Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Spirituality

Spirituality

  1. 09 Mar '05 09:56
    Originally posted by Darfius
    Let's just nip this in the bud before it gets wild.
    Atheism as a code of beliefs has killed far more people.
    I won't pursue this further if you will not. I'll even let people call Catholics Christians if it will end this before it begins.


    I'm interested to discuss this Darfius, I promise to be calm and patient if you would care to enter into a debate on this subject. Do you wish to back up this statement? Perhaps we could follow the style of debate you had with Pawnokeyhole? I await your reply.
  2. Standard member Darfius
    The Apologist
    09 Mar '05 15:37
    Originally posted by Starrman
    Originally posted by Darfius
    [b]Let's just nip this in the bud before it gets wild.
    Atheism as a code of beliefs has killed far more people.
    I won't pursue this further if you will not. I'll even let people call Catholics Christians if it will end this before it begins.


    I'm interested to discuss this Darfius, I promise to be calm and p ...[text shortened]... nt? Perhaps we could follow the style of debate you had with Pawnokeyhole? I await your reply.[/b]
    Sure, I'm game. I'll let you begin so I'll know what exactly you have problems with.
  3. 09 Mar '05 16:18
    Originally posted by Darfius
    Sure, I'm game. I'll let you begin so I'll know what exactly you have problems with.
    Cool, I look forward to it, but I'm not able to start today, too busy, hang in there.
  4. Standard member Mayharm
    the Mad
    09 Mar '05 16:18
    Originally posted by Darfius
    Nope. I think I know what it is I'm refering to, since I refered to it.

    It's atheism.

    And I'm not angry at all...whatever do you mean?
    Seeing as starrman started this new thread, I'll respond here (if that's ok?)

    You're going to have to give examples. My guesses were just that, guesses. Once you've given an example I can probably tell you what it is you should really be taking issue with or why it doesn't compare with religion.

    Atheism is guilty of a fair few nasty things, but killing people is not high up on that list.

    As for anger, yes you are. It takes anger to blind someone so thoroughly about something so obviously untrue. Why do you hate atheism so much?

    MÅ¥HÅRM
  5. Standard member Darfius
    The Apologist
    09 Mar '05 16:35
    Originally posted by Mayharm
    Seeing as starrman started this new thread, I'll respond here (if that's ok?)

    You're going to have to give examples. My guesses were just that, guesses. Once you've given an example I can probably tell you what it is you should really be taking issue with or why it doesn't compare with religion.

    Atheism is guilty of a fair few nasty things, but ki ...[text shortened]... e so thoroughly about something so obviously untrue. Why do you hate atheism so much?

    MÅ¥HÅRM
    Who exactly am I debating? Perhaps you should begin a discussion thread for this debate. But I will not debate the same topic with two people.
  6. 09 Mar '05 16:40
    Okay on second thoughts, I have a few minutes to start us off.

    Okay, you said originally that Atheism as a code of beliefs, kills more people than religion. To start with I think I should provide a decent definition of Atheism, so I had a hunt around for one that I think is accurate and it is this:

    Atheism is the lack of a belief in god/gods, a position held by a person that 'lacks belief' in god(s) and/or denies that god(s) exist for a number of reasons.

    Now I believe some clarification of that in terms of my own personal definition is in order, so I would go as far as to say that: I deny the existence of God. As an atheist, I accept only the material and physical world or what can be proven by reason. Therefore, lacking any form of empirical proof for their existence, I must assume that there is no such thing as either a supernatural entity, god(s), magic etc.

    So I guess we need to agree that this makes sense to you, if you have any questions on this definition alone, let me know and I will elaborate further.

    I shall await your response to this before continuing.
  7. Standard member Darfius
    The Apologist
    09 Mar '05 16:44
    Originally posted by Starrman
    Okay on second thoughts, I have a few minutes to start us off.

    Okay, you said originally that Atheism as a code of beliefs, kills more people than religion. To start with I think I should provide a decent definition of Atheism, so I had a hunt around for one that I think is accurate and it is this:

    Atheism is the lack of a belief in god/gods, a posit ...[text shortened]... me know and I will elaborate further.

    I shall await your response to this before continuing.
    I would just like to expound on that so we're both clear...believing there is no God means one is not answerable to anyone, correct?
  8. 09 Mar '05 17:13
    Originally posted by Darfius
    I would just like to expound on that so we're both clear...believing there is no God means one is not answerable to anyone, correct?
    Well, in that because I deny the existence of god, I am not answerable to such an entity, yes. However I think it is important to stress that this does not mean I do not answer to my own conscience, or the moral and social standards that have been instilled in me by others or those I have developed through experience.
  9. Standard member Darfius
    The Apologist
    09 Mar '05 17:15
    Originally posted by Starrman
    Well, in that because I deny the existence of god, I am not answerable to such an entity, yes. However I think it is important to stress that this does not mean I do not answer to my own conscience, or the moral and social standards that have been instilled in me by others or those I have developed through experience.
    If there is no God, then your conscience is an illusion. Morality and social standards are combinations of illusions. They do not restrain you, you choose to be restrained. And it is atheism that allows this choice to not be restrained, correct?
  10. Standard member Nemesio
    Ursulakantor
    09 Mar '05 18:27
    Originally posted by Darfius
    If there is no God, then your conscience is an illusion. Morality and social standards are combinations of illusions. They do not restrain you, you choose to be restrained. And it is atheism that allows this choice to not be restrained, correct?
    Why do you believe that they are illusions, Darfius? Why, in the absence of
    a Divine Entity, must moral notions be illusory (e.g., that 'charity' is good and
    'greed' is bad)?

    Nemesio
  11. Standard member Darfius
    The Apologist
    09 Mar '05 18:45
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    Why do you believe that they are illusions, Darfius? Why, in the absence of
    a Divine Entity, must moral notions be illusory (e.g., that 'charity' is good and
    'greed' is bad)?

    Nemesio
    Are you proposing that things such as good and bad have always existed? If so, why have the qualities only chosen to manifest themselves in our random alignment of molecules?
  12. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    09 Mar '05 19:03
    Originally posted by Darfius
    Are you proposing that things such as good and bad have always existed? If so, why have the qualities only chosen to manifest themselves in our random alignment of molecules?
    Good and bad (evil) are dependant upon the point of view of the one conceiving the terms. Because of the way humans are, we view good and evil in a specific way. If our physical or physiological makeup were different than what they are, then our conception of good and evil would also be different. If plants were capable of pondering the question then I'm sure their conception of what constitutes good and evil would be quite different than ours. Good and evil are completely relative terms. If there is no one around capable of thinking about good and evil, then there is no good or evil. The terms do not come into existence until there is someone capable of conceptualizing them.
  13. Standard member Darfius
    The Apologist
    09 Mar '05 19:16
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Good and bad (evil) are dependant upon the point of view of the one conceiving the terms. Because of the way humans are, we view good and evil in a specific way. If our physical or physiological makeup were different than what they are, then our conception of good and evil would also be different. If plants were capable of pondering the question then I'm s ...[text shortened]... l. The terms do not come into existence until there is someone capable of conceptualizing them.
    Right. They are illusions.
  14. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    09 Mar '05 19:28
    Originally posted by Darfius
    Right. They are illusions.
    They are conventions that mankind has agreed upon to help regulate our behavior in useful ways. As such, they are subject to change depending upon the changing circumstances that mankind finds himself in. Our conception of good and evil is no more illusory than any other abstract conception, such as beauty.
  15. Standard member Darfius
    The Apologist
    09 Mar '05 19:36
    Originally posted by rwingett
    They are conventions that mankind has agreed upon to help regulate our behavior in useful ways. As such, they are subject to change depending upon the changing circumstances that mankind finds himself in. Our conception of good and evil is no more illusory than any other abstract conception, such as beauty.
    Right, they are illusions. I appreciate that you're trying to dress them up, but that's what they are. There's no conequence to calling something ugly or by being evil that isn't caused by man, if you do not believe in God.