Why don't you want your government to rule religiously if religious people share your values?

[watsup]

I hear most here think our values are something we are more or less born with and of which we learn more through general knowledge as we grow up. If you, as an atheist/agnostic don't have values any different from religious people, why would you have an issue with the government ruling by religious laws (laws of any Abrahamic religion — yes, Christians have laws or rules if you like)?

You are making an assumption of “atheist/agnostic values don’t have difference from religious” values. While that may be true of basic values like don’t murder, don’t lie, don’t steal, respect others, difference arise as regarding some details. Homosexuality is an obvious example. Religionist regard it as a perversion and, indeed, as a sin against God, while most atheists see it as “live and let live” and do indeed object to the government casting laws against it, per se. No, we don’t necessarily want our laws based on religion tenets but rather oh the manner in which human experience has shown the best ways for society to function.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Okaaay... so can we still not have religion and not get accused of doing something unnatural, as if it was a bad thing?

Yes, my point was to show that because of all this, then religion itself, people believing in God and so on are all just the result of nature, evolution, anthropology, not any persons "fault".

Atheists attacking theism, religion, Christianity and so on are pointless, the universe gave rise to these things, so they are just attacking the natural world because it's done something they don't like - allowed religion to evolve.

 

[watsup]

Yes, my point was to show that because of all this, then religion itself, people believing in God and so on are all just the result of nature, evolution, anthropology, not any persons "fault".

Atheists attacking theism, religion, Christianity and so on are pointless, the universe gave rise to these things, so they are just attacking the natural world because it's done something they don't like - allowed religion to evolve.

I will admit this: You are superb at torturing logic to them point that it becomes a farce of itself.

 

[Aletheia]

On the contrary, I'm arguing that nothing we see in nature or arising from nature can actually really be termed "unnatural".

This seems reasonable. I might be missing your point, but I don't see any contradictions here (with an Atheist view).

Nature and its by-products have an abundance of variety. Part of Evolution is mutation, therefore, we should expect a variety of processes that vary over time -- all natural.

 

[watsup]

This seems reasonable.

Only until he explains that products manufactured directly by man are “arising from nature” which is a complete misunderstanding of her word “nature”.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

This seems reasonable. I might be missing your point, but I don't see any contradictions here (with an Atheist view).

Nature and its by-products have an abundance of variety. Part of Evolution is mutation, therefore, we should expect a variety of processes that vary over time -- all natural.

Exactly, so likewise theism, belief in God, religions, Christianity, the Bible etc are all ultimately entirely natural by products of evolution, anthropology.

 

[Aletheia]

Yes, my point was to show that because of all this, then religion itself, people believing in God and so on are all just the result of nature, evolution, anthropology, not any persons "fault".

Atheists attacking theism, religion, Christianity and so on are pointless, the universe gave rise to these things, so they are just attacking the natural world because it's done something they don't like - allowed religion to evolve.

But is it really pointless, though? Humans can shape and change the course of nature through discourse and actions. Nature will run its course, but human's actions have an effect on that outcome. Isn't that a good thing?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

But is it really pointless, though? Humans can shape and change the course of nature through discourse and actions. Nature will run its course, but human's actions have an effect on that outcome. Isn't that a good thing?

Well that's a fair question, I suppose there is no point (for the atheist) we just get born, live then die, there is no goal, we are victims of nature, it is uncaring, cold, unfeeling (as Dawkins has said many times) so the whole idea of a "point" makes no sense to me from an atheist standpoint.

 

[ataraxia]

Yes, my point was to show that because of all this, then religion itself, people believing in God and so on are all just the result of nature, evolution, anthropology, not any persons "fault".

Atheists attacking theism, religion, Christianity and so on are pointless, the universe gave rise to these things, so they are just attacking the natural world because it's done something they don't like - allowed religion to evolve.

But some ideas are good, and some are bad. Some used to be good at one time, but become obsolete or dysfunctional over time. It’s OK to constantly revisit and critically reevaluate various ideas and institutions. That’s how we learn and grow. I’m not sure what being natural or not has to do with this. You sound like you are saying every idea has to be accepted and never challenged or criticized because it evolved “naturally”.

Gay marriage is also another idea that has evolved. And yet I have heard many Christians attack it as “unnatural”. Would you then disagree with this assessment?

 

[ataraxia]

Well that's a fair question, I suppose there is no point (for the atheist) we just get born, live then die, there is no goal, we are victims of nature, it is uncaring, cold, unfeeling (as Dawkins has said many times) so the whole idea of a "point" makes no sense to me from an atheist standpoint.

Except that most atheists think that just because there is no pre-fabricated meaning does not mean you can’t create your own. It’s the difference between buying a painting vs. drawing your own. You are the artist. Some might argue that’s even better.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

But some ideas are good, and some are bad. Some used to be good at one time, but become obsolete or dysfunctional over time. It’s OK to constantly revisit and critically reevaluate various ideas and institutions. That’s how we learn and grow. I’m not sure what being natural or not has to do with this. You sound like you are saying every idea has to be accepted and never challenged or criticized because it evolved “naturally”.

Gay marriage is also another idea that has evolved. And yet I have heard many Christians attack it as “unnatural”. Would you then disagree with this assessment?

But I see no way (for the atheist) to evaluate a good or bad, different people have different opinions and they just fight it out, survival of the fittest, who am I to say this or that idea is good or bad?

Gay marriage is interesting, it is hard to answer really, the only case against it is scriptural yet scripture can seem literal or abstract at times, there are many levels at which one can perceive it.

Christ spoke in parables for example and so showed us that some literal story is actually a more abstract story but has been made literal to hide its meaning, this could apply to marriage, gay relationships etc.

Personally I think my concern should be how I understand God, what am I personally doing or not doing, judging others is not something I'm good at or expected to do.

 

[blarg]

But I see no way (for the atheist) to evaluate a good or bad, different people have different opinions and they just fight it out, survival of the fittest, who am I to say this or that idea is good or bad?

Gay marriage is interesting, it is hard to answer really, the only case against it is scriptural yet scripture can seem literal or abstract at times, there are many levels at which one can perceive it.

Christ spoke in parables for example and so showed us that some literal story is actually a more abstract story but has been made literal to hide its meaning, this could apply to marriage, gay relationships etc.

Personally I think my concern should be how I understand God, what am I personally doing or not doing, judging others is not something I'm good at or expected to do.

um different people have different opinions and they just fight it out thats who you are to say this or that idea is good or bad

 

[watsup]

But I see no way (for the atheist) to evaluate a good or bad, different people have different opinions and they just fight it out, survival of the fittest, who am I to say this or that idea is good or bad?

Gay marriage is interesting, it is hard to answer really, the only case against it is scriptural yet scripture can seem literal or abstract at times, there are many levels at which one can perceive it.

Christ spoke in parables for example and so showed us that some literal story is actually a more abstract story but has been made literal to hide its meaning, this could apply to marriage, gay relationships etc.

Personally I think my concern should be how I understand God, what am I personally doing or not doing, judging others is not something I'm good at or expected to do.

Just because you “see no way” does it mean that it doesn’t exist. We have noted many many errors in your personal beliefs.

 

[watsup]

Well that's a fair question, I suppose there is no point (for the atheist) we just get born, live then die, there is no goal, we are victims of nature, it is uncaring, cold, unfeeling (as Dawkins has said many times) so the whole idea of a "point" makes no sense to me from an atheist standpoint.

It might make no sense to you because it’s not actually the atheist viewpoint just because you say it is.

 

[watsup]

Exactly, so likewise theism, belief in God, religions, Christianity, the Bible etc are all ultimately entirely natural by products of evolution, anthropology.

So is atheism, so do you have a point here?

 

[watsup]

Yes, my point was to show that because of all this, then religion itself, people believing in God and so on are all just the result of nature, evolution, anthropology, not any persons "fault".

Atheists attacking theism, religion, Christianity and so on are pointless, the universe gave rise to these things, so they are just attacking the natural world because it's done something they don't like - allowed religion to evolve.

How about when you attack atheism? Does the same standard apply?

 

[Dragonfly]

But I see no way (for the atheist) to evaluate a good or bad

Then you must be blind.

 

[Dragonfly]

Atheists attacking theism, religion, Christianity and so on are pointless, the universe gave rise to these things, so they are just attacking the natural world because it's done something they don't like - allowed religion to evolve.

You're so full of insanely poor information your eyes MUST be brown.

Atheists have one reason, and one reason only for "attacking theism".

I wonder if you'd ever freely admit to knowing what that one reason is?

Here's a hint: Atheists couldn't care less what you believe. One god, ten gods, or one thousand gods. Atheist couldn't care less if you worshiped purple unicorns with rainbows shooting out of their butts. Atheists don't care at all about the thing/things you believe in. With one simple exception.

Are you honest enough to post what that exception might be?

 

[Variant]

I don't misunderstand nor am I being "obtuse" I don't see how we can really draw a distinction between natural and unnatural.

If natural is what arises from the laws of nature and we arose from the laws of nature then surely in a literal sense we and everything we do are just manifestations of those laws of nature.

If this line of reasoning bothers you it should, that's why I pursued it to get see how atheists respond.

You can argue it that way but there certainly a valid distinction to be made about things that exist in nature and things that exist because humans came up with them.

 

[watsup]

You can argue it that way but there certainly a valid distinction to be made about things that exist in nature and things that exist because humans came up with them.

Let's start with a definition:

nature
Pronunciation /ˈnāCHər/ /ˈneɪtʃər/

NOUN

1. The phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

That’s from a very reliable source, the Oxford dictionary.

 

[Variant]

Let's start with a definition:

nature
Pronunciation /ˈnāCHər/ /ˈneɪtʃər/

NOUN

1. The phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

That’s from a very reliable source, the Oxford dictionary.

I'm on your side here. The distinction is obvious to me. In fact, I think that distinction is obvious to everyone in this conversation.

 

[stevecanuck]

I posted this:



You "response" was



Can you not see? my questions are themselves ASKING IF THERE CAN EVEN BE EXAMPLES so why are you asking me to PROVIDE EXAMPLES ???????????????????????????????

If I asked "How can a plane fly if it has no wings" would you think it intelligent to respond to that question with "Example???" ? or "Where do wingless planes come from?" to respond with "Example??"

MFWTF.

I was absent the day we were taught mind-reading in school. My bad.