticed that too. Have to re-evaluate my opinion. Or turn the other cheek.
Umm....Lausten here is the original quote based on Lois' comment.not because they actually understand and practice that faithOh, my absolute favorite, the "not real Christians" defense. Sorry LilySmitth, I might revel in this for a little bit. I'm so looking forward to you explaining exactly what the "right" kind of Christian is, and how know you that.
Atheists are underrepresented in the prison population and Christians are overrepresented. That has to tell you something about how believers and atheists live their lives. Atheists have a much lower divorce rate, too. I guess it's just a coincidence. LoisActually what that tells me is that this country has been traditionally Christian, and many people call themselves Christians because that's what their mothers told them they were, not because they actually understand and practice that faith. I think she is talking statistically. There are degrees of quality, and levels of investment that anyone makes in their field of interest. The original statement wasn't particularly sincere, pretty irrational. Which I'm assuming means Lois doesn't respect LilySmith's efforts to debate. Which so far has been at a pretty high level. Another possibility is, that he's not that invested in the conversation. Just likes to vent. I hesitate to mention it but I think that you also jumped to an habitual response. One based on dealings with less intelligent opponents where it might actually be justified. I have no idea what you are saying here or who you are criticizing. Care to elucidate? Please specify who you mean when you say "he" or "she". Be more direct as to what your complaint is and who it's against. Lois
You have a bad habit of inferring things I didn’t say. Clearly if a man follows the teachings of Christianity, he knows that it is wrong to murder, steal and break the laws of the country in which he lives. A man who does that is not following the teachings of Christ. That’s pretty basic.This is what LilySmith had to offer in response. I’m not going to argue whether or not she committed the “not a true Christian" fallacy, it’s not really important. What we see here is, defining Christianity as basic decency. Fine then, all decent people are Christians. What LilySmith is saying is that this decency stems from God, that ethical behavior was taught by Jesus, possibly to the exclusion of anyone else having taught it, or at least no one taught as well as he did. I’m not sure what she’ll say about that, but there is something she is claiming that is special about Jesus. I’m saying he’s not special. There are historical reasons for why we are familiar with him not supernatural ones.
Which I’m assuming means Lois doesn’t respect LilySmith’s efforts to debate. Which so far has been at a pretty high level.If you consider “it is wrong to murder" demonstrates a follower of Christ passes for a high level of debate, well, that’s your opinion. Not to mention “you can’t prove God doesn’t exist". Sorry Lilysmith but that’s schoolyard level of argument.