Mosques

[Jrecee]

And conversely:

Atheist groups are trying to remove the word God from the pledge of allegiance, despite being a minority in the case

Undoing what's been done and upholding what's in the constitution. I wouldn't care if it had some sort of historical significance, for example if the pledge had been written at the same time as the constitution and had the phrase "under god" in it from the beginning. But it was simply tacked on as a revision during a time of communist fear.

Atheist groups have their beliefs taught in schools, despite that they're as inconclusive as religious views are perceived to be

Atheists don't have a belief system. What's taught in school is based on our best scientific understanding. Most rational people believe in evolution in some capacity. It is the best science has to offer at this time.

Atheists are far more likely to vote for people that share their beliefs as well

That part was more about christians being against certain scientific progress by electing people who fight against it, but you're right to some degree. Although atheists vote for christians and jews all the time(we don't have much choice, politicians pretty much have to believe in god to get voted into office)

Atheists have likewise spread their disdain for the lack of a use of contraceptives

what?

Atheists have murdered, tortured, and commited suicide as well, though their motives may be different

I was referring to killing in the name of religion, not just killing because you're mentally unstable, angry, etc. That is done by people no matter what your beliefs.

The real issue is just that all people in general do bad things. Whether you're religious or an atheist, it's all entirely on a person by person basis.

Perhaps, but you'd be hard pressed to find a group of atheists who think that if they fly a plane into a building and kill thousands, that they'll end up in a floating cloud world filled with virgins.

[Dylan]

Undoing what's been done and upholding what's in the constitution. I wouldn't care if it had some sort of historical significance, for example if the pledge had been written at the same time as the constitution and had the phrase "under god" in it from the beginning. But it was simply tacked on as a revision during a time of communist fear.

My point was that both parties are just acting in their own best interest.

Atheists don't have a belief system. What's taught in school is based on our best scientific understanding. Most rational people believe in evolution in some capacity. It is the best science has to offer at this time.

I don't understand what causes people to consider evolution so scientific? If science is the process of gathering information and then organizing it into a theory, then religion is equally scientific. Especially considering that there is a significant lack of concrete evidence to conclusively indicate either theory.

That part was more about christians being against certain scientific progress by electing people who fight against it, but you're right to some degree. Although atheists vote for christians and jews all the time(we don't have much choice, politicians pretty much have to believe in god to get voted into office)

Things like stem cell Research and abortion (I believe that's what you're referring to?) are a whole different topic and ethical dilemma.

what?

Sorry, what I was saying is that Atheists have spoken out in the same manner for the opposite cause, I was demonstrating a similar counter-action.

I was referring to killing in the name of religion, not just killing because you're mentally unstable, angry, etc. That is done by people no matter what your beliefs.

I see what you are saying, but I believe that the base motivations for such activities are all similar, for example killing off people who's interest conflicts with your own. Additionally, I'd argue that killing is prohibited by most religions, so it must be the case that there was a killing based on individual desires or actions rather than a group of people adhering to a code.

Perhaps, but you'd be hard pressed to find a group of atheists who think that if they fly a plane into a building and kill thousands, that they'll end up in a floating cloud world filled with virgins.

That is likely true. However, I do not find it impossible that a group of Atheists could create an abusive system (drug activity, paramilitary activity). Again, this is not because they are atheists, it is based on their own actions as individuals. I would also make it an important point to distinguish religions, as they abide by different codes. I am not familiar with Muslim religious code, but if it allows killing in the name of God, than it must be considered separate from religions that don't.

[Limewater]

Jrecee, I agree with you on some points, such as the pledge of allegiance. I think I am going to comment on a couple of things, though.

Religious groups will only support politicians with the same religious views which leads to things like limiting stem cell research.

To be fair, as far as I know, religious and/or conservative groups only oppose fetal stem cell research. Not stem cell research in general. And, while there definitely is a strong correlation between religious belief and opposition to abortion and fetal stem cell research, I don't think that it is strictly a religious issue. Those opposed to abortion and fetal stem cell research aren't just doing it because some guy in a church told them to think a certain way. Well, actually a lot probably are, but you see the same thing on the other side of those issues as well. A lot of people on both sides of most issues just don't think. Period.

But anyway, back on point. We can't say with any real certainty when a fertilized egg becomes a human life. There is no real demarcation on when a fetus is just a clump of cells and when it is a human being to be protected. We have a Supreme Court decision from the 70's, but honestly, that doesn't mean crap in terms of objective reality. According to the Supreme Court decision, something that would not be a human in the 1970's would be a human today. Regardless of where you stand on abortion, that's pretty flawed.

Since there is no clear demarcation, we're left to draw a line somewhere. Religion aside, the closest thing to a hard-and-fast boundary where we can absolutely say that the clump of cells is definitely not human is conception. So, if you then take conception to be that boundary, then the ideas of abortion and stem cell research sound horribly brutal.

I recognize that there are good arguments on the other side of the issue. I'm not necessarily trying to change anyone's mind. I'm just trying to point out that opposition to fetal stem cell research isn't just something that some religious nut came up with out of the blue in order to control people. It may be a position that you disagree with, but it's still based on reason.

I really do think, though, that people opposed to fetal stem cell research and abortion but who do not also oppose fertility clinics aren't thinking things through fully.

Religion has led people to murder, torture, and commit suicide under the belief that they'll be rewarded for it by a god who doesn't exist

That's all fine, well, and good to say in the modern West, where separation of church and state is the accepted norm. But through most of history, and in most parts of the world, this isn't the case. One needs only look at China and North Korea to see examples of atheist governments using other forms of control to commit torture, maim, and kill.

[Jrecee]

Undoing what's been done and upholding what's in the constitution. I wouldn't care if it had some sort of historical significance, for example if the pledge had been written at the same time as the constitution and had the phrase "under god" in it from the beginning. But it was simply tacked on as a revision during a time of communist fear.

My point was that both parties are just acting in their own best interest.

If you're saying that most atheists would prefer that "under god" not be in the pledge, then you're right. But the argument to remove it from the pledge isn't only in the best interest in atheists, it's in the best interest of other religious groups who don't believe in the christian god as well. At the end of it all, the government shouldn't be promoting any specific religion in schools, and the only people who really want it in there are people who support the religion that is getting pushed. By removing it, it eliminates that conflict altogether.

Atheists don't have a belief system. What's taught in school is based on our best scientific understanding. Most rational people believe in evolution in some capacity. It is the best science has to offer at this time.

I don't understand what causes people to consider evolution so scientific? If science is the process of gathering information and then organizing it into a theory, then religion is equally scientific. Especially considering that there is a significant lack of concrete evidence to conclusively indicate either theory.

"Science: a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws". There is not a single shred of evidence that the earth is only 6,000 years old. There's no logic behind a woman appearing from a rib and a snake talking. If you're suggesting that the big bang theory is less valid than a guy creating everything in 6 days and then taking a nap, I really don't know where to go from here.

That part was more about christians being against certain scientific progress by electing people who fight against it, but you're right to some degree. Although atheists vote for christians and jews all the time(we don't have much choice, politicians pretty much have to believe in god to get voted into office)

Things like stem cell Research and abortion (I believe that's what you're referring to?) are a whole different topic and ethical dilemma.

Perhaps, but atheists aren't driven to their decision on that issue through a religious compass. My point was that people are arguing against it without even understanding it, simply because the vatican says it's bad.

what?

Sorry, what I was saying is that Atheists have spoken out in the same manner for the opposite cause, I was demonstrating a similar counter-action.

Ok. But what exactly is the negative to atheists speaking the opposite on that cause? I don't know how anyone who is not completely lost to religious fanaticism could possibly suggest that telling people not to wear condoms is a logical thing in any way when millions of people die of aids each year.

I was referring to killing in the name of religion, not just killing because you're mentally unstable, angry, etc. That is done by people no matter what your beliefs.

I see what you are saying, but I believe that the base motivations for such activities are all similar, for example killing off people who's interest conflicts with your own. Additionally, I'd argue that killing is prohibited by most religions, so it must be the case that there was a killing based on individual desires or actions rather than a group of people adhering to a code.

How is killing prohibited? Most religions are contradictory as far as killing goes. Either way, most religious texts are up for interpretation. The texts aren't even always the issue. You can remove them completely and still have a group of people who have irrational beliefs. These beliefs usually come from a long game of telephone interpretation of an original source. Someone like Bin Laden can twist the texts to suit his cause, then indoctrinate hundreds or thousands of people to his thinking. You can say that these people are not true muslims, but they still consider themselves religious don't they? So maybe bin laden's supposed following of islam is selfish and only suits his own interest, but what about all of his followers who have been brainwashed?

Perhaps, but you'd be hard pressed to find a group of atheists who think that if they fly a plane into a building and kill thousands, that they'll end up in a floating cloud world filled with virgins.

That is likely true. However, I do not find it impossible that a group of Atheists could create an abusive system (drug activity, paramilitary activity). Again, this is not because they are atheists, it is based on their own actions as individuals. I would also make it an important point to distinguish religions, as they abide by different codes. I am not familiar with Muslim religious code, but if it allows killing in the name of God, than it must be considered separate from religions that don't.

I'm not trying to say Atheists are all completely moral and are the most innocent people on earth. That's rediculous. I'm saying if they do these things they are driven by their own desires. Religious followers may do the same thing, but they may also be driven by their belief system and what it tells them to do.

[Jrecee]

Religion has led people to murder, torture, and commit suicide under the belief that they'll be rewarded for it by a god who doesn't exist

That's all fine, well, and good to say in the modern West, where separation of church and state is the accepted norm. But through most of history, and in most parts of the world, this isn't the case. One needs only look at China and North Korea to see examples of atheist governments using other forms of control to commit torture, maim, and kill.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that a government of people who are religious are less likely to do those things? Like I said before, I'm not suggesting that being atheist instantly makes you a perfect human being, I just haven't seen any evidence that being religious produces a better end result.

[jeffro11]

I think hes insinuating that we (agnostics, athiests) have lower morals then that of a religious person.

Superiority complex ftw

[MrPopo]

Since there is no clear demarcation, we're left to draw a line somewhere. Religion aside, the closest thing to a hard-and-fast boundary where we can absolutely say that the clump of cells is definitely not human is conception. So, if you then take conception to be that boundary, then the ideas of abortion and stem cell research sound horribly brutal.

I can understand being opposed to abortion if you're taking that as your boundary (and the reasoning for that being the boundary is quite reasonable). But I cannot understand opposition to fetal stem cell research. It's not like women are intentionally aborting babies to provide material for research. Fetal stem cell research is no different that an autopsy or checking the organ donar box on your driver's license.

Here's an interesting thought. A certain segment of the populace is completely against abortion but you'll hear nary a peep from them when it comes to the separation of conjoined twins, and specifically how doctors will frequently perform the surgery in such a way as to give one of the pair the highest chance of survival. There is not a person alive who would claim a baby that has been delivered and is outside the mother's womb is anything but alive, but it's fine that doctors can decide which baby lives and which baby dies in the conjoined case. Which tells me that the majority of those against abortion are really against premarital sex and see abortion as a consequence-free way of getting out of the responsibility of parenthood.

[lisalover1]

I think hes insinuating that we (agnostics, athiests) have lower morals then that of a religious person.

Superiority complex ftw

Troll bait. That's all I'm going to say.

[Jrecee]

I think hes insinuating that we (agnostics, athiests) have lower morals then that of a religious person.

Superiority complex ftw

This is why we can't have nice topics.

[Limewater]

Religion has led people to murder, torture, and commit suicide under the belief that they'll be rewarded for it by a god who doesn't exist

That's all fine, well, and good to say in the modern West, where separation of church and state is the accepted norm. But through most of history, and in most parts of the world, this isn't the case. One needs only look at China and North Korea to see examples of atheist governments using other forms of control to commit torture, maim, and kill.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that a government of people who are religious are less likely to do those things? Like I said before, I'm not suggesting that being atheist instantly makes you a perfect human being, I just haven't seen any evidence that being religious produces a better end result.

I'll just leave Jeffro be, but it looks like I really should clarify my comment. I was kind of in a hurry when I got to that topic, and probably did not explain myself fully.

Most of us on the board live in or come from modern western civilization. Most of us come from nations with secular governments, where there is either separation of church and state, or the state religion is no longer something many people at all take seriously. Historically, this is a bit of an anomaly-- church and government have usually been the same thing. That is still the case in much of the middle east. The church is the state, and vice-versa.

I believe that our modern ideas of separation of religious authority and secular authority greatly colors our perception of events. We look at violent acts in history, including current terrorist acts and easily label it as "religious." And this is somewhat fair, but it's only half of the picture, and it ignores the fact that the church is also the state government. Today we have examples of atheist governments achieving similar results without the use of religious authority.

I hate to make a comparison between a muslim terrorist blowing up civilians in a suicide bombing and a Japanese kamikaze in World War 2, but I guess I'm going to anyway. Putting aside the very important distinctions between the terrorist and the kamikaze, both are freaking nuts. For the suicide bomber, we say, "Oh, he did that for religious reasons." However, the Japanese are NOT a religious people. (Sure, they report high numbers for Buddhism and Shinto, but that's just tradition and very few people practice.) The Japanese government was able to convince these young men to sacrifice themselves without the aid of religion.

That's really what I was trying to say before. I was not trying to say that belonging to a religion makes one a better person, or that religious people are more moral than non-religious people or anything.