70th Week Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 80 percent of those people cant even read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 80 percent of those people cant even read. It's really no wonder they hate us. Americans really are some arrogant, know it all mf'ers sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70th Week Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 It's really no wonder they hate us. Americans really are some arrogant, know it all mf'ers sometimes. I think you are misplacing arrogance with facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70th Week Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 also,i dont think anybody needs to confuse a radical christian with a radical muslim.The president of Iran said last week that God told him to do two things,wipe Israel off the map and destroy the americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 I have been reading (not posting in) the Atheist/Agnostic discussion thread.http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143201&page=1 After reading the 35 pages posted to date, it leads me to wonder how Atheist/Agnostics would give a serious response to this question. If there is no God, do you believe in right and wrong? Pornography, child pornography, incest, rape, child sacrifice, cannibalism, bestiality, prostitution, polygamy are some actions that are neither totally accepted nor legal in our country. It would be my assertion that for an Atheist everything is permissible. There is no basis for anyone to say anything was wrong. Actions or behavior may be offensive to some but how could an argument be made that they are wrong? An example: Theist: “Is Child pornography wrong?” Atheist: “It is illegal” So would atheist A think that CP was wrong because they happened to live in a country where it was illegal but to atheist B it was okay because it was not illegal? See a theist can have a line in which right and wrong meet but to an atheist there can be no line, thus all things are permissible. This thread is not to argue about the differences that exist between religions or denominations, to me that is a totally separate issue for another thread. How does an atheist seriously resolve this issue? You know I have spent some time trying to find some redeeming quality with regard to this post. Sadly I have come to the conclusion that either 1) You really did not mean what you posted and are forced into a corner. or 2) Your debating skills are still in need of a Gibbsean tweak or two. Why not ask the Atheist if they believe in pure good or pure evil? Why not ask the Atheist if indeed they do not also prescribe to a Religion as well? Why not ask the Atheist if all morality questions can only be answered with either Yes or No? In other words does moral certainty exist in the atheist mind and philosophy? To me a debate is an analysis of philosophy. Not a personal attack on a persons inability to act in a humane fashion just because they do not have a Christian background. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Im an agnostic. I believe that RELIGION and NOT the lack thereof, does more to ****ize peoples recognition of right and wrong. Any act of violence, hate, or aggression can be rationalized through religion. It is one of the most destuctive ideas in the history of civilization.I don't discount your point as invalid but I'd like to take it a step further. The human being will rationalize his behavior is correct because the vast majority of people need to feel they are acting correctly. You won't find mobs of people thinking "I know that this is wrong but we are doing it anyway hooray!" Usually they will justify their actions however horrible they may be. Religion can be used to justify it, but other things have proven to work in it's absence. Political movements for example have been the driving force behind horrible events. Look at the communist movement in China and Russia, there was no religion there. Also greed has always worked wonders as evidenced by the land grabs against native americans - deals previously agreed upon were ignored completely. Human nature lends itself to horrible acts of violence and injustice, and those things are rationalized by whatever means are available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 You would never find cultures where stealing or killing is considered right, for example. The are "absolute morals," so to speak, which are necessary for society to exist. I suppose non-absolute morals can vary, but that is possible only because they are not contradictory to society itself. In other words, no moral can exist that (if taken to extreme) can tear the fabric of society. I disagree. Middle eastern honor killings are a great example of cultures in which killing is considered right. While it is true no society could survive if killing, in general, were considered acceptable there are more then few examples where situational killing is deemed acceptable. I don't believe absolute morals exist. I think they are based on what is beneficial to individuals and the groups those individuals form. You'll find that stealing from me or my people is wrong, but you won't find such a strong belief concerning other people viewed as bad. Take prisoners in the US for example or perceived criminals. If a cop/guard were to beat down an innocent person on the street the reaction would be outrage. However if a cop/guard beats up someone who soceity views as "bad" the outrage is far less common...even if the individual receiving the beating did nothing at the moment to justify the abuse. I do not think religion is a counter balance to ruling class. In many ways the "ruling class" can be the embodiment of prevalent morals of the nation (however misguided, which they usually are if we are talking about a "ruling class"). In some cases you are correct however dictators historically have never allowed the free practice of religion. Perhaps ONE religion they control, but never the free practice of different religions. The reason being, IMO, those different moral guidelines provide a counter to autocratic rule. People will be encouraged by their different faiths to question what is deemed right and wrong by the government. Again lets look at China and the Middle East. If china allowed the free practice of Christianity for example, forced abortions would be widely questioned as wrong. The religion would provide am organization to the opposition and the power of the ruling class would be challenged. Same in the Middle East, various elements of that culture that dictators encourage (terrorism for example) would be challenge by people within in the nation. It would be easier to make this argument from a purely scientific stance. Let's say we are Homo Sapiens and morals are basically instincts that are there for our survival as a species. Yes there is quite a bit of self-stuff... but ultimately we are social animals that can only survive in groups. These morals would therefore lead us towards "common good" rather than individualism. On this point I completely disagree. I think that human nature is and always has been “what’s best for my kind” and thus “at the expense of yours”. History shows that human beings tend to behave this way. I think if left to purely human instinctual behavior you’d end up with a ruling class subjugating a majority for their own gains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 80 percent of those people cant even read. It's really no wonder they hate us. Americans really are some arrogant, know it all mf'ers sometimes. I think you are misplacing arrogance with facts. Where's the link supporting the fact that 80% of "those people" can't read? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70th Week Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 well, I dont have a link for what you want but I can tell you that ive been over there and there aint no schoolhouses anywhere over there much less any electricity.I dont know about 80 percent but I bet im not far off.Those people just do crazy stuff then try and say it is from God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Everyone has their own moral compass. It comes from your upbringing, the community you grew up in, your religious beliefs, and everything else that makes each person an individual. How does an atheist know whats right or wrong? Well its called an opinion.A person who's not overly religious can have an opinion on the matter. Those who take the bible word for word are the one's with the skewed moral compass. For example, my neighbor is gay. He's a nice guy, a good neighbor, doesn't bother me, he's not feminine or annoying, he's helpful, he's a good person. I could care less who he loves, how he lives his life or whatever. Now to a devout Christian, he's a sinner, he's going to hell, he's the freaking devil. Who's got the whack moral compass? I agree. My brother is gay, so I have pretty strong feelings about that issue. I've known too many gay people who are good people to think that sexuality is a factor in anything. Here's the problem, though. Christian hatred towards gays is based on skewed interpretations of the bible and by opinions of the church NOT by the teachings of Jesus. Unfortunately, that is the popular sentiment among christians of our day. That's why the question of the OP is a little offbase. There are many people of high and low moral standards on both sides of the fence. Faith has nothing to do with morals. Religion is a guide, yes, but if you're like me you think that men, not God, wrote the bible, therefore morals based on religion don't come from God, anyways. To back this up, why do all religions, including the pagan ones of old preach many of the same moral values? How did people of ancient times before Christ was even born have a concept of morals? They had it because people are born with the intrinsic general knowledge of what's right and wrong. You know you don't want to be killed, therefore you don't kill someone. It's pretty easy. Again, if religion has so much to do with morals why are there so many immoral religious people and how do these moral concepts entirely predate monotheistic religion as a whole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 well, I dont have a link for what you want but I can tell you that ive been over there and there aint no schoolhouses anywhere over there much less any electricity.I dont know about 80 percent but I bet im not far off.Those people just do crazy stuff then try and say it is from God. You do realize how funny this argument is don't you? Christians who kill doctors and bomb clinics say God wants them to do it. Give this link a read. Has quotes from the bible they use to justify what they do. http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 80 percent of those people cant even read. well, I dont have a link for what you want but I can tell you that ive been over there and there aint no schoolhouses anywhere over there much less any electricity.I dont know about 80 percent but I bet im not far off.Those people just do crazy stuff then try and say it is from God. When your debating a point you really should base it on some sort of fact. Am I supposed to just take on faith that your numbers are correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 When your debating a point you really should base it on some sort of fact. Am I supposed to just take on faith that your numbers are correct? I will help him out. His point is good but the statisitcs are off a bit..... It is on page two. http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/country_profiles/pop_cou_368.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70th Week Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 I will help him out. His point is good but the statisitcs are off a bit.....It is on page two. http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/country_profiles/pop_cou_368.pdf you da man sizzle.'preciate it.but i didnt miss it by much there HOF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 I will help him out. His point is good but the statisitcs are off a bit.....It is on page two. http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/country_profiles/pop_cou_368.pdf Acoording to the stats you supplied he is completely wrong not a bit. Adult Literacy Rate (Middle East and North Africa) Female 61% Male 80% Youth Literacy 1980 67% 2002 86% Total Literacy 73.50% He said only 20% can read. Your numbers say 73.50% can read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Acoording to the stats you supplied he is completely wrong not a bit. Adult Literacy Rate (Middle East and North Africa) Female 61% Male 80% Youth Literacy 1980 67% 2002 86% Total Literacy 73.50% He said only 20% can read. Your numbers say 73.50% can read. No you are wrong, those statistics are for Middle East and North Africa. take a look at the graph to the right on page two. We are looking at the year 2000. Less than half of women age 15 or older are literate.(How literate we do not know) Men are closer to 65%. Those numbers are indicative of third world status. Hardly numbers to :applause: about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 80 percent of those people cant even read. Sorry was doing the best I could with the way the topic was framed. I figured "those people" meant the Islamic people. I did not get from his post that he was specificly talking about the Iraqi people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tizzod Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 You do realize how funny this argument is don't you? Christians who kill doctors and bomb clinics say God wants them to do it. Give this link a read. Has quotes from the bible they use to justify what they do. http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm Pretty scary stuff. I can't get my mind around how they say murdering innocent life is bad, then they go murder someone. And the vast majority of them are in favor of the death penalty. Which is it? Is life "sacred" (according to you) or not? How do they get around "thou shalt not kill?" Seems like there's not a lot of wiggle room in that commandment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 GoPortisgo, I'll try this again, you seem to be picking and choosing your points that are easier. Please point out which gods are the incorrect ones in the link please http://www.lowchensaustralia.com/names/gods.htm You look back 1000's years and laugh.. there are 1000's of Gods/Goddess'. What do you think is going to happen in 1000 years from now? *Note* How many clinics were bombed and Doctors killed in the name of the US Christianity??? definitly falls in the whacko %'s... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Pretty scary stuff. I can't get my mind around how they say murdering innocent life is bad, then they go murder someone. And the vast majority of them are in favor of the death penalty. Which is it? Is life "sacred" (according to you) or not? How do they get around "thou shalt not kill?" Seems like there's not a lot of wiggle room in that commandment. Ah yes, the death penalty. For me, as a non christian, I believe human beings in general do not hold high enough moral authority to determine whether or not a man deserves to die. In addition, I think we've seen often enough that our justice sytem is by no means full proof and often not even fair. Just look at the statistics on the number of blacks vs whites that are put to death and the race of the victims. Death penalty statistics It seems obvious to me that cultural and racial biases play a part in the death penalty which, to me, makes it completely wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 *Note* How many clinics were bombed and Doctors killed in the name of the US Christianity??? definitly falls in the whacko %'s... Don't forget slavery and the KKK. Correct me if I am wrong, but they weren't secular or athiestic institutions, right? Too high a percentage if you ask me. There are all sorts of crazy stories about Christians in the United States. And Athiests have done some crazy crap too. But you seem to be picking and choosing the one example of religious action that you think is not that big of a deal, because of a low percentage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinDan0557 Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Despite what you may have been taught, morality and ethics has nothing to do with religion or the bible. Right and wrong can be defined by what we owe to ourselves and each other. Philosophically speaking this means never treat another as a means to an end, but only as an end. This is also known as the golden rule. Christians know this as "do on to others as you would have them do to you". I've defined how to tell the difference between right and wrong without bringing up religion or God. Atheists and Agnostics can be just as moral as any believer in a specific religion---and in many cases more moral. Many religions are abusive to women--fundamental/evangelical Christianity and Taliban/Wahabi Islam are just two examples. I believe in God and in the Life of Christ, I do not go to Church, I was Baptised. However, I do not believe in original sin and I will not live my life by some prescribed and mostly arbitrary interpretation of a book that was written several hundred years ago and was translated from multiple sources and multiple languages. We are all born with the knowlege of whats right and wrong. Some of us ignore it or actively choose to do otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Despite what you may have been taught, morality and ethics has nothing to do with religion or the bible.Right and wrong can be defined by what we owe to ourselves and each other. Philosophically speaking this means never treat another as a means to an end, but only as an end. This is also known as the golden rule. Christians know this as "do on to others as you would have them do to you". I've defined how to tell the difference between right and wrong without bringing up religion or God. Atheists and Agnostics can be just as moral as any believer in a specific religion---and in many cases more moral. Many religions are abusive to women--fundamental/evangelical Christianity and Taliban/Wahabi Islam are just two examples. I believe in God and in the Life of Christ, I do not go to Church, I was Baptised. However, I do not believe in original sin and I will not live my life by some prescribed and mostly arbitrary interpretation of a book that was written several hundred years ago and was translated from multiple sources and multiple languages. We are all born with the knowlege of whats right and wrong. Some of us ignore it or actively choose to do otherwise. That's one point I hadn't even gotten to, yet. Translations are hardly 100% accurate and the bible has been translated through a multitude of languages before getting to what we have now. There's really no way of knowing now what the original texts actually said. One more reason not to take it so literally. Remember, it's the message that's important, not the details and specifics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 That's one point I hadn't even gotten to, yet. Translations are hardly 100% accurate and the bible has been translated through a multitude of languages before getting to what we have now. There's really no way of knowing now what the original texts actually said. One more reason not to take it so literally. Remember, it's the message that's important, not the details and specifics. you mean like the message of killing gays and witches? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 you mean like the message of killing gays and witches? LOL, well, not exactly. I think that's one of those things where the religion was improperly used for personal ends. I'm on the same page as you, though, look at my earlier posts and the one's from the Athiest only thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.