Philosophy Discussion Forums

Recoil,

Recoil wrote: Actually studies show that rape and murder are much higher in religious countries as opposed to atheistic countries.

To me, promoting blind faith and worshiping a god that threatens to burn you eternally if you don't believe isn't exactly "peaceful teachings".

What do you mean by "religious countries?" Furthermore, because there is a correlation between variables does that have to indicate a cause and effect relationship? There could be any number of reasons for the higher rate of rape and murder in "religious countries."

The threat of hell is supposed to ward-off people from doing evil. It is no different (in my opinion) than the secular threat of life imprisonment or the death sentence for those who commit heinous crimes. The modern secular world is no less barbaric; than the bible.

Fanman wrote: What do you mean by "religious countries?" Furthermore, because there is a correlation between variables does that have to indicate a cause and effect relationship? There could be any number of reasons for the higher rate of rape and murder in "religious countries."

What I mean is as the percentage of religious beliefs raise in a country, statistics show the worse they score on societal health problems.

Fanman wrote: The threat of hell is supposed to ward-off people from doing evil. It is no different (in my opinion) than the secular threat of life imprisonment or the death sentence for those who commit heinous crimes. The modern secular world is no less barbaric; than the bible.

What about someone who commits mass murder then is saved? They wouldn't be punished at all. Whereas I, have never raped or murdered someone, and by your theology I'm going to hell simply because I don't believe in a god. It's a loophole, and every part about it is flawed. If James Holmes prays for forgiveness (again, according to your theology) he will go to heaven! The thing is, your religion doesn't reward deeds, it simply rewards one thing: blind faith in a mythical creature. Why would he punish those who use their brain logically? Why would he punish atheists simply for being open minded and considering all points of view?

Recoil wrote:. Why would he punish those who use their brain logically? Why would he punish atheists simply for being open minded and considering all points of view?

Most of the atheists posting in this thread don’t “use their brains logically”. Logic has been abandoned, open-mindedness condemned, support for free speech has been labeled “abusive” and “illogical”, and as for considering all points of view – how are children to do that if they never learn about them?

Ecurb wrote:
Most of the atheists posting in this thread don’t “use their brains logically”. Logic has been abandoned, open-mindedness condemned, support for free speech has been labeled “abusive” and “illogical”, and as for considering all points of view – how are children to do that if they never learn about them?

When children are raised to believe a religion is true, there is never a choice in the matter. It is always "God created us". There is never rational discussion between the child and parent as to why it may or may not be real. I was raised as a Christian, and I never once questioned my belief. When I started to, I was informed that "the devil was getting in my mind". Seems like a stubborn belief that resists confrontation to me, which is the very definition of delusional. I have never seen a child raised to believe a god exists where the parents say "if you don't believe in god, let's talk it over and I'll defend my point". Either questioning the belief is never mentioned at all, or they tell them specifically NOT to question it. To me, that's child abuse, it's polluting a child's ability to think for themselves.

That's nonsense, Recoil. I have no idea what "polluting a child's mind to think for themselves" means, nor could any other English speaker.

recoil meant it pollutes a child's mind when they don't think for themselves, hopefully that was a typo recoil.

But on the other hand, atheist fall in that category also, the category of not having a open mind of the possibilities that reality holds. due to 21st century discovery's, from physics particles now we know particles come and go in and out of existence as they please, now we have what like 11 dimension in the physical world, excluded from those are time dimensions, to understanding all the different theories from the evidence of what happens before the big bang. even to reason and logic point to a purpose of everything, but atheist think its so outrages to have a theory that goes beyond the physical world???

Teacher4U wrote:recoil meant it pollutes a child's mind when they don't think for themselves, hopefully that was a typo recoil.

What I meant to say is it pollutes their ability to think freely

Teacher4U wrote: But on the other hand, atheist fall in that category also, the category of not having a open mind of the possibilities that reality holds. due to 21st century discovery's, from physics particles now we know particles come and go in and out of existence as they please, now we have what like 11 dimension in the physical world, excluded from those are time dimensions, to understanding all the different theories from the evidence of what happens before the big bang. even to reason and logic point to a purpose of everything, but atheist think its so outrages to have a theory that goes beyond the physical world???

Atheism does not require teachings or sermons, nor does it have a book that all atheists follow. Atheism does not have teachings of even thinking freely. Atheism is NOT a universal belief, it's not even belief - it's disbelief. There are no lessons linked to atheism.

Recoil wrote: What I meant to say is it pollutes their ability to think freely

.

I still don’t understand. Is the ability to “think freely” natural and clean, like unpolluted air or water? Do any of us think “freely”, or must we learn how to think, using culturally constituted methods and rules, like logic, language, math, and science? I’ll grant that a religious perspective probably affects how we think, but why call its impact “polluting”? Is math “polluting”? How about logic, does that “pollute” our ability to think freely? After all, logic is based on the law of non-contradiction. It certainly LIMITS how we think (using logic we can not believe two contradictory propositions at once). However, we need not refer to such limits as “pollution”.

Recoil,

Recoil wrote: What I mean is as the percentage of religious beliefs raise in a country, statistics show the worse they score on societal health problems.

Can you provide the web address to the study that you're quoting please.

I believe, that the rapist or murderer who genuinely repents and accepts Jesus as their Lord and saviour, has achieved a state of being which is presentable to God - viz a viz their sin has been washed away by the sacrifice of Christ. Faith is the seed that makes this cleansing possible. Without faith / the seed, salvation / the tree cannot grow. And therefore without faith one cannot achieve a state which is presentable to God. The unbeliever has no faith, however my own personal belief, is that God will not allow a non-believer, who is innocent of sin to go to hell. I believe that they would be given a second chance, so to speak. Just as the rapist and the murderer are given a second chance by their repentance.

Perhaps you could answer these questions... Why would God want an atheist in heaven? Especially as atheists spend their energy on trying to destroy God's reputation and prove to who ever they can that he does not exist. Would anyone allow their known enemy into their home?

Fanman wrote: Perhaps you could answer these questions... Why would God want an atheist in heaven? Especially as atheists spend their energy on trying to destroy God's reputation and prove to who ever they can that he does not exist. Would anyone allow their known enemy into their home?

Ok I'm sorry that's just generalizing bull ****. You can't say "all atheists destroy god's existence" or stupid stuff like that. By the way, there is no actual way to "prove something doesn't exist". Again, if you disagree then disprove the existence of goblins for me.

And my point is, god would want atheists in heaven because STUDIES SHOW that they are morally nicer people. Why would god want to send a perfectly peaceful person to eternal torture simply for not believing in him? If your child did not love you, would that be justification for you to lock them in the basement and torture them FOREVER? God punishes people infinitely for finite crimes according to your theology, AND you can get away with any crime if you just call yourself a christian. Whereas an atheist may not "sin" his or her entire life and still burn eternally.

You're rationalizing by saying that all atheists attack god, which is amazingly false, many atheists keep their beliefs and dis-beliefs to themselves, where many theists have reason to impose their religion on others by converting people.

As far as the study, I love how you ask for a website, like all reliable studies are on the Internet.

Recoil said(Atheism does not require teachings or sermons, nor does it have a book that all atheists follow. Atheism does not have teachings of even thinking freely. Atheism is NOT a universal belief, it's not even belief - it's disbelief. There are no lessons linked to atheism.[/quote]
)

Atheism is a perspective of reality (you view reality through an atheistic understanding), just like theism and also deism. perspectives of reality evolve from theistic then atheistic then deistic. According on how much knowledge you have accumulated. Theistic still believe in divine intervention, just because they don't understand cause and effect.

Overall yes, in this time of age, it is ridiculous to think people still view reality through an theistic perspective. its abuse to themselves mostly ha, but they do have an effect on society, which slows it down.

If atheists got into heaven, would they still be atheists? Wouldn't that be a little willfully blind of them?

Ecurb wrote:If atheists got into heaven, would they still be atheists? Wouldn't that be a little willfully blind of them?

They would be atheists right up to the point they were confronted with god.

Teacher4U wrote: Atheism is a perspective of reality (you view reality through an atheistic understanding), just like theism and also deism. perspectives of reality evolve from theistic then atheistic then deistic. According on how much knowledge you have accumulated. Theistic still believe in divine intervention, just because they don't understand cause and effect.

Overall yes, in this time of age, it is ridiculous to think people still view reality through an theistic perspective. its abuse to themselves mostly ha, but they do have an effect on society, which slows it down.

Atheism is disbelief in gods. Now quit making blanket statements.

I agree recoil, on how Gods would choose atheist and deist over theistic, if they the gods ever had to choose.

Mostly that's because of how atheist and deist understand the physical world and reality a lot better than theistic. And the one thing that the Gods have created as Stephen Hawking calls it the "great design", or what i call it the "great formula". Knowing that is probably the best way to understand God, if you do or don't believe in the afterlife.

-- Updated July 24th, 2012, 7:59 pm to add the following --

hahah that's how you view reality, which is just the phsyical world with no afterlife. That type of perspective of reality is called an ATHEIST one.

Theistic perspective would basically just contain divine intervention

Deistic perspectives contain afterlife with only cause and effect in the physical world.

Those are brief summaries of each perspectives

These are known to be the 3 main perspectives of reality!!

Grecorivera5150 wrote:Can religion be considered a form of child abuse? The use of fear tactics and imposed guilt on a young mind in a coercive way can have debilitating affects. I was not forced to go to church until I was 11 so I was in the middle of puberty and had already shrugged off Santa Claus the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy by this time and in so doing had developed an intuition towards empiricism. Throw in familial pressure to conform on top of the emotional coercion and you have a potential recipe for massive amounts of existential angst during critical years of human development.


If a child must submit to the whims of the parents under our current laws should they have standing upon reaching adult hood to try and redress their grievances with their parents in a court of law and seek damages for emotional distress?

Ok, a small child comes home from school after receiving religious instruction there, and says "mummy, the lady told me that if you are good you live forever" So what can this do? I think it can set up the child to have an emotional divsion within herself. An internalized emotional conflict. How? Because she would have had people she had great affection for, like a grandmother for example, die. She is therefore being asked to judge this person. And part of her judgment may well be that her grandmother was in fact not good because she is not living forever. She now may have affection for what is not good, or, she may lose her affection for her own previous affectionate feelings. Either possibility IS NOT GOOD and is a result of child abuse.