Athiest looking for opinions...

[Darrin]

No, the opposite of a religious war is one that is absent a religious context.

Religion and war have very similar arguments and effects on the masses.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm not sure you can make the definitive claim Hitler believed in God. Nothing he did in his latter life revealed a belief in a higher power.

What revealed that he didn't? The very fact that he often referred to belief in God in his own diary should be enough to state that he believed. Belief is subjective, and if the subject professes that belief then it's tough to say he didn't. You can say he didn't follow the beliefs WELL, but that's not the same argument. I can say that of all the people who claim Jesus was a 'warrior', or those who claim that Jesus wanted us to have money to make us happy.

No person follows all the beliefs of their chosen religion.

Unless it is precisely because of a communist's or fascist's lack of belief that failed to restrain their actions.

Yes, people who claim to be Christian (or religious) perpetrate heinous crimes -- sometimes in the name of their belief or on the sincere belief it is in accordance with their belief. But, my contention is, at the core of their being, they do not believe in a higher power simply because they allowed their own motivations (or interpretation of their belief system) cause them to do something any objective person would know is anathema to a belief in God.

And I would argue your contention is wrong. What YOU claim is anathema to God is certainly not what others claim. Do you think sexuality is a sin? How about abortion? What about using the Lord's name in vain? What of slavery?

What about other topics? Are people predetermined to go to heaven before birth? Is the only way to Heaven by admitting Jesus as a savior? All different people who claim to be Christian have varying beliefs on these subjects. In fact, some people would argue that any form of torture is anti-Christian.

No one person has a stranglehold on "what is a Christian value".

To claim, as you do, that 'in the core of their soul they do not believe' is a pointless argument. I can claim that at your core you believe you are a zebra. It has no weight to it.

But, a belief in a higher power is more likely to restrain an abuse of power than is a belief in nothing more than self.

What makes you think that? DO you have proof? I see no reason that the chances of a religious person to abuse power isn't just as great as a non-religious person to abuse power. As I said upthread, a person's willingness to seek out/abuse power has nothing to do with their religious beliefs, or lack thereof.

[LnGrrrR]

No, the opposite of a religious war is one that is absent a religious context.

I disagree. The opposite of a religious war would be a war to deny people the ability to profess faith. IIRC, something similar to what Stalin did. Anything which would outlaw religion, or explicitly kill believers. That would be a war started for 'atheistic' reasons.

By your definition, the war in Iraq would be 'atheistic'. Yes, it was not started for religious purposes, but it was also not started for ANTI-religious purposes.

[Yonivore]

I disagree. The opposite of a religious war would be a war to deny people the ability to profess faith.

That, too, is a religious war because it has a religious context.

IIRC, something similar to what Stalin did. Anything which would outlaw religion, or explicitly kill believers. That would be a war started for 'atheistic' reasons.

If, in fact, those were the reasons, you'd be correct. Stalin didn't kill people because of what they believed but because of the freedom and indepence those beliefs gave them. It threatened his power.

By your definition, the war in Iraq would be 'atheistic'. Yes, it was not started for religious purposes, but it was also not started for ANTI-religious purposes.

Huh?

[LnGrrrR]

Huh?

To sum up, you believe that any war started due to religious reasons (whether they be FOR or AGAINST religion) is a religious war.

I think the point that was being made was that some wars have been started with the express purposes of spreading a religious faith, while there have only been a few wars where the express purpose was to DENY faith in any religion.

[Blake]

After reading some of these posts I am convinced man came from an ape!

I am convinced that Mark Cuban came from an ape

[Blake]

No, the opposite of a religious war is one that is absent a religious context.

really? is that what Webster said is the definitive opposite of a religious war?

this thread is losing IQ points by the minute.

[Yonivore]

really? is that what Webster said is the definitive opposite of a religious war?

this thread is losing IQ points by the minute.

I don't think Webster defines antonyms. You're thinking of Roget.

[Yonivore]

To sum up, you believe that any war started due to religious reasons (whether they be FOR or AGAINST religion) is a religious war.

No, not true. Some people claim religious reasons for wars started for other reasons.

I think the point that was being made was that some wars have been started with the express purposes of spreading a religious faith, while there have only been a few wars where the express purpose was to DENY faith in any religion.

I don't know. The Muslim invasion of the West and Northern Africa that preceded the crusades was an effort to stamp out Christianity through violence as well as cultural immersion.

Many religious wars are started for both reasons; to deny one their choice of faith while demanding they adopt the faith of the aggressor. But, regardless, I contend the most people have met their demise in conflicts (genocides) that had absolutely nothing to do with religion.

[LnGrrrR]

Many religious wars are started for both reasons; to deny one their choice of faith while demanding they adopt the faith of the aggressor. But, regardless, I contend the most people have met their demise in conflicts (genocides) that had absolutely nothing to do with religion.

I will agree here that wars started for a stated religious purpose are actually started due to the desire of the person/group starting them for increased power.

[Blake]

I don't think Webster defines antonyms. You're thinking of Roget.

thanks.

I looked it up. antonym of genius: Yonivore

[Yonivore]

thanks.

I looked it up. antonym of genius: Yonivore

Hey, I'm not the one that doesn't know the difference between a thesaurus and a dictionary...an antonym and a definition.

[Yonivore]

What’s So Great About Christianity

IN RECENT YEARS there has arisen a new atheism that represents a direct attack on Western Christianity. Books such as Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great, and Sam Harris’ The End of Faith, all contend that Western society would be better off if we could eradicate from it the last vestiges of Christianity. But Christianity is largely responsible for many of the principles and ins utions that even secular people cherish—chief among them equality and liberty.

Good digest, I recommend it. Not just this month but, every month. Subscription is free and they'll even mail it to you.

[LnGrrrR]

What’s So Great About Christianity


Good digest, I recommend it. Not just this month but, every month. Subscription is free and they'll even mail it to you.

I disagree with many of the atheists who attack theists as supers ious/causing all our problems/etc etc. I'm fine with you believing whatever you want, as long as you don't bring it into politics without a secular reasoning behind your logic.

[Winehole23]

The story of Christ, while it's proven that Jesus walked the earth and he was wise, I don't think he was any more the 'son of man' than you or me. I think that religion highlights the worst of human nature--seperation, condemnation, mystical unscientific beliefs, mass hysteria, fear of disapproval, and abusive power to name a few.

Agree, with this qualification: it also represents the best. Unity, praise, wisdom, peacemaking, striving for righteousness and mercy.

We need real people to solve real problems and relying on God to fill in the blanks, as politicians and clerics ask us to do, just stunts our growth. I know it stunted mine. I'm not a great mind by any means but my potential was wasted, in some measure, on too much energy towards God, and not helping my fellow man.

This insight is important, but may based on a false an hesis. Matthew 25: 31-46

but seriously i think that all religions are wrong, and whatever may be in your heart (even if it is a religion that is already in existance) is right for you and you alone...

At the end you come very close to saying all religions are right.

-jesus was right, he was the son of god, as am i, and you, and everything we see.

The sole vote for pantheism in the thread.

-this world is your heaven and your .

The only heaven worth having, and the only worth fearing IMO.

I believe good people are rewarded; otherwise what reason would there be to be good.

Counterpoint: The Book of Job.

I believe in God, hate religion myself.

I'm fine with religions. It's mainly the religious I can't stand.

I believe the Bible is a good book with some good values that some evil men have taken and misused and abused to further their own selfish goals.

If the matter at issue were trivial, nobody would be bothered by its misuse.

The same skeptical side of me that looks at the Bible and it's inconsistencies and thinks "how can this book be 100% the one right book in the history of mankind" also sees what man has accomplished and created and I can't help but think that the universe was created by intelligent design.

We certainly didn't make it, and our attempts to redesign it inspire humility, when they do not horrify.

I believe in the story of Christ, but I can't seem to wrap my head around the idea that simply "believing in Him, you won't perish but have everlasting life". There are so many problems I have with this and other facets of the Bible that it would be a thread on to it's own.

You're not a pharisee. That's much to your credit, IMO.

In the end, I don't really know what I am. I just know I'm still looking.

[/rambling]

I could be wrong, but I doubt the the honest seeker will be denied in the end.

Also, 'choosing to believe' is false. You can't 'choose to believe' anymore than you can choose to enjoy the flavor of something. You either do believe or you don't. Outside forces may influence your belief, but it's not a conscious decision on the same level as "Will I wear a red shirt today or a blue one?"

Tend to agree, but I do believe that you can fake it 'til you make it. How else do very young people acquire religion?

Finally, atheism is not a 'belief system'. Now, some gnostic atheists may have a 'belief system' but it is not some universal, overarching plan as most religions have.

True, but the question it addresses is provincially religious. It may not be a system, but that is because it has only one dogma: there is no god.

If atheism puts science on God's throne, it may be fairly argued (following Paul Feyerabend here) that it relaunches itself as a religion.

Ever notice how athiests are, more times than not, as religiously zealous in their position as are many fundamentalist Christians?

The irreligious are not less zealous in their self-love than the pious, but IMO they are not more so either. So yes, there is a resemblance. Anyone with very strongly developed opinions will tend to defend and promote them energetically. Whether this is peculiar to religion or the lack of it is doubtful IMO.

Originally Posted by Yonivore
But, a belief in a higher power is more likely to restrain an abuse of power than is a belief in nothing more than self.

What makes you think that? DO you have proof? I see no reason that the chances of a religious person to abuse power isn't just as great as a non-religious person to abuse power. As I said upthread, a person's willingness to seek out/abuse power has nothing to do with their religious beliefs, or lack thereof.

Yonivore characterizes religion somewhat typically as a moral restrainer (katechon), but he seems to think it's the only one. For the rest of us, there's conscience.

[Darrin]

Religion does serve one purpose--it brings people hope. It can be easy to be attacked and lose the ability to see past someone's wronging you. IT means hope is open to the interpretation of personality, and that is a daunting life to lead. If there's one aspect of religion I miss, that is the only one.

[SnakeBoy]

From where did matter come?

All matter was formed during the big bang. See, there was nothing in the universe and then there was a big explosion of light and energy and everything was formed out of that. The top scientific minds agree that this is how the universe was formed. They're still trying to figure out what caused the big bang but not having much luck. It's like someone or something just wanted light and flipped a switch...a real puzzle.

[Yonivore]

All matter was formed during the big bang. See, there was nothing in the universe and then there was a big explosion of light and energy and everything was formed out of that. The top scientific minds agree that this is how the universe was formed. They're still trying to figure out what caused the big bang but not having much luck. It's like someone or something just wanted light and flipped a switch...a real puzzle.

And God said, "Let there be light."

[Last Comic Standing]

All matter was formed during the big bang. See, there was nothing in the universe and then there was a big explosion of light and energy and everything was formed out of that. The top scientific minds agree that this is how the universe was formed. They're still trying to figure out what caused the big bang but not having much luck. It's like someone or something just wanted light and flipped a switch...a real puzzle.

That's the best the so called smart people of this earth can come up with? i rather just listen to a burning bush!

[mouse]

All matter was formed during the big bang. See, there was nothing in the universe and then there was a big explosion of light and energy and everything was formed out of that. The top scientific minds agree that this is how the universe was formed.

That is all bull ! It's a known fact that when something explodes all particles must rotate in the same direction. There are many planets out there that rotate in an opposite direction of other planets.

They're still trying to figure out what caused the big bang but not having much luck.

Then why teach it in the schools? Why have it in the books? sounds like theory or religion, if you don't have proof why lie or mislead the students?

It's like someone or something just wanted light and flipped a switch...a real puzzle.

It's only a puzzle to those with stubborn egos who refuse to believe there is a creator.

[LnGrrrR]

Then why teach it in the schools? Why have it in the books? sounds like theory or religion, if you don't have proof why lie or mislead the students?

Gravity is also just technically a theory. Should we stop teaching that as well? lol

[Yonivore]

Gravity is also just technically a theory. Should we stop teaching that as well? lol

Are there competing theories?

[LnGrrrR]

Are there competing theories?

Sure! I just made one up, called the Theory of Everything Falls Down-ed-ness. Let's teach it in schools! Or we could use Aristotle's... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristot...ory_of_gravity

To be fair, gravity is. AFAIK, a fact. But how gravity occurs is a theory, as no one knows why gravity exists/what causes it.

Proponents of other theories tend to not have facts to back it up. They consist of people doing two things. 1) Pointing to holes in the Big Bang Theory. 2) Looking at those holes and saying, "See, our galaxy must have been designed!"

[mouse]

Gravity is also just technically a theory. Should we stop teaching that as well? lol

saying something is a theory is not the problem, it's when the text book says "450 Billion years ago there was a......"

The science books don't say they think the earth is at least 20 thousand years old, they say it's 250 million years old.

They also teach that you can tell how old a dinosaur bone is by using the fossils found around them. But that Geologic column chart was proved to be wrong many years ago and yet it's still in the text books.

Geologic Column:
Charles Lyell [1797-1875] is credited as the author of the Geologic Column. The Geologic Column is a 10 or 11 layered column that supposedly was formed over millions to billions of years by ac ulation of star dust, and the death of animals and plants. Charles Darwin picked up Lyell's ideas and popularized them.

[LnGrrrR]

saying something is a theory is not the problem, it's when the text book says "450 Billion years ago there was a......"

The science books don't say they think the earth is at least 20 thousand years old, they say it's 250 million years old.

They also teach that you can tell how old a dinosaur bone is by using the fossils found around them. But that Geologic column chart was proved to be wrong many years ago and yet it's still in the text books.

Who disproved the Geologic column?