Gay Rights

It's also simply irrelevant. Think about it this way: IF we have two countries, A and B, and in country A it is illegal to eat spaghetti, then it is a crime to eat spaghetti. If you go to country B, it's a little different. But the problem is, in all religions relevant to this discussion (Christianity and Islam) it is a sin. Eating pork is also a sin, but most people don't care because it's not part of their religion.

I'm sorry if this isn't coherent, I'm on medication rn, it's it's kinda making me feel weird .

 

The problem with taking two countries as an example is that, unlike countries, there can only be one correct religious belief between contradicting ones (if we view this from the perspective that religion is true, that is).

A better example would be to say that there is a world government that is unknown, but has a set list of laws, and all other countries are basing their laws off of what they think the world government's laws are. Because no one knows for sure what the correct laws are, no one can factually state that they have the correct laws and can only base their laws off of their opinion on what they think is right.

That's not true, actually.

It is considered a sin in Islam and in quite a few denominations of Christianity, such as Baptism, but it's also considered to not be a sin in other Christian denominations, such as Catholicism and some denominations of Presbyterianism.

 

as of now, no religions are demonstrably correct, and yet sin still exists.

Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality

http://theaquilareport.com/a-summary-of-pca-statements-on-homosexuality/

This is not similar at all to what a sin is. In this case, breaking any of these laws would be a sin.

 

Believed sin exists. At the same time that no religions are demonstrably correct, no believed sins can be demonstrably sinful, because they're only actually sins if the religion is correct.

The Catholic Church's stance was changed recently by Pope Francis.

I said some, not all.

No, breaking any of them would be a believed sin; only breaking one of them would actually be a sin.

 

sin1
sin/
noun

1. 1.
   an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
   "a sin in the eyes of God"
   synonyms: immoral act, wrong, wrongdoing, act of evil/wickedness, transgression,crime, offense, misdeed, misdemeanor; More

All religions have some form of divine law, and there are things that break this divine law. Therefore there are sins.

 

Yes, a sin is something considered to be a transgression against divine law, not something that is a trangression against what is considered to be divine law. Going by the definition, it's the trangression that is considered to be so, not the divine law. So, the divine law has to already be in place and not just considered to be so. If the religion isn't true, the divine law doesn't exist, and therefore neither does the sin.

 

1. 
   Divine law is any law that supposedly comes directly from the "will of God" in contrast to man-made law.
   Divine law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Oh, I had thought that a "divine law" was one that actually did come directly from God, and not one that supposedly did. My bad.

 

It's k . If it did have to come directly from god, I would agree with you. In addition, the only kind of punishable sin (in my opinion) solely for the fact that it is a sin, would be if a god were demonstrably existent.

 

Okay, so homosexuality is apparently a sin. But why should that make being homosexual, in a largely secular society, against the law?

 

No friggin' clue.

 

Because some people think freedom of religion means there's only one religion we're free to follow.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 17, 2015, Original Post Date: Dec 17, 2015 ---

Christianity has changed a lot. It used to be one hell of a violent religion. Now, it's nothing like it used to be. A lot of what modern Christianity does can have good. Again, people can believe and not be bad people. Keep in mind you don't have to be religious to be violent. Joseph Stalin was an atheist who was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people.

We may be better off without religion. Doesn't change the fact that we have to learn to live with it. Unless if you plan on trying to change everyone's mind one by one...

And I can give you something that is contrary to your contrary.
https://philanthropy.com/article/Religious-Americans-Give-More/153973
Plus, I learned in a blue state liberal school that religious people are in fact more likely to give to charity. So...

Yet, you're saying that religion is the root of all evil. You don't have to be religious to be good the same way you don't have to be atheist to be bad.

Nobody, I suppose.

You don't need religion for that. However, it does give a lot more meaning to it.

Well yea. I'm not disagreeing with this. Religion evolves and it is what we make it out to be. I'm not trying to defend the belief itself. I'm trying to defend some of those who believe in it.

 

The doctrine, the holy books? They havn't. They can't, by definition. What Christians *believe*, sure. (Though, one could say that Christianity IS whatever the believers... believe. Rather than what it once was. That's fine, and I'd accept that. If Nazism evolved into literally the most peaceful ideology mankind has ever seen, it would be silly to criticise their current beliefs, for the actions of Hitler, right?)

What I want to 'get at' though, is that the reasons for the atrocities committing in the name of Christianity are still there. They are just, glazed over or ignored altogether. I'm glad that you and others ignore them. Dismissing the calls to slavery, stoning unbelievers, oppressing women. What I want to know, is why.

Why do people (yourself included) ignore some of your holy books, but not all?

And how do you know which bits to follow and which bits to ignore?

It still is. Again, nothing like what it was, but incredible harm is still done in Christianity's name. And, because of Christianity's teachings.

If I were part of a group that still burned witches at the stake or stood in opposition to equality in all 4 corners or the world, I'd want to distance myself from them. I'd condemn them every chance I got, and would seek means to create a better group or leave my current one altogether.

Again, why arn't others -- and yourself -- doing this?

But there's nothing that can be done by Christianity that can't be done by non-Christians for secular reasons.

Let's put it this way. Christians and Atheists can do good and bad for non-religious reasons. Equal footing. There is no 'good action' that a Christian can do for religious reasons that an Atheist can't also do. Again, still equal. However, there are many 'bad actions' that a Christian can do for religious reasons, that an Atheist can't also do. Not equal. There is no good action that you can point to, that Christianity does, that cannot be achieved by secular means. For 'bad'? Christianity stands apart from Atheism. An Atheist won't drown their infant children to send them to Heaven with no sin. They won't become martyrs for their religion. They won't stand in opposition to equal-rights because their god told them too.

Woahhh boy. Easy now.

Yes, Stalin was an Atheist. But the deaths at his hands wern't influenced by his Atheism. They can't be, because it's not an ideology. Atheism has no doctrine, no tenets, no rules, no holy books.

Stalin and Hitler had moustaches, right? But if I were to claim that "moustaches are immoral because Stalin and Hitler killed millions, and they both had moustaches", then you would brush this off as absurd. Because you know that 'having a moustache' had no influence on their genocidal killing-sprees. There was no causal connection between 'moustache' and 'genocide'. Right? The same goes for Atheism.

However, when I point to examples of the harm done by Christians (drowning infants, abortion clinic bombings, opposing gay-marriage), it's overtly influenced by their Christianity. There IS a causal-connection between their Christian belief, and the harm done by them. Does that mean that all bad actions done by Christians, are Christianity's fault? No, of course not. Only when we can show a chain from belief to action. So, if the 9/11 bombers were... Vegan, Republican, Altruistic and Muslim? How do we assign blame here? How do we know which 'bit' we hold accountable for their terrorism? Why is it, that we blame Islam and not... Republicanism, or Veganism?

It's because we can show causality from Islam, to their actions. If you can do the same for Atheism and Stalin, be my guest. You'll be doing something I've never seen anyone else successfully do, though.

When Christians... "drown their infant children to send them to Heaven with no sin... become martyrs for their religion and stand in opposition to equal-rights because their god told them too."? Then I can show causality from Christianity, and I want to hold that ideology accountable. But ONLY when the ideology is responsible. Only when we can show that their horrific actions were influenced by Christian teachings.

Errr... why? Would you use the same argument for genocide or homicide? Or corruption?

"We may be better off without corruption. Doesn't change the fact we have to learn to live with it."

I don't think we have to accept it, or live with it. Frankly, I plan on trying to do something about it. I care deeply about the well-being of others. Even strangers. And I want to reduce as much suffering, and maximise as much happiness as I can in my life. For myself and others. I don't need to change people's minds one-by-one to do that. There are many ways to do good. One of many, is to oppose harmful ideas. Either I can convince people that they're bad, or they can convince me that they're actually pretty good.

For argument's sake, I'll just accept the notion that religious people give more to charity. What's your point? To show that religion can do 'good'? Do you not think that we can promote more charitable attitudes without religion?

So... what?

That's not an argument. If a Muslim came up to you, and said... "I learned that Allah exists in a secular, mostly Atheistic society, so...".

Claims stand and fall on their own merit. Not 'the situation that you found yourself in, when you accepted them'.

Noooooooooooo. Woah NELLY. Where did you get that impression? Please, quote me if you think I've said that. I will be quick to retract is necessary. I'm intensely curious where you've got that impression from. I just want to hold all ideologies accountable for the blood on their hands. Religious and non-religious alike.

Yes, but some religions promote harm than an Atheist could never do. Whereas the contrary isn't true.

Arn't you? Arn't billions of people around the planet? Willing to treat others and live their lives as if one religion IS right?

So... religion gives more meaning, to... meaning and purpose? Is that a good thing, if it's built on a lie? Should we foster comfortable delusions, just because they make people happy?

Sure. And Christianity is still responsible for tonnes of harm. I oppose it on these grounds, and because the 'good' done in it's name is not exclusive to Christianity (whereas the 'bad', IS). Why don't you?

Why not? You're an agnostic-Christian, right? I mean, correct if necessary!

Why? The point you echo often, is that "Yeah, but it also does good.". I mean... so has Islam. But I'm guessing that this wouldn't stop you from opposing ISIS, right? Why can't you join me in openly condemning and criticising the bad, while holding onto the good? Or (even better in my eyes) hold on to the good for secular reasons, and dump all the religious baggage, altogether?

 

I really don't like to identify with anything. I just accept that I highly doubt many religion's validity but understand the purpose behind them. Quite frankly, I've seen the good and the bad in Christianity. I know many good-hearted Christians: giving to charity, accepting gay people, going to church, loving everyone, etc. Perhaps you yourself don't need religion to be a good person, but there are people out there who simply feel the need to put their faith in a higher power so that they can feel their life has meaning. If you seek to convince them that they don't need religion to have meaning in life, then be my guest. But the way you're going about it is more damaging. Don't try to show people that their whole life is meaningless and that they were raised to put their faith in a lie. Show them that there are more options than what they already live by.

I really don't want to pick through these quotes one by one to answer them, so I'll cover as much as I can.

There are bad Christians. There are people who use their faith to inflict harm onto others.
There are good Christians. There are people who use their faith to effect positive change in society to help those less fortunate.

The fact of the matter is, I think it's more beneficial to encourage a more helpful and less hateful view of religion than it is to get rid of it altogether. I'll bet it's not the way the doctrine was originally meant to be followed, but at least we aren't killing each other as much. People still continue their culture/traditions and are able to live by a moral code that doesn't seek to injure society. People don't have to feel their whole life was a lie and that there is nothing left to live for. People can still be religious and good people.

 

Come on man, please don't play this game. I understand that people don't like being put in little boxes, but you do belong in a box. One way or another. I'm not saddling you with everyone else that's in your 'box', I just want to understand what you believe, and why.

Let's make it super simple. Are you a Theist, or an Atheist? Out of those two, are you agnostic or gnostic?

In short - Religion gives people 'meaning' in their lives. Again, do you think that it's moral to lie to people, in order to make them happy or comfortable? Please allow me to explain.

You've already accepted that religion does not exclusively have these properties, right? So, this argument that you keep using, "People need it for purpose", they don't. You and I both accept this.

Also, almost every religion is guaranteed to be wrong. Most religions are mutually exclusive, so the overwhelming majority are wrong, right off the bat. Which means most religions are deluding people into this 'purpose and meaning', right? They are lying to others and themselves, to make them happy. All in ways that we don't need religion for, anyway. Again, this should all be pretty uncontroversial as we're treading familiar ground.

Not only that, but these religious beliefs do not live in a vacuum. If they granted people 'meaning and purpose', but that's it? I'd still object on the grounds above, but at least you'd have an argument there. "Is it worth it, to allow people to trick themselves into this belief, just so it makes them happy?". Something like that. But religion is not like this, not even close. Your belief in a god impacts your decision making all the time, even on a subconscious level. It affects the way we vote, the way we treat and look at others, and how we spend our free-time. Each second spent in deference to an untrue deity has an opportunity cost. "2 hands working do more than 1000 clasped in prayer." It's not just 'I believe in a god, it makes me happy, let bygones be bygones.' If it was like that? IF people kept their religion to themselves? We would never be having this discussion.

I seek the truth. I think others should too, and that are where my priorities lie. Not to a drug called 'religion' that makes people happy, when we both agree that there are alternatives out there.

I don't think you give enough reasons, below. Do you have any more? Why is it 'damaging'?

I'm sorry? Again, please give me some evidence as to where you've got this notion from. This is the second time that a claim like this has come out of nowhere. I don't appreciate it, and would prefer you to back up what you think of my opinion with quotations.

Do you not think people care about the truth? Or that they should care about the truth? Speak to a once Christian, no Atheist individual. Most are incredibly grateful that people took they time to engage with them, civilly. To engage with them in fair, open, honest conversations about what they believe and why. Heck, believers and non-believers alike (from my experience, anyway) typically prefer to know a harmful truth rather than a comforting lie (if given the option). If you could show me that what I believed in, was untrue? I'd want you to show me. I don't want to delude myself. Don't you?

I try do. Don't you think I do that?

I'm addressing Christianity as a whole, not Christians necessarily.

An Atheist will never commit harm, because of Atheism. If you can show me examples that do, please, go ahead. For Christianity, it's all too easy to point to examples of harm committed, because of Christianity.

I really don't know how else to explain it. Christians can do much harm, for religious reasons. Atheists, can never do these acts. Christians can do much good, for religious reasons. Atheists CAN do these acts.

So, you want to reform religion, instead of 'getting rid of it'? Why do you have this desire to defend that which isn't true? We really need to address that. Why do you think it's ethical to lie to people, to make them comfortable? Most religions are a lie, and you want to keep religion because it can make some people happy (despite it's harm). Why should we lie about meaning and purpose, when we can get those without religion?

"Well, we still gas a few Jews. We still torture a few, oppress some, enslave others. But hey, at least Nazis arn't killing as much!"

Please don't straw-man. I'm an Atheist. I believe I have a lot to live for. Would you like me to put you in touch with Christians who have left their religion, and *don't* "feel like their whole life was a lie and that there is nothing left to live for."? I can do that, if you like. I have real, living proof, that what you're saying in an inaccurate representation of deconversion.

I never claimed the contrary, did I? Again, please quote me if you believe the contrary.

I can find you millions of examples of religious people causing harm, when an Atheist never would. I bet you can even think of many, right now.

But you cannot find 1 example of religious people doing good, when an Atheist never would. I challenge you to think of a single one.

 

^

 

Can I just identify as non-religious?

Everyone's different. Some people just really feel the need to hold onto their own beliefs so that they can get through hard times and have hope for the future. It's great that you don't need to religion in your life to be happy, but I really don't want to just crap on people for their beliefs.

I'll answer this question with an experience with a friend of mine. She's a very smart devout Christian. Back in freshman year of high school, she used to be very liberal and I think even secular. Religion played a more minor role in her life. Then, in her sophomore year, she transferred to a high ranking boarding school and was put in an environment with many atheists who sought to disprove Christianity, such as you do. She's a very smart individual, and I could see her impeccable academic performance when we were both freshman at the same school. But the more people at her new school argued with her, the more she held onto her beliefs. Sure, some people may disregard their beliefs and at least become agnostic, but others will only hold onto them stronger. I think they may be dumb to turn to a closed minded attitude, but that's human nature for you. I say it's damaging because what you do may just be counter productive. She's now pretty religious (although, she's still fine with gay people).

When an atheist never would? What cases are there to claim that an atheist would never harm others while religious people would? An atheist would probably never incite/cause terrorist acts on the basis of religion... but that's really the only thing I can think of. Atheists can do some pretty heinous things... the only difference is that they don't use religion to justify it. I'll go back to Stalin once more, but I will say that while he wasn't motivated by religion, he didn't need religion to kill so many people. People can do the exact horrible things that religious people may do, but just omit any religious reasoning behind it. Religion is a tool. Humans are the users. It could be that there would be less violence without religion, but can we truly say that we won't find a different reason to continue heinous acts?

There's a time and place to debate. If it's in context and they welcome a nice discussion regarding the issue, then go ahead and say whatever you want to say.

 

I know he's ignoring me, but here's some food for thought @Skaros .

You can't compare the two like this. Atheism is a lack of belief, so comparing it to a religion centered around belief is illogical. It is easier, in fact, to point to examples of good deeds done in the name of Christianity. You can't do anything in the name of Atheism. It has no doctrines, no beliefs, no central disciplines. Christianity has doctrines, has beliefs, and has disciplines. People act on these, and generally do so in a positive way. Christians reflect a group of people who are, in general, kind and loving people. They care about others, and they want people to be happy. It is only when they presume to interfere in other people's lives in order to reach the goal of getting others to heaven that we must put a check on their activities. Christianity is a net positive for the world, and I think you need to remember this.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 18, 2015, Original Post Date: Dec 18, 2015 ---

Non religious = Atheist Agnostic = no beliefs regarding religion

 

I already understand that you self-identify as such though.

Do you believe in a god? Yes/No.

Do you class this belief as knowledge? Yes/No.

Why is this so hard? Why don't you want to answer these questions?

But... we've already agreed that you don't need religion for this. Let me give you a quick example.

Let's say that a large chunk of the population took anti-depressants every time they felt sad. That, when faced with tough moments in their lives, they immediately turned to prescription drugs.

I might say, that this is completely unnecessary. That we can be happy without drugs. Sure, a minute portion might not be able to handle a life without anti-depressants, but most would. We know of many ways to deal with hardship without turning to drugs, and they're much better for you too!

Yet, you could always hit me with... "Well, sure, they do have negative side-effects. These drugs can cause harm. But... they do a lot of good too! I personally know of people who need these, and I don't see why you're trying to spend so much time getting people off these drugs that make them happy. Some people feel the need to hold onto their own solutions and beliefs, of how to deal with hard times, so don't crap on people just because they choose to take these drugs, man."

I hope this parallel does enough to show you why I find the arguments that I've seen thus far, are unconvincing and a little unsympathetic.

Skaros, I love almost everything you do here, but this has to stop.

Do you really think that I'm "crapping on people", here? Seriously?

I want to hold people accountable for what they believe, and the ramifications of their beliefs. I want to challenge, and be challenged, so that we can better ourselves. To converge on good ideas, together.

I want to find the truth. If Christianity is the truth, I want to know. I'm not seeking to disprove religion or Xtianity at every turn. I oppose ideas that I think are harmful. Religious or otherwise.

Let's forget the fact that this is just an unsupported 2nd-hand anecdote for a second. Though I could rail on this for that reason.

1) How did you determine a causal relationship between 'them challenging her beliefs' and 'her beliefs being strengthened'? How did you calculate the possibility that it was these strong Atheists that caused her to become more devout?

2) How do I even know that they wern't doing a terrible job? Maybe, instead of challenging her beliefs intellectually, they just mocked them. Which, no surprise, would probably cause her to become more religious. Heck, the way I see a lot of Atheists challenge Theists? It disgusts me. There's a lot of mockery and little substance.

3) Lastly, can I cite a bunch of anecdotes in my favour? You're attempting to convince me that my behaviour is counter-productive (at times), by citing your example, right? If I found first-hand accounts of the positive effects of challenging religious beliefs, would you alter your position too?

I'm going to need something better than what you've provided, if possible. Or reasons as to why you think my criticism above is invalid.

I will not stop using reason and logic to challenge bad ideas, just because it can rarely have an undesired effect. Conversation is all we have, if you don't want to use force or dirty psychological warfare.

You've provided an extremely poor example, as if that's the 'norm' response to criticism of religious beliefs. Or at least, it should be enough to give me pause for thought, when engaging with religious beliefs. It really isn't, for the reasons given above.

9/11? The Paris attacks? The Crusades? Abortion clinic bombings?

Can an Atheist do these? Yes. But Atheism would not be responsible. Ever. The reasons that have nothing to do with Atheism or religion, we'll label 'X'.

Can a Christian/Muslim do these? Yes. Would Christianity/Islam be responsible? That depends. Let's label the reasons that have everything to do with one's religion, 'Y'.

So, for an Atheist, they can only commit these heinous acts for reasons X. For a religious individual, it's X+Y. More, because they can have their religion influence them.

Right.

So, why do you it's so rare that you don't see Atheists point to Hitler, to shame Christianity? I don't use Hitler, as a case against Christianity, right? Why?

It's because 'him being a Christian' had little to nothing to do with the atrocities committed by him. It doesn't even come into play. Hitler could have been an Atheist, and it wouldn't have made much of a difference, if any. As you say, "He didn't need religion to kill people".

When you point to Stalin, you're committing this exact mistake. I don't point to any violence committed by a Christian, to critique Christianity. I point to violence committed as a *direct* result of Christianity. *Because* of Christianity. I wouldn't dream of saddling the religion with all/some/any of the violence committed by a Christian that had nothing to do with Christianity. Why arn't you 'on-board' with me here? Where do you disagree?

Right, but there's no place to lie about what's true in a debate. Which is what you did, below.

"People don't have to feel their whole life was a lie and that there is nothing left to live for."

You're implying that when you leave religion, you 'feel like your whole life is a lie' and that, regarding purpose and meaning, 'there's nothing left to live for'. This is not the case, and I don't appreciate you constantly implying it. You're shielding religious criticism just because it does some good. Well, so does 'taking Acid'. Some people take it to be happy, some might even say that they find purpose and meaning through these hallucinogenics. That doesn't mean it's exempt from criticism, or that the good effects trump/balance the bad.

While I understand that my replies are lengthy, I'm becoming increasingly worried by the number of questions that are being ignored/missed. Even a sentence or two on each question would be great, if possible. if you can't, no worries. Thank you.

 

That's because it's a lack of belief. It literally cannot do anything. Actually, now that I think about it, an attack on a religious institution could actually be blamed on atheistic viewpoints. And here we go: http://www.muslimworldjournal.com/2015/02/terrorist-atheist-kills-three-innocent-muslim-students/

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 18, 2015, Original Post Date: Dec 18, 2015 ---

Face it: some people will find an excuse to kill and harm others. That's just the way humanity is.