Discussion between a Christians and an athiest

[Grace Seeker]

I came across this interesting debate, and thought that maybe a few more might like to join it, and we could also include people of other faiths in the mix.

Is Religion 'Built Upon Lies'?
Best-selling atheist Sam Harris and pro-religion blogger Andrew Sullivan debate God, faith, and fundamentalism.

I have one request of all the various theists, that our arguments be a little more thought out than simply, "Because it says right here in my Holy Book...." Remember atheists aren't likely to accept the veracity of anyone's Holy Scriptures, so an appeal to them won't carry any weight."

And of those who do not believe in God, if you initiate a reference to anyone's Holy Book that you do so respectfully and be willing to accept refutations to your point from them as well as make them yourself.

[AvarAllahNoor]

Are we to have the debate here, or do we have to join up to the site you linked to?

[wilberhum]

I started the read but it got long and boring. The beginning I found some statements that I am fully in agreement with.
we would both rank the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad pretty high on our list of humanity's worst ideas.

I think we disagree is on the nature of faith itself. I think that faith is, in principle, in conflict with reason (and, therefore, that religion is necessarily in conflict with science),

We agree that Islamic fundamentalism is by far the gravest threat in this respect (because of its confort with violence); and that the core feature of what occurred on 9/11 was not cultural, political, or economic - but religious.

We agree that a large part of the murder and mayhem in today's Iraq is also rooted in religious difference, specifically the ancient rift between Sunni and Shia.

The reason I find fundamentalism so troubling - whether it is Christian, Jewish or Muslim - is not just its willingness to use violence (in the Islamist manifestation). It is its inability to integrate doubt into faith, its resistance to human reason, its tendency to pride and exclusion, and its inability to accept mystery as the core reality of any religious life.

The statement I found most troubling was:
Science cannot disprove true faith; because true faith rests on the truth; and science cannot be in ultimate conflict with the truth.
I do not, in other words, see reason as somehow in conflict with faith - since both are reconciled by a Truth that may yet be beyond our understanding.Sam Harris seams to think he has an inside track to “The Truth”. So what is “His Truth”?
Is it ”Islamic Truth”, “Christian Truth”, “Jewish Truth”, or some “Other Truth”?
I suggest that “His Truth” is nothing more than his bigoted stance on his belief.

Since he does not define in discussable forms what he believes is the truth, the whole thing becomes pointless.

[Grace Seeker]

Are we to have the debate here, or do we have to join up to the site you linked to?

Howabout, discuss here? I find that debates often turn into arguments which I find contribute little to better understanding, and convince no one of anything.

I don't think you have to join the site I linked to in order to read the discussion taking place there.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[AvarAllahNoor]

oooooooh okies who wanna start eh....?

[Malaikah]

Sounds like Islam-bashing from someone who probably hasn't got a clue what Islam is about. ^o)

[cihad]

yeah and i thought it was sposed to be about christianity and atheism

[Keltoi]

It goes back to that old conflict between faith and reason. Both Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan make good points in the discussion. Personally I'm not against introducing the element of doubt into religious faith. There will always be things we don't understand, and I'm not arrogant enough to assume I know everything that needs to be known because I read the Bible.

The side topic of religious fundamentalism was interesting, and I agree that Christianity has been somewhat sidetracked into the political realm of evolution, abortion, homosexuality, etc. I believe the Christian faith would be better served to separate itself from the politics and focus on the human soul. I too find abortion morally repugnant, but there is so much more to the Word of Christ than preventing abortion.

[Grace Seeker]

The statement I found most troubling was:
Science cannot disprove true faith; because true faith rests on the truth; and science cannot be in ultimate conflict with the truth.
I do not, in other words, see reason as somehow in conflict with faith - since both are reconciled by a Truth that may yet be beyond our understanding.Sam Harris seams to think he has an inside track to “The Truth”. So what is “His Truth”?
Is it ”Islamic Truth”, “Christian Truth”, “Jewish Truth”, or some “Other Truth”?
I suggest that “His Truth” is nothing more than his bigoted stance on his belief.

Since he does not define in discussable forms what he believes is the truth, the whole thing becomes pointless.

So, Wilberhum, in order to keep this from being pointless, what do you define as truth?

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you wilberhum;

I think we disagree is on the nature of faith itself. I think that faith is, in principle, in conflict with reason

if and only if God exists then faith is justified.

and, therefore, that religion is necessarily in conflict with science

,
If and only if God exists then science is in conflict with truth?

Just minor points to ponder.

In the spirit of searching

Eric

[Pygoscelis]

Whaaaaat?

We resident atheists aren't good enough for you? :cry:

imsad





(just teasin) :D

[syilla]

yeah and i thought it was sposed to be about christianity and atheism

yeah...i thought of that too...:rant:

i went into this thread thinking that there will be interesting debate between the christians and atheist. :rolleyes:

but i was wrong :eek:

[Umar001]

From my humble understanding both speakers are some what confused or confusing on purpose.

I read partially the opening statements, I find for example:

I think, for instance, that we would both rank the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad pretty high on our list of humanity's worst ideas.

First, even if we think of Jihad as being a person dying for what they believe to be true and martyrdom being the same then this concept is inbred in the whole of mankind. But I do wonder whether the terminology being thrown about here has any solid base of knowledge for being used.

Also the definition of faith used does not cover all angles, for example just because one MIGHT not have evidence for something they place faith on is no way indicative of why they place faith on such a matter, I might say I have faith the bus will arrive at the bus stop at such and such a time, but I have no evidence as such but rather put faith in my belief because of other research I might have done which concludes me to believe my source was right and will be right on this matter.

We agree that Islamic fundamentalism is by far the gravest threat in this respect (because of its confort with violence); and that the core feature of what occurred on 9/11 was not cultural, political, or economic - but religious. We agree that a large part of the murder and mayhem in today's Iraq is also rooted in religious difference, specifically the ancient rift between Sunni and Shia.

The second speaker then claims something which is astonishing in my view, he claims that the Sunni Shia battles are not a result of political differences but rather religious, rather their differences come from partial political stances, which then lead to seperation. Wars we have seen over the years are less than religious, for if they were religiously motivated then we would not find them contradicting the morals and bases of that religion by which it is motivated by.


Am guessing I have misunderstood things, lol.

[Grace Seeker]

From my humble understanding both speakers are some what confused or confusing on purpose.

I read partially the opening statements, I find for example:

I think, for instance, that we would both rank the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad pretty high on our list of humanity's worst ideas.

I can see why you would take offense at those statements. I noticed them as well, but didn't dwell on them, looking instead to other points. BeliefNet is a place where you can post your disagreements, and if I was in your shoes, I think I would. Perhaps I still will myself even, as they do get the discussion off center with such a start.



Pygoscelis, I was actually hoping to get you engaged, in a directed discussion, not to cast you aside by this post.

[wilberhum]

So, Wilberhum, in order to keep this from being pointless, what do you define as truth?

You can't define any anything about god as "The Truth". One can not ever prove god exist let alone what is "TheTruth" about what he wants or expects. There is only faith and belief.

[Pygoscelis]

if and only if God exists then faith is justified.

It may be correct, but that is by chance. It is still in conflict with reason. You may have faith that a 747 will drop out of the sky and land on Niagara Falls, with no actual reason to believe this or logic to derive it, just blind faith that it will happen. If a 747 then actually DOES drop onto the falls, that doesn't make your faith justified. It just makes it freakishly coincidental.

If and only if God exists then science is in conflict with truth?

If God exists then Science is still in conflict with Religion. It changes nothing.

When religion makes claims that science proves untrue. This is conflict, whether an actual God exists or not. Religion sometimes adjusts to the conflict to incorporate the new information and other times remains staunch in the face of it. But it is always there to slow science down. As soon as something is enshrined in scripture or announced as cannon or dogma, that makes it incredibly difficult to dislodge when it is found to be untrue.

[Pygoscelis]

I might say I have faith the bus will arrive at the bus stop at such and such a time, but I have no evidence as such but rather put faith in my belief because of other research I might have done which concludes me to believe my source was right and will be right on this matter.

I somewhat disagree here.

You do have some evidence regarding the bus.

First, you may have taken that bus before, and it showed up at that time.

Second, if you have never taken that bus before, you have no doubt used the guide before or one like it and it has proven to be true. You have direct experience with bus schedules and they have shown you tha the bus usually arrives at the time listed. You have heard from dozens of other people that they have taken busses and that busses run according to schedules too - and that the busses followed those schedules (nobody has ever come back post-death to confirm heavan or hell exist). Moreover, the schedule was issued by people that have steered you right in the past (the city) so you have trust in them based on experience (evidence).

And even then, I doubt that you'd have the kind of faith that people have in Gods. You'd doubt the schedule if you saw no evidence of a bus stop where it says there is one. You'd doubt the schedule if you have never seen a bus or if mass transportation didn't exist as far as you knew. You'd doubt the schedule if you saw nobody else there waiting for the bus and then doubly doubt it when the bus didn't arrive on time. You'd certainly doubt the schedule if it described the bus as a fantastic magical bus that did things you had no evidence were even possible.

Moreover, the faith you do have in the bus being there on time really isn't that important. If it was a matter of life and death or eternal etc, you'd likely not be taking a bus at all. You'd drive yourself or take a cab, and you'd make sure you were early just in case something went wrong (again, lack of faith).

The analogy just doesn't fit.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

The 747 dropping out the sky onto the Niagara Falls is pure speculation about a possible future event that may or may not happen.

The creation of the universe has already happened; the only thing is we have no proof of how it came to be. But one of the following statements has to be based on truth and the other fiction.

There a God who was fully responsible for the creation of the universe?

Or is there no God and the universe came into existence through natural means?

Whatever we choose to believe cannot alter something that has already happened.

If and only if God exists then he has to be the most important part of our lives because our future depends on him. That is were faith comes in I just trust that God exists fully and he is as real as the tree in my Garden, but I have no proof that I can show you.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[zaki.aumeerudy]

I started the read but it got long and boring. The beginning I found some statements that I am fully in agreement with.
we would both rank the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad pretty high on our list of humanity's worst ideas.

I think we disagree is on the nature of faith itself. I think that faith is, in principle, in conflict with reason (and, therefore, that religion is necessarily in conflict with science),

We agree that Islamic fundamentalism is by far the gravest threat in this respect (because of its confort with violence); and that the core feature of what occurred on 9/11 was not cultural, political, or economic - but religious.

We agree that a large part of the murder and mayhem in today's Iraq is also rooted in religious difference, specifically the ancient rift between Sunni and Shia.

The reason I find fundamentalism so troubling - whether it is Christian, Jewish or Muslim - is not just its willingness to use violence (in the Islamist manifestation). It is its inability to integrate doubt into faith, its resistance to human reason, its tendency to pride and exclusion, and its inability to accept mystery as the core reality of any religious life.

The statement I found most troubling was:
Science cannot disprove true faith; because true faith rests on the truth; and science cannot be in ultimate conflict with the truth.
I do not, in other words, see reason as somehow in conflict with faith - since both are reconciled by a Truth that may yet be beyond our understanding.Sam Harris seams to think he has an inside track to “The Truth”. So what is “His Truth”?
Is it ”Islamic Truth”, “Christian Truth”, “Jewish Truth”, or some “Other Truth”?
I suggest that “His Truth” is nothing more than his bigoted stance on his belief.

Since he does not define in discussable forms what he believes is the truth, the whole thing becomes pointless.

noone can prove that what happened on september 11 is due islamic threat except the greatest harmer to human civilisation `AMERICA`.They are still proving their weapons of massive destruction in Iraq
KNOW THAT MORE 700,000 PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KILLED UP TO NOW

[Grace Seeker]

You can't define any anything about god as "The Truth". One can not ever prove god exist let alone what is "TheTruth" about what he wants or expects. There is only faith and belief.

You didn't even attempt to answer my question. I didn't ask anything with respect to God at all. I simply asked you, "what do you define as truth?".


Perhaps you don't believe that even the concept of truth exists (irrespective of the presence or absence of any belief system), is so then just say so. But if you do believe in some abstract concept called "truth", then are you able to define it for us, please?

[Grace Seeker]

Off topic, but since you posted:

noone can prove that what happened on september 11 is due islamic threat except the greatest harmer to human civilisation `AMERICA`.

Except that Osama bin Laden has been willing to take credit for the event. BIN LADEN ADMITS 9/11 RESPONSIBILITY If you still have doubts read it in binLaden's own words: transcript of video in Arabic. For those who read English better than Arabic here is a transcript of the video in English.

Speaking to the Americans binLaden threatens: "We shall lay waste to yours [nation]". He says that the idea came to his mind after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982: "As I looked at those demolised towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted.... So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to these great wrongs."

I am not going to debate whether binLaden is justified in his thinking or not. I am not going to debate whether the USA and its policies brought on this type of thinking and reaction as a natural responce. I am not going to debate whether there are other contributing factors or mitigating circumstances. What needs to be made clear is that binLaden has admitted that he conceived of, planned, orchestrated, and celebrates the events of 9/11, and is unrepentant of them. There is NOT some USA government conspiracy. There is NOT some accident. There is one and only one direct cause, the actions of a man and his organization desiring to inflict terror on innocent civilians as a form a retribution and punishment for a government he views as culpable in similar atrocities elsewhere.

Where does it say in the Qu'ran to attack the innocent as a way to punish the guilty?


If Bin Laden is telling the truth, then he did it for the reasons that he has given -- his particular set of beliefs based in his own understanding (or misunderstanding as the case may be) of Islam. If he planned and organized it as he claims he did, then he is a terrorist and murderer such as those that Islam says should be put to death.

If Bin Laden didn't have any connection with it, then he is seeking to take credit for someone else's work and is a liar.

KNOW THAT MORE 700,000 PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KILLED UP TO NOW

This is a sad reality, and the USA needs to be held accountable for perpetuating this terrible human tragedy. If it cannot solve the problem, then its continued presence is just an excerbation of the problem and it should just get out.

But don't be confused into thinking that if the US leave Iraq that the problem is going to leave with them. Most of the deaths in Iraq are not the result of the USA making war on Iraq, but of Iraqi against Iraqi violence with the help of other outside agitators not affiliated with the USA.

Of course, none of this post, neither the original statement, nor my response has anything to do with the topic of this thread. Sorry, but I just felt a strong desire to reply.

[wilberhum]

You didn't even attempt to answer my question. I didn't ask anything with respect to God at all. I simply asked you, "what do you define as truth?".


Perhaps you don't believe that even the concept of truth exists (irrespective of the presence or absence of any belief system), is so then just say so. But if you do believe in some abstract concept called "truth", then are you able to define it for us, please?

Truth: something factual: the thing that corresponds to fact or reality.

Don’t you ever use the dictionary? :uuh:
It is a really neat invention and quite helpful some times.

The existence of god is not provable therefore we don’t know that god is a reality, and so there can be no determination that any statement about god is “The Truth”.

[Grace Seeker]

Truth: something factual: the thing that corresponds to fact or reality.

Don’t you ever use the dictionary? :uuh:
It is a really neat invention and quite helpful some times.

The existence of god is not provable therefore we don’t know that god is a reality, and so there can be no determination that any statement about god is “The Truth”.

Yes, I do use the dictionary. Do you use logic? The absence of the ability to prove or demostrate something as existing does not negate its existence. People supposed that Pluto existed before they were able to prove it. And Pluto existed even before it was put forth as a proposition of belief.

So the statement: "There is a God" is indeed made as a belief statement that cannot be proven. But the inability to prove it does not in itself make it untrue. Thus a statement "There is a God." may or may not be the truth. No one is in a position to prove or disprove it one way or another. Hence it is generally accepted as a statement of belief, but it may (in addition) also be a statement of truth.


You complained that the one writer did not "define in discussable forms what he believes is the truth" and that thus "the whole thing becomes pointless." To which I invited you to define "in discussable forms" what you believe to be the truth, so that our discussion might be more on point. Is this your best effort in that regard?

[Pygoscelis]

The creation of the universe has already happened;

That is NOT as certain as you assume. It is possible that the Universe was not created and has always existed.

But one of the following statements has to be based on truth and the other fiction.

There a God who was fully responsible for the creation of the universe?

Or is there no God and the universe came into existence through natural means?

Both are based on zero evidence. The logical conclusion from what we actually know is the third option, that "we simply don't know". But the more specific you are about the first option, the more characteristics you define about this creative force (even calling it God is a specification) the more likely you are to be wrong.

If and only if God exists then he has to be the most important part of our lives because our future depends on him.

Only if you add the ideas of post-mortem reward and punishment. Neither of which are in any way suggested even if there is a creation force to the universe.

Even if you do add these assumptions you then fall into the problem of which God to worship and the quandry that worshiping one may be more offensive to that God than worhiping none and cause you more harm then good. It is just as likely as not given what we know (which is nothing).

[Pygoscelis]

Except that Osama bin Laden has been willing to take credit for the event.

I think it fits Bin Ladens political aims to take credit for the event whether he did it or not. So I'm not completely convinced that he did.

[wilberhum]

You complained that the one writer did not "define in discussable forms what he believes is the truth" and that thus "the whole thing becomes pointless." To which I invited you to define "in discussable forms" what you believe to be the truth, so that our discussion might be more on point. Is this your best effort in that regard?

Not a complaint, just stating a fact.
What I believe is "The Truth"? The Truth of the matter is the truth is unknowen. Ant that's "The Truth". I see nothing to debate. I cant debate what I concider undefinable.

[zaki.aumeerudy]

Off topic, but since you posted:
Except that Osama bin Laden has been willing to take credit for the event. BIN LADEN ADMITS 9/11 RESPONSIBILITY If you still have doubts read it in binLaden's own words: transcript of video in Arabic. For those who read English better than Arabic here is a transcript of the video in English.

Speaking to the Americans binLaden threatens: "We shall lay waste to yours [nation]". He says that the idea came to his mind after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982: "As I looked at those demolised towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted.... So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to these great wrongs."

I am not going to debate whether binLaden is justified in his thinking or not. I am not going to debate whether the USA and its policies brought on this type of thinking and reaction as a natural responce. I am not going to debate whether there are other contributing factors or mitigating circumstances. What needs to be made clear is that binLaden has admitted that he conceived of, planned, orchestrated, and celebrates the events of 9/11, and is unrepentant of them. There is NOT some USA government conspiracy. There is NOT some accident. There is one and only one direct cause, the actions of a man and his organization desiring to inflict terror on innocent civilians as a form a retribution and punishment for a government he views as culpable in similar atrocities elsewhere.

Where does it say in the Qu'ran to attack the innocent as a way to punish the guilty?


If Bin Laden is telling the truth, then he did it for the reasons that he has given -- his particular set of beliefs based in his own understanding (or misunderstanding as the case may be) of Islam. If he planned and organized it as he claims he did, then he is a terrorist and murderer such as those that Islam says should be put to death.

If Bin Laden didn't have any connection with it, then he is seeking to take credit for someone else's work and is a liar.





This is a sad reality, and the USA needs to be held accountable for perpetuating this terrible human tragedy. If it cannot solve the problem, then its continued presence is just an excerbation of the problem and it should just get out.

But don't be confused into thinking that if the US leave Iraq that the problem is going to leave with them. Most of the deaths in Iraq are not the result of the USA making war on Iraq, but of Iraqi against Iraqi violence with the help of other outside agitators not affiliated with the USA.

Of course, none of this post, neither the original statement, nor my response has anything to do with the topic of this thread. Sorry, but I just felt a strong desire to reply.

who are theses people are credible,the mass media belongs to the mafia of all sorts generally . Who started the problem in Iraq ,they started the problem and U say now it is not their problem
ok it is not their problem so get out of iraq bloody americans thirsty of blood

[Grace Seeker]

who are theses people are credible,the mass media belongs to the mafia of all sorts generally . Who started the problem in Iraq ,they started the problem and U say now it is not their problem
ok it is not their problem so get out of iraq bloody americans thirsty of blood

With respect, I have yet to be able to understand your point in a single one of your posts. I suspect that our minds just think differently.

However, the report that I gave a link to with BinLaden admitting he was behind 9/11 was a video tape provided by Bin Laden to Al-Jazera. I think that is pretty credible.

Yes, the USA started the problem in Iraq. Who said that it wasn't the USA's problem now. As former Secretary of State Colin Powell warned President Bush, you break it you better be able to fix it. The big problem right now is that the USA can't fix it. But, some people seem to think the the only problem is that the USA is there. By that theory, if the USA left today, things would be immediately better in Iraq tomorrow. I don't believe that to be true.

If there is civil war in Iraq, it is NOT because the USA is there. It is because Sunnis and Shias want to kill each other. Each person who plants a bomb or pulls a trigger is part of the problem. You can't kill someone and then blame it on the USA for making you do it. The USA is trying to stop this sort of violence, not cause it.

You call americans blood thirsty. What is your definition of blood thirsty? I call people blood thirsty who desire to spill other people's blood. At the present time, who is doing most of the killing in Iraq? Those are who you need to label blood thirsty.

[zaki.aumeerudy]

With respect, I have yet to be able to understand your point in a single one of your posts. I suspect that our minds just think differently.

However, the report that I gave a link to with BinLaden admitting he was behind 9/11 was a video tape provided by Bin Laden to Al-Jazera. I think that is pretty credible.

Yes, the USA started the problem in Iraq. Who said that it wasn't the USA's problem now. As former Secretary of State Colin Powell warned President Bush, you break it you better be able to fix it. The big problem right now is that the USA can't fix it. But, some people seem to think the the only problem is that the USA is there. By that theory, if the USA left today, things would be immediately better in Iraq tomorrow. I don't believe that to be true.

If there is civil war in Iraq, it is NOT because the USA is there. It is because Sunnis and Shias want to kill each other. Each person who plants a bomb or pulls a trigger is part of the problem. You can't kill someone and then blame it on the USA for making you do it. The USA is trying to stop this sort of violence, not cause it.

You call americans blood thirsty. What is your definition of blood thirsty? I call people blood thirsty who desire to spill other people's blood. At the present time, who is doing most of the killing in Iraq? Those are who you need to label blood thirsty.

hwy do we think differently ??

Have a look at the science of hadith and Quran and how it was preserved ?
To accept a hadith from someone needed a great investigation of the narrator itself .there were so many forgery of hadith that god guided the imams of these times or even today of how to be able to know the truth
the most difficult subject to be learnt in islaam is science of hadith
this means that we do not accept things to be true so easily but with real reference ,what is al jazeerah , who is the boss there ,is he knowledgeable by muslims .is he accepted a a firm and true source by ulamas ,sorry i have not found such true info to confirm their videso and sayings
i would also say that i have experience in electric.electronic,telecommunication,information technology since thurteen years and thsi make me more cautious to accept any info without checking

[Grace Seeker]

hwy do we think differently ??

Have a look at the science of hadith and Quran and how it was preserved ?
To accept a hadith from someone needed a great investigation of the narrator itself .there were so many forgery of hadith that god guided the imams of these times or even today of how to be able to know the truth
the most difficult subject to be learnt in islaam is science of hadith
this means that we do not accept things to be true so easily but with real reference ,what is al jazeerah , who is the boss there ,is he knowledgeable by muslims .is he accepted a a firm and true source by ulamas ,sorry i have not found such true info to confirm their videso and sayings
i would also say that i have experience in electric.electronic,telecommunication,information technology since thurteen years and thsi make me more cautious to accept any info without checking

Hey, we are doing better. I believe I follow your line of reasoning in this case.

Now, trying to get it back on topic. Do you suppose that this is the source of atheism for many people? They are too cautious to accept the evidence that is presented to them, and so they reject God simply because they refuse to accept his evidences as being legitimate?

[zaki.aumeerudy]

Hey, we are doing better. I believe I follow your line of reasoning in this case.

Now, trying to get it back on topic. Do you suppose that this is the source of atheism for many people? They are too cautious to accept the evidence that is presented to them, and so they reject God simply because they refuse to accept his evidences as being legitimate?

the devil is always here to destroy religion otherwise you would not have seen a religion split into seventy sects after 1000 years or less
many people think that what i made with my hand is what i get and they do not accept that things are predestined and in fact that is the first hadith commentated in swahih muslim the second most authentic book after bukhari hadith
not knowing the power of god is a thing that people does not even think about
e.g boris yeltsin was a mason and then became the president of sovite union
today the objective is to get very good job ,earn a lot of money ,may having a three cars ,one villa ,two houses etc
the objective for the life after death has mostly disappeared .the question

i follow islaam ,u follow chrstianity ,the other foloow hinduism as a guide
what does the atheist follow ,how does he distinguish between right and wrong . to what extent is he prepared to go to achieve hsi objective ,i think atheism a act of arrogance and pride and a new religion without guide with thinking to unlimited extent

[wilberhum]

,how does he (Atheist) distinguish between right and wrong .

For the most part, the same as you. What his family taught him. What society taught him.
What his own reasoning tells him.
A piece of wisdom I have seen:

Religion does not make a good person do good things.
Religion does not stop bad people from doing bad things.
But it does take religion to get good people to do bad things.

[Keltoi]

For the most part, the same as you. What his family taught him. What society taught him.
What his own reasoning tells him.
A piece of wisdom I have seen:

Religion does not make a good person do good things.
Religion does not stop bad people from doing bad things.
But it does take religion to get good people to do bad things.

I don't agree with this at all. It is a matter of leadership. There were plenty of good people in Germany that were convinced into doing bad things by the leadership, namely Adolph Hitler. Religion doesn't make good people do bad things, it is leadership. I realize that in certain instances it is a religious leader, but the end result is the same. Bad leaders can make bad people.

[wilberhum]

I don't agree with this at all. It is a matter of leadership. There were plenty of good people in Germany that were convinced into doing bad things by the leadership, namely Adolph Hitler. Religion doesn't make good people do bad things, it is leadership. I realize that in certain instances it is a religious leader, but the end result is the same. Bad leaders can make bad people.

OK you win. :thumbs_do

But religion can get good people to do bad things. :D

[duskiness]

But religion can get good people to do bad things. :D

and bad people do good. as often nothing is simple in this world :D

[Pygoscelis]

Reminds me of that oft quoted remard of Steven Weienberg that "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things—that takes religion."

[wilberhum]

Reminds me of that oft quoted remard of Steven Weienberg that "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things—that takes religion."

Thanks, I misquoted it.

[Keltoi]

Reminds me of that oft quoted remard of Steven Weienberg that "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things—that takes religion."

Which of course is no more true than the phrase, "There are no athiests in foxholes."

[Pygoscelis]

Well lets look at both.

There are atheists in foxhoes, so that just isn't true. I've met atheist soldiers who've actually been in foxholes literally.

I believe the other is at least partly true. Religion can and often does make good people do bad things. But the quote is not completely true because there are other things that can make good people do bad things too.

[Grace Seeker]

Well lets look at both.

There are atheists in foxhoes, so that just isn't true. I've met atheist soldiers who've actually been in foxholes literally.

I believe the other is at least partly true. Religion can and often does make good people do bad things. But the quote is not completely true because there are other things that can make good people do bad things too.

So, the quote is untrue, because it doesn't take religion to get good people to do bad things. As you just confessed, there are other things that can get good people to do bad things.

[Pygoscelis]

Yes, fanatic religion is but one of many mental disorders.

[Grace Seeker]

Yes, fanatic religion is but one of many mental disorders.

Thank-you for recognizing that your previous statements about religion as implied by the cited quote are untrue.

And while I will grant that there are some people who are fanatical about religion in very unhealthy ways, I don't believe that it is listed in the DSM handbook as a mental disorder.

[Pygoscelis]

Actually it is. Look again. It qualifies under a number of definitions for disorders in there.

[Grace Seeker]

Actually it is. Look again. It qualifies under a number of definitions for disorders in there.

Actually, I did look first before I posted. And it might be a sympton that someone has who is diagnosed with another disorder possesses--I said there are some people who are fanatical about religion in very unhealthy ways-- but I did not see it listed as a disorder itself. If I missed it and it is I would be interested in reading about it, I've got one or two people in my church I would like to get some help for.

Of course, being a fanatic about religion just means that one is a fan (fanatic and fan being two different derivations of the same word). But then, truly I am not a fan of religion. I even cringe when I hear people talk about being religious. Religious fanaticism, that which causes people to react to events in the world without thinking because on some built in religious way of responding is not what I mean by either Christianity or any sort of faith. Though certainly Christianity has its fair share of religious fanatics. In my humble opinion, such persons do more harm than good to their respective faiths. Zeal is one thing; fanaticism is quite another. What I wish for is for people to develop faith, to learn to trust in God and to connect with him. I do believe there is something bigger than us in this world, and I believe that connecting with it is important to reach wholeness in life, that without making that connection we can never be all we were created to be.

Yep, I said created. The only other way I can think of to have expressed the same concept would be to say that we can never be all we were accidented to be. And I don't think life is an accident. That last is a faith statement, but it is not a religious statement. Can you tell the difference?