nancyallen posted:1. One of the things atheists point to in choosing atheism is that it is logical, and claim that a logical life is an ethical life or otherwise claim to be moral, even more moral that any given religion.
nancyallen posted:However looking around certain forums they do things that are quite unethical, from baiting posts (posting specifically to get a hostile reaction) to the claim that they are atheist solely for the purpose of upsetting others, as these people claim. Now I realize that the defense atheists have is that there is no religion telling them to act a certain way, but in light of this how can they play the ethical and morality card?
nancyallen posted:2. Religion, politics and the like are considered regulated speech despite the freedom in many countries to voice your opinion. What that basically means is that you cannot preach it on the White House lawns, and I think the reason for this is because it is a belief rather than fact. Now atheists are certain that they are right, what they follow is factually accurate. Same for those who follow religion, what they believe is for them fact and the absolute truth. But they cannot say that what they believe, the existence of god or the nonexistence of god, is the be all and end all truth the way they can claim the sky is blue, can they?
nancyallen posted:3. This actually ties into point 1 a bit in terms of how people might portray any given belief. Now at the moment we have Middle Eastern Muslim extremists who believe, or at the very least portray their religion as a Jihad and a call to war against nonbelievers, foreigners, who they see as evil in their eyes. George Bush and the Christian dominant West have retaliated by bringing their god into the war on terror, from Jesus Camp showing praying to Bush to Bush himself claiming he gets his marching orders from god. Much the same thing happened when the West used religion as a way of getting at godless Soviets. What I'm saying here is whether or not the way some people who portray your beliefs is the way you feel they should be portrayed.
Ender_Sai posted:Mr44 may disagree, but I'm not sure where this is going. It's not really a discussion so much as a treatise and it's not really unique in that other threads cover it...
Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon posted:For example, I could ask how Catholics can call themselves moral when they do immoral things like condemn homosexuality or forbid contraceptives. But as with your inquiry it's a fruitless question since Catholics consider themselves moral within a Catholic morality and I'm discussing their acts within the framework of my own morality. See what I mean?
Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon posted:Many atheists, however, merely assert that there is a lack of known empirical evidence PROVING the existence of god(s). That much is as factual as the sky's blueness. The empirical worldview transcends religious contexts, which is why it is the common ground upon which the secular notion of 'fact' must be built.
Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon posted:I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say/ask here, but I'll mention that the Soviets' actions were less intrinsically related to atheism than Islamist extremists' are to Islam.
Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon posted:The current 'bad guys' are acting based on their beliefs in Islam, and whether or not it's 'true' Islam doesn't matter, because the point is that they are acting because of a belief in their religion, which they call "Islam".
nancyallen posted:Yeah I see. Yet that can be applied to a large number of things, such as the court ruling of OJ Simpson where it was legally proven that he was innocent but you gotta wonder.
nancyallen posted:The three main points I want to touch upon is how one side can claim ethical or moral superiority over the other when their own side is unethical or immoral, that the same limits atheists might want to impose on theists or theists want to impose on atheists would also apply to them; under the ruling that what they preach is not absolute evidence and therefore considered opinion or conjecture, and the way people represent religion and atheism and how that ties in with a particular point of view of whether or not that's the way it should be portrayed.
nancyallen posted:Ender_Sai posted:Mr44 may disagree, but I'm not sure where this is going. It's not really a discussion so much as a treatise and it's not really unique in that other threads cover it... Yeah, I suck at this. The three main points I want to touch upon is how one side can claim ethical or moral superiority over the other when their own side is unethical or immoral, that the same limits atheists might want to impose on theists or theists want to impose on atheists would also apply to them; under the ruling that what they preach is not absolute evidence and therefore considered opinion or conjecture, and the way people represent religion and atheism and how that ties in with a particular point of view of whether or not that's the way it should be portrayed.
Lowbacca_1977 posted:The issue there though is that atheism isn't a belief structure. Atheism is specifically the lack of a particular belief. Being an atheist, in the most simple form, just means not having a belief in a god.
Kimball_Kinnison posted:Lowbacca_1977 posted:The issue there though is that atheism isn't a belief structure. Atheism is specifically the lack of a particular belief. Being an atheist, in the most simple form, just means not having a belief in a god.How is that any different from Christianity, though? Christianity, in the most simple form, just means having a belief in Christ. And yet, if you go into almost any online discussion about atheism, you will find people railing about how "Christians believe this" and "Christians believe that", yet those aren't universally held beliefs or actions. It's only a subset of Christians who believe or do those things. Both sides in that sort of discussion use quite a few stereotypes about the other side, while objecting to the stereotypes used about themselves. Kimball Kinnison
The Illustrated Guide to World Religions posted:Essentially, Christianity is a monotheistic tradition centered on faith in one God (the eternal creator who transcends creation and yet is active in the world) and in Jesus Christ as the savior and redeemer of human-kind. Christianity holds that God became incarnate - fully human - in Jesus of Nazareth. Christians believe that Jesus died on a cross and was resurrected, physically rising from the dead. The belief in the Trinity, the sacred mystery of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one, triune ("three-in-one") God is central to the Christian tradition...[discussion of the many sects of Christianity]...However, there are also strong forces that seek to stress Christian unity, or "ecumenism." Since 1948, the World Council of Churches has sought to draw together churches that accept Jesus Christ as God and savior. This body advises such organizations as the United Nations and carries out an extensive aid program to refugees and disaster victims around the world. Despite the differences, disagreements, and at times outright hostility and violence that have marked interdenominational relations, there are a number of issues upon which all Christians would tentatively agree, in addition to the tradition's basic theology and scriptures. All would hold that community and fellowship are vital to Christian worship. There would be accord on the essential Christian virtues - "faith, hope, and love" (1 Corinthians 13.13) - and on the belief that a life lived as far as possible in imitation of Jesus is "the Christian way." Some critics have seen in the Christian ideas of patient suffering and "turning the other cheek" a morbidity or an unhealthy renunciation of the world. But, in the main, Christianity is life-affirming. The incarnation of God as Christ is symbolized as light in the darkness of the world, and the Resurrection is regarded as a joyful affirmation of hope, demonstrating the love of God for his creation. - pp. 55-7
