TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Roll Call: TOTA Atheist Thread
Pages (12): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 »

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot religion is not necessary to prevent "sinful" action... it just reinforces our tendencies to be good

This I like. All too often I hear proponents for believing in god that its gives you morales and so on.

Well, yes, fine, it does indeed profess certain morals and behaviours all of which are good... BUT, you do not NEED to believe in god or follow a religion to have those morales. they are independent of following a religion... they are just incorporated into it!

definately not saying all biblethumpers or religious ppl think this, im sure most dont (hopefully), but in debates ive had in the past, this has often been a point my opposition has brought up... and i really dont think it carries much validity.

~Jem~

whoaaaaa i cant believe this thread is still going... lol
some pretty well structured arguments too...

quote:

Originally posted by preppie chick whoaaaaa i cant believe this thread is still going... lol some pretty well structured arguments too...

SOme very fine and intellectual points have been made esp. towards the latter pages of this thread.

and OF COURSE its still alive and kicking Lars. we are atleats 16 strong

i think its great that this thread has survived. i find it awesome discussing the point we are and especially hearing about the view points of other atheists and where exactly they stand on matters and how they think.

~Jamie~

quote:

Originally posted by Jem_hadar This I like. All too often I hear proponents for believing in god that its gives you morales and so on. Well, yes, fine, it does indeed profess certain morals and behaviours all of which are good... BUT, you do not NEED to believe in god or follow a religion to have those morales. they are independent of following a religion... they are just incorporated into it! definately not saying all biblethumpers or religious ppl think this, im sure most dont (hopefully), but in debates ive had in the past, this has often been a point my opposition has brought up... and i really dont think it carries much validity. ~Jem~

And now that you know the anthropic principle, you can explain why!


In fact, (a lot of people tend to forget this)... the success of a religion is NOT based on how good its moral principles are; it is instead based upon the number of followers it has (hopefully for the long term; ie throughout many generations).

For this reason, religions that say, command that parents only have one child, would never last very long. It doesn't mean that anything is wrong with the principles of that religion; it just means that the religion's principles are not such that the religion grows, or even becomes sustainable.

As an example, consider catholicism. It states that sex is sacred (so you can't use birth control), and it is in fact A SIN to have sex if it is not EXPLICITLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROCREATION. Catholicism also states that parents should teach their children to be catholics and live as catholics for their entire lives. It discourages catholics from marrying non-catholics, and discourages people from relinquishing their beliefs for fear of not getting into heaven. Catholicism also promotes growth and expansion of humanity as a species, and has absolutely no guidelines on population control (in fact, population control arguably goes against many catholic fundamentals).

I'm not saying that these values are right or wrong; what I am saying is that THEY MAKE FOR A VERY SUCCESSFUL RELIGION. As a result of the teachings of their religion, catholics produce huge families, and the children in those families tend to grow up to be catholic. Hence, because of its principles, catholicism has grown to have a huge number of followers, making it a successful religion.

That doesn't mean catholicism is a SUSTAINABLE religion. If everyone in the world lived according to he philosophies of catholicism, then we'd end up overpopulated in a destroyed world (it's what's happening right now!) I'm not saying catholicism is to blame; I'm simply saying that the philosophies of catholicism do in fact promote behaviour that could end up being destructive to our planet.

Sorry for picking on catholicism... the above is true for the vast majority of other religions as well; it's simply a good example to use because most people are familiar with its beliefs and ideals.

Conclusion: a "successful" religion is not always good for the planet (and sadly enough, is usually BAD for the planet). Think of the implications of this!

quote:

Originally posted by preppie chick whoaaaaa i cant believe this thread is still going... lol some pretty well structured arguments too...

I like this thread. I've still got lots to talk about too. I bet I've written over 5000 words in here alone. Maybe closer to 10000.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot And now that you know the anthropic principle, you can explain why! In fact, (a lot of people tend to forget this)... the success of a religion is NOT based on how good its moral principles are; it is instead based upon the number of followers it has (hopefully for the long term; ie throughout many generations). For this reason, religions that say, command that parents only have one child, would never last very long. It doesn't mean that anything is wrong with the principles of that religion; it just means that the religion's principles are not such that the religion grows, or even becomes sustainable. As an example, consider catholicism. It states that sex is sacred (so you can't use birth control), and it is in fact A SIN to have sex if it is not EXPLICITLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROCREATION. Catholicism also states that parents should teach their children to be catholics and live as catholics for their entire lives. It discourages catholics from marrying non-catholics, and discourages people from relinquishing their beliefs for fear of not getting into heaven. Catholicism also promotes growth and expansion of humanity as a species, and has absolutely no guidelines on population control (in fact, population control arguably goes against many catholic fundamentals). I'm not saying that these values are right or wrong; what I am saying is that THEY MAKE FOR A VERY SUCCESSFUL RELIGION. As a result of the teachings of their religion, catholics produce huge families, and the children in those families tend to grow up to be catholic. Hence, because of its principles, catholicism has grown to have a huge number of followers, making it a successful religion. That doesn't mean catholicism is a SUSTAINABLE religion. If everyone in the world lived according to he philosophies of catholicism, then we'd end up overpopulated in a destroyed world (it's what's happening right now!) I'm not saying catholicism is to blame; I'm simply saying that the philosophies of catholicism do in fact promote behaviour that could end up being destructive to our planet. Sorry for picking on catholicism... the above is true for the vast majority of other religions as well; it's simply a good example to use because most people are familiar with its beliefs and ideals. Conclusion: a "successful" religion is not always good for the planet (and sadly enough, is usually BAD for the planet). Think of the implications of this!

I just never understood why sex before marriage is so down right taboo and sinfull. it just dont make sense to me.

i mean i can see why parents would try to dissuade their kids or young ppl in general, bc of all the risks involved, like unexpected pregnancies, STDs, the emotional aspect attached to it (most the time)... so i can understand why parents often like their kids and other teenagers to put off sex... but the idea that its wrong until ur married? WTF... sex is not wrong like that. sex is sex. if ur gonna have it, be aware of its complications in all regards (emotionally, physically...). The idea that ppl have that sex is sacred i think is crap. i can understnad why ppl regard sex highly and dont necessary want to have it before marriage even if they arent religious, bc yes, its a big deal to many.

but i dont see why it has to be or why its such a thing that should be limited to those who are married. but i guess that stems from the idea that sex is for procreation only and therefore you and your mate should be married (ie. in a stable situation) where you can ideally raise very well the offspring of your union.

just my thoughts on the matter. i dont see that sex needs to be a big deal -- yet, religious reasoning aside, i do realize why it is such a big dela to many... and i also see why its not a big ordeal to many others as well!

sex is sex ppl, if ur gonna do it, have fun, and be fucking safe. be aware of and preapred for potential complications (its part of the package). and if u do have it, dont be embarrassed about it. if your being embarrassed, well maybe you shouldnt be having it then

~Jem~

quote:

Originally posted by Jem_hadar I just never understood why sex before marriage is so down right taboo and sinfull. it just dont make sense to me. i mean i can see why parents would try to dissuade their kids or young ppl in general, bc of all the risks involved, like unexpected pregnancies, STDs, the emotional aspect attached to it (most the time)... so i can understand why parents often like their kids and other teenagers to put off sex... but the idea that its wrong until ur married? WTF... sex is not wrong like that. sex is sex. if ur gonna have it, be aware of its complications in all regards (emotionally, physically...). The idea that ppl have that sex is sacred i think is crap. i can understnad why ppl regard sex highly and dont necessary want to have it before marriage even if they arent religious, bc yes, its a big deal to many. but i dont see why it has to be or why its such a thing that should be limited to those who are married. but i guess that stems from the idea that sex is for procreation only and therefore you and your mate should be married (ie. in a stable situation) where you can ideally raise very well the offspring of your union. just my thoughts on the matter. i dont see that sex needs to be a big deal -- yet, religious reasoning aside, i do realize why it is such a big dela to many... and i also see why its not a big ordeal to many others as well! sex is sex ppl, if ur gonna do it, have fun, and be fucking safe. be aware of and preapred for potential complications (its part of the package). and if u do have it, dont be embarrassed about it. if your being embarrassed, well maybe you shouldnt be having it then ~Jem~

Don't forget that compared with modern science, religion is ancient.

Many religions don't eat pork. Why? Because many years ago, pork carried many diseases that were deadly, and eating pork spread these diseases. Thus, eating pork (or in fact, the meat of any animal with a "cleft hoof") was outlawed in order to prevent disease from spreading, and since church and state were essentially the same thing at that point, the instruction not to eat meat came as part of the community's religion. Now, since religions are so good at preserving traditions, this law exists as part of the customs of many religious peoples, despite its obvious obsolescence.

I think the laws with respect to pre-marital sex, etc are part of the same category of laws. They no longer serve a purpose. Don't forget that syphilis used to be a huge problem. If you only have sex with one person, and that person is a virgin before you touch them, then you're not going to get syphilis.

I am a catholic, but hardly a practicing one.

I think that the notion of pre-marital sex being forbidden is ludicrous. Can you imagine being in a relationship with that special someone, saving yourself for that day of the honeymoon... only to find out that the person you're with has no sex drive? Or to have the sex completely suck? These are things I'd want to know before I married a person, and work out before any potential marriage.

quote:

Originally posted by HouseJunkie I am a catholic, but hardly a practicing one. I think that the notion of pre-marital sex being forbidden is ludicrous. Can you imagine being in a relationship with that special someone, saving yourself for that day of the honeymoon... only to find out that the person you're with has no sex drive? Or to have the sex completely suck? These are things I'd want to know before I married a person, and work out before any potential marriage.

Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey (however you spell his last name) did that...apparently didn't have sex till marriage

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot Don't forget that compared with modern science, religion is ancient. Many religions don't eat pork. Why? Because many years ago, pork carried many diseases that were deadly, and eating pork spread these diseases. Thus, eating pork (or in fact, the meat of any animal with a "cleft hoof") was outlawed in order to prevent disease from spreading, and since church and state were essentially the same thing at that point, the instruction not to eat meat came as part of the community's religion. Now, since religions are so good at preserving traditions, this law exists as part of the customs of many religious peoples, despite its obvious obsolescence. I think the laws with respect to pre-marital sex, etc are part of the same category of laws. They no longer serve a purpose. Don't forget that syphilis used to be a huge problem. If you only have sex with one person, and that person is a virgin before you touch them, then you're not going to get syphilis.

About the pork thing, some religions also believe that god turned evil doers into pigs in some story, I forget which one. In turn, these PEOPLE became PIGS and if you eat the pigs, you eat the evil doers in turn letting their evil spirit inside of you.

Now, which animal are we genetically closer to? Pigs or Apes? HMMMMMMMMMM makes you think eh?

Also, depictions of the devil show him to have a "cleft hoof"


Karim

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot Just remember that everything you feel is a mere consequence of chemical reactions and electric signals in your brain. Imagine a person who never understood the concept of god (we're all born weak atheists, which means we don't know what a god is and therefore can't believe in one)... and suppose this person was experiencing the same moment that you just described. Would they treat it as a spiritual moment? Of course not. They only would be able to do so if they had the knowledge of the concept of god or spirituality to begin with. Of course, somebody had to come up with the concept of god for the first time, just as somebody had to come up with theories of gravity and quantum mechanics for the first time. Just a thought.

LOL, don't get me wrong, I do know for a fact that the rush of joy and spiritual feeling assosciated with such an event is all chemical. I was just cracking a joke.

What I find freakin hilarious is that priest in the US that pushed E into the market and manufactured it, because he thought it would bring people closer to god. "Take this pill, speak to god"


Karim

your an atheist but armin is god

shit i'm not one to say god does or doesnt exist... maybe he/she does but untill i see him or her then i will not be convinced that god exists. what if i was tripping out and had thought i have seen god, or what if i had bumped my head on something hard?? hmmm... there are answers to questions we will never know, i am syure this is one of them.

i respect those who do and don't believe in god though.

quote:

Originally posted by VietKid shit i'm not one to say god does or doesnt exist... maybe he/she does but untill i see him or her then i will not be convinced that god exists. what if i was tripping out and had thought i have seen god, or what if i had bumped my head on something hard?? hmmm... there are answers to questions we will never know, i am syure this is one of them. i respect those who do and don't believe in god though.

so are you saying you do NOT believe in god and wont until you have solid proof? (ie. your an atheist?)

or are you saying you dont know if you think he exists or not? (ie. your an agnostic)

just double checking, i gotta put ya in the right spot

-jem-

quote:

Originally posted by VietKid your an atheist but armin is god

oh yea... its strange... amazing eh?

armin owns me

-jem-

quote:

Originally posted by Jem_hadar I just never understood why sex before marriage is so down right taboo and sinfull. it just dont make sense to me. i mean i can see why parents would try to dissuade their kids or young ppl in general, bc of all the risks involved, like unexpected pregnancies, STDs, the emotional aspect attached to it (most the time)... so i can understand why parents often like their kids and other teenagers to put off sex... but the idea that its wrong until ur married? WTF... sex is not wrong like that. sex is sex. if ur gonna have it, be aware of its complications in all regards (emotionally, physically...). The idea that ppl have that sex is sacred i think is crap. i can understnad why ppl regard sex highly and dont necessary want to have it before marriage even if they arent religious, bc yes, its a big deal to many. but i dont see why it has to be or why its such a thing that should be limited to those who are married. but i guess that stems from the idea that sex is for procreation only and therefore you and your mate should be married (ie. in a stable situation) where you can ideally raise very well the offspring of your union. just my thoughts on the matter. i dont see that sex needs to be a big deal -- yet, religious reasoning aside, i do realize why it is such a big dela to many... and i also see why its not a big ordeal to many others as well! sex is sex ppl, if ur gonna do it, have fun, and be fucking safe. be aware of and preapred for potential complications (its part of the package). and if u do have it, dont be embarrassed about it. if your being embarrassed, well maybe you shouldnt be having it then ~Jem~

earlier in this thread i allued to things that i didn't believe in, like how the catholics are against gay marriage, well the sin of pre-marital sex is one of them. like if someone argues that "the bible says so," then i just know that they are a dumbass and need a book to tell them what to believe, but it doesn't tell you anywhere that sex b4 marriage is bad... all these high up italians are dictating what all these ppl should believe... so that's why its better to be agnostic

on a side note: can you just be a christian and not have a denomination?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Bananie on a side note: can you just be a christian and not have a denomination?

yes

quote:

Originally posted by Ub3rTrancer yes

But then which church do you go to on Sunday morning? LOL

There aren't many non-denominational Christian churches.

I havent made up my mind yet as to whats out there.

Im not sure I beleive in a single dude(God) however I may be open to there being a higher power of some sort. Im not sure yet. Havent thought about it much lately.

so Im in limbo

quote:

Originally posted by Euphorica I havent made up my mind yet as to whats out there. Im not sure I beleive in a single dude(God) however I may be open to there being a higher power of some sort. Im not sure yet. Havent thought about it much lately. so Im in limbo

actually, i'm kinda in the same boat, and i consider myslef to be agnostic

sorry i didnt read through whole thread, so im just assuming this never came up, but one question im wondering, how many ppl think that that jesus did (not) exist? its somewhat the same, somewhat different...

and u can add me to athiest

quote:

Originally posted by Resnick sorry i didnt read through whole thread, so im just assuming this never came up, but one question im wondering, how many ppl think that that jesus did (not) exist? its somewhat the same, somewhat different... and u can add me to athiest

a group of historians have found proof that someone who resembles Jesus lives in that area in that time period, and that he was a leader of a large group of people. there is no doubt in my mind that Jesus (the person) existed, and that his ideals were what helped shape the laws we live by today.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Bananie a group of historians have found proof that someone who resembles Jesus lives in that area in that time period, and that he was a leader of a large group of people. there is no doubt in my mind that Jesus (the person) existed, and that his ideals were what helped shape the laws we live by today.

If you go back a few pages, you'll see that we were talking about Jesus as perhaps a well-liked, charismatic, kind person. I'm not gonna claim that he didn't exist; however, I have my doubts about him performing miracles and coming back from the dead and such. Perhaps he was a nice guy, but the son of god? That, I doubt.

Also, consider somebody like David Blaine (a very famous street magician). If a guy like him was around in Jesus' time, he probably could convince a lot of people that he had magic powers. There would likely be a lot of other people who believed he had evil sorcery and would want him killed (think of the "witch" killings, etc). Jesus is my mind could likely have been a very charismatic, strong-minded David Blaine.

Another interesting comment that I think was brought up in a conversationg with, of all people, my girlfriend's mom:

If Jesus was alive now, what would he think of the way things are today? Do you think Jesus would go around telling homosexuals that they're sinners, and unmarried people they are sinners, and people using birth control that they're sinners? It's too bad that the context of all of Jesus' teachings are about 2000 years old! Cultures change, values change, and religion does a really lousy job of adapting to those changes. Most of our society tends to accept things like birth control, homosexuality, and unmarried couples. It's just the way we have become. Just because Jesus said it was wrong 2000 years ago, do we deserve to have this constant religious force in our lives pushing us to be more socially conservative?

Oh yes, and Annie... congratulations on making it to junior tranceaddict! Make a better avatar!

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot Another interesting comment that I think was brought up in a conversationg with, of all people, my girlfriend's mom: If Jesus was alive now, what would he think of the way things are today? Do you think Jesus would go around telling homosexuals that they're sinners, and unmarried people they are sinners, and people using birth control that they're sinners? It's too bad that the context of all of Jesus' teachings are about 2000 years old! Cultures change, values change, and religion does a really lousy job of adapting to those changes. Most of our society tends to accept things like birth control, homosexuality, and unmarried couples. It's just the way we have become. Just because Jesus said it was wrong 2000 years ago, do we deserve to have this constant religious force in our lives pushing us to be more socially conservative?

Interesting point for those who do believe in and follow the teachings of god and jesus. what say you, any that are still reading the posts in this thread?

-jem-

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.