Mageth

Originally posted by Magus55
And how do you consider this "tolerance"? Isn't that what atheists are trying to teach us Christians? Wanting to get rid of religion isn't tolerance.

AmbiguousUbiquity didn't say he (she?) wanted to get rid of religion, as is evidenced by the statement "But even though my wish is to have a non-theistic society, I have no intention of making it so. It's not my place to tell others what to think and how to feel. " That's about as tolerant a statement as you can make.

(Hint: one doesn't have to agree with a position to be tolerant of it.)

faustuz

There is s difference between thinking the world would be better off without religion and actually trying to bring about that goal. I think AmbiguousUbiquity was referring to the former rather than the later (although he should certainly speak for himself on the matter).

Do you think the world would be better off without atheism? If you do, I don’t by that claim consider you intolerant. If you actively seek to convert people, however, that may be another matter.

AmbiguousUbiquity

Point noted. However, I see a HUGE difference in believing in a deity and following a religion. Maybe I should adjust my statement to say "I wish religion/faith wasn't such a big deal to the people of the world as it seems to be". That way, we could focus more on bigger issues at hand, like how to improve our education system rather than how to incorporate religion into it by teaching Intelligent Design in the classroom.

However, I think this is off the topic. I still propose that there really isn't a true "atheist agenda", no doctrine to tell us how to behave or how to treat those that don't think like we do.

Lauren

AmbiguousUbiquity

Mageth and faustuz,

You did get the point of my statement. Thanks for backing me up and trying to clarify.

And it IS "herself" when referring to me.

Lauren

auto-da-fe

First I would like to ask FactFinder why it is ok for him to ask of our motives, and wonder about why we argue about religion, but when anyone questions his motives, we are being intolerant and it is off topic, etc.

As to the original op, you could say that our attending discussions on this board is analogous (in a small way) to an xtian going to church. Most do so (beyond worshipping) to learn more about their belief system, discuss their beliefs with others of like-minded beliefs, etc. It can be argued that we do the same here. Just because I feel a certain way about something doesn't automatically mean that I know everything there is to know about that subject. This board is a fine way to expand our knowledge.

As to debating with xtians (and theists in general) on this site, someone above noted that most of the debates are started by theist themselves, who then proclaim righteously that we are being intolerant. If you have come here asking questions, and are not prepared to listen to the answers without becoming defensive, then perhaps you should temper your questions with caution. IOW, don't ask the questions if you can't handle the answers.

faustuz

Ooops! Sorry.

King Rat

This isn't really related to the OP but Magus55, how are you able to cherry-pick from the bible in good conscience? You mentioned earlier that your brand of god-product was superior to catholicism, is it for this reason? You are giving the impression that your brand of god-product allows you accept verses that you agree with and discard those that you don't. Are you are a biblical literalist as you claim, or are you being less than honest again?

penumbra

posted by factfinder
I believe the question was “Why not ignore the Christian & move on?” And part of the answer remains that Christians, in the name of Christianity have, as you put it, “fueled many wars”. Whether that was as a result of a perversion of the original intent is a separate issue. The fact remains that they were done by Christians.

Let me clarify the point I was vainly trying to make. Neither the Baptist church nor the Mormon Ward near my home pay property or income taxes, yet they get the benefits of the public services provided (fire, police, highways, parks, community facilities, etc, etc.). Due to their tax exemption, my property tax bill is higher than it would be otherwise (and my city’s and state’s budgets are in crisis). Non-believers must, therefore, pay a portion of the cost to provide services in support of religious institutions.

A few quick ones: Stem cell research, religious protests against vaccination or inoculation of children at the local grade school, religious protests against sex education at the local school system, refusal of medical treatment for children on religious grounds, religious protests against cloning and related research.

All that being said, factfinder, I get the impression that I misinterpreted your question. I had thought that you were asking why a non-believer might “care about a bunch of disillusioned people who hold some mythological figure as their saviour?” One of the many possible answers is that those “disillusioned” people support the institutions described above and the non-believer’s purpose is to minimize that support, thereby minimizing the institution's power and authority.

Apparently, I was wrong about either your actual question or your intent, for which I apologize and will now take my leave from this thread.

Asha'man

First, factfinder, some friendly advice on posting here. You might find your posts are clearer to the reader if you use the {quote} and {/quote} tags. (Use square brackets instead of curly). You can also reply to someone using the “Quote” button, and the system will set up the tags for you.

Second, to answer your question, I think my morality came from my parents. Honestly, this is where 99% of all morality comes from, it is acquired from the people and society you grow up with.

What you probably want to know, then, is where did society develop this morality? I don’t know for sure, but I think it’s all common sense and experience. We are social creatures, we live in groups. Anything that harms the group, eventually harms the individual. To protect myself, I must also protect the group. That is the true basis for all morality. Now I could be wrong about that, but it makes sense, and it seems to be the most probable answer.

I am certain, however, that my morality did not come from the Christian God. Frankly, I find him to be an amoral sociopath, a genocidal bastard. There is no possible way that my morals could come from him, since they clearly differ so greatly.

Asha'man

I think Galileo is the classic example. I'm sure you've heard of him?