Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Atheist convention 101!!
xpowderx
Member UncommonPosts: 2,078
Ever wonder what its like to ask some questions at a atheist convention from a christian perspective.. all I can say is OMG.. WOW!!
Enjoy!!
Comments
LOL!!!
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
It's hard to make out what is being said.
Best that I can tell, the atheist is stating that it is not morally acceptible to raise kids as Christians. However, he also admits that his stance is an opinion and he is not out to enforce it on others.
The video might look damning because the person debating him is more easily heard and comes across and more confident.
It is what it is! Do not need excuses for a bad showing by a atheist. Excuses are like a arse. Everyone has one!
The whole thing is that the christian guy is getting at is that the Atheist has a moral standing that he just made up out of thin air by what ever he prefers right/wrong at any given time..
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
Is it then morally unacceptible to raise kids as atheists?The whole thing is that the christian guy is getting at is that the Atheist has a moral standing that he just made up out of thin air by what ever he prefers right/wrong at any given time..
If religion never comes up in a household (like in my own upbringing, and I should note that my parents claim to be Christian), then is this raising a kid as an atheist? By the strict definition of, "without god", then yes. Raising kids as anti-theists may have better results than as theists, but I do not consider that morally acceptible either.
The point of morals is a very long winded one. Morals are not god-given rules to live by. They're rules invented by people and sometimes adopted by society as a means of functioning as a society. Consider the morals of file sharing. No deity came down and said, "Thou shalt not share digital files" or "Thou shalt share digital files." Well, unless maybe you consider the MPAA to be close to that level of power. No, people, as a whole, generally looked at the situation and thought, "It takes 50 cents to stamp a CD/DVD. Why am I going to pay $20 for it when technology has made it easier to produce this stuff?" or, "They're making enough money as it is. This is just gouging. I'm not going to pay, but I'm still going to enjoy their works." Or whatever have you, and thus P2P took off.
The mans morals may be "made up", as you say, but that's nothing special. I doubt that his morals are quite so unclear. They may be situational (as they should be, like "thou shalt not kill" doesn't apply to someone trying to kill you first!), but you're not going to find a person's entire morals and situational clauses in a 3 minute conversation. That would be like taking a glance at 5 unrelated fossils in total and scoffing at the idea of evolution.
The "protagonist" of the video is clearly a better speaker than the "antagonist" and this plays on peoples perceptions and influences them. Which is why this video was chosen. To put it bluntly, it is propoganda and has every bit the trappings of manipulative influence.
The whole thing is that the christian guy is getting at is that the Atheist has a moral standing that he just made up out of thin air by what ever he prefers right/wrong at any given time..
If religion never comes up in a household (like in my own upbringing, and I should note that my parents claim to be Christian), then is this raising a kid as an atheist? By the strict definition of, "without god", then yes. Raising kids as anti-theists may have better results than as theists, but I do not consider that morally acceptible either.
The point of morals is a very long winded one. Morals are not god-given rules to live by. They're rules invented by people and sometimes adopted by society as a means of functioning as a society. Consider the morals of file sharing. No deity came down and said, "Thou shalt not share digital files" or "Thou shalt share digital files." Well, unless maybe you consider the MPAA to be close to that level of power. No, people, as a whole, generally looked at the situation and thought, "It takes 50 cents to stamp a CD/DVD. Why am I going to pay $20 for it when technology has made it easier to produce this stuff?" or, "They're making enough money as it is. This is just gouging. I'm not going to pay, but I'm still going to enjoy their works." Or whatever have you, and thus P2P took off.
The mans morals may be "made up", as you say, but that's nothing special. I doubt that his morals are quite so unclear. They may be situational (as they should be, like "thou shalt not kill" doesn't apply to someone trying to kill you first!), but you're not going to find a person's entire morals and situational clauses in a 3 minute conversation. That would be like taking a glance at 5 unrelated fossils in total and scoffing at the idea of evolution.
The "protagonist" of the video is clearly a better speaker than the "antagonist" and this plays on peoples perceptions and influences them. Which is why this video was chosen. To put it bluntly, it is propoganda and has every bit the trappings of manipulative influence.
So would you say it is wrong or right? Atheists use anti-religious propaganda frequently. Is there a difference other than what one connects the dots with?
I could use you argument to say that it is immoral to stop my kids from believing that Sonic the hedgehog created the universe.
So would you say it is wrong or right? Atheists use anti-religious propaganda frequently. Is there a difference other than what one connects the dots with?
Propoganda is not "wrong" or "right". However, it is very important that anyone attempting to use it understand it for what it is. Ideally, everyone, including the viewers of it, would be able to properly understand it, but then it wouldn't quite be propoganda anymore. And that is what I have attempted to do here is diffuse it by showing it for what it is.
As for the sonic argument, it is morally acceptible to raise kids to be skeptical. If they had such a belief, it would be perfectly fine to ask them the kind of questions that should be asked. To say, "Sonic the hedgehog is definitely absolutely not god" is in some sense a statement of belief, but it also treads into a realm of silliness such that any normal person would never even consider the idea. That is, the belief in non-divnity of a blue hedgehog is about as useful as the belief in the absence of a teapot orbiting jupiter.
You should re-read what I said. I said that if it is immoral for an Atheist to stop his children from growing up believing in the Christian god, then one might as well say that it is immoral for an Atheist to stop his children from growing up beliving in Sonic the hedghog, or the tooth fairy, or Santa Clause, or the Grinch, or Megaman, or Luke Skywalker. The lsit goes on and on.
That would be highly immoral, how else would they learn to fear eternal damnation at the hands of the evil Dr. Robotnik!!!!
Sorry, Wala, I misread the question initially and edited my post after you had quoted it.
...The teapot orbitting Jupiert...doesn't exist? You jsut ruined my favourite teapot holiday!
Seriously though, thanks for editing your post. I suppose we can all agree that it is only immoral when you teach your children only ONE viewpoint, whether it be Christianity or Atheism.
Technically I don't agree with the idea of teaching both Christianity and atheism. Rather, skepticism (even of atheism) is a stronger value to have than knowledge of any particular belief (or lack thereof). It is impossible to expose kids to all possible ideas, but it is not impossible to teach kids how to treat and react to ideas.
I think there is a legitimate place for the honest atheist in the world. If it weren't for the honest atheists, then religions would be free to take off completely into the realm of superstition and magic. It is the atheist that brings it back to a reasonable level through questioning and challenging the fanciful flights of man's imagination.
An honest atheist is merely admitting that they can not understand the need for religion. They are being truthful in their statement and deserve the respect for holding that honesty. They should not be condemned, for if they are then you are condemning a man for simply telling the truth. A lot of the large religions in the world today teach us not to bear false witness.
I have problems with my religion (Judaism) at times. If I were to not voice those doubts then they would never find an answer to suit me and would instead be a silent doubt that never brings me to an acceptable understanding of what my religion wants to teach me about God.
A religion that leads people into a state of confusion and fear for speaking up about that confusion is nothing more than an authoritative machine of manipulation. What else could it be?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
All Rights Reversed
Yeah, that video was about as worthless as a dick on a priest.
As to the subject of discussion..... I think everybody needs to back up and consider that there are many Christian denominations that don't allow baptism of infants or children. The most striking example is the Amish. At the age of 18, an Amish man or woman has to make a choice to stay with the faith or abandon it. These people have been shown what life is like outside of the Amish community, so they are not making their decision blindly.
In contrast, there are a growing number of pseudo-Christian denominations that not only baptize infants and children, but also attempt to suppress alternate views from being introduced to said children. This practice is totally immoral. Without the freedom to choose between good and evil, the "goodness" or "evilness" of a person can not be truly determined. Actual Protestants will tell you that there is no freewill and you are either one of The Elect or The Damned. Actual Catholics will tell you that you will be judged by your works. Actual fascists will tell you that you will be judged by your belief alone, and that's it.
Personally, I like the Catholic viewpoint. I don't agree with the selling of indulgences or sodomizing alter boys, but the fact that you should be measured by the amount of good that you do is a very pragmatic outlook. The Protestant viewpoint is also somewhat valid since it isn't enough to do good, you should also be good. Right action flows from right thought, which in turn, flows from right being. Both sides are right and wrong in equal measure here.
A Christian parent has the right to teach their religion to their children, but not the right to prevent or distort outside beliefs and ideas. The decision rests entirely on the child when they reach the age that they can make an informed decision.
BTW, there is a difference between an atheist and an anti-theist. The poor schmuck in the video was obviously an anti-theist as well as an atheist. Most of us are perfectly willing to let you wallow in your own stupidity.
Ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge. Stupidity is remaining willfully ignorant and being proud of it.
The whole thing is that the christian guy is getting at is that the Atheist has a moral standing that he just made up out of thin air by what ever he prefers right/wrong at any given time..
If religion never comes up in a household (like in my own upbringing, and I should note that my parents claim to be Christian), then is this raising a kid as an atheist? By the strict definition of, "without god", then yes. Raising kids as anti-theists may have better results than as theists, but I do not consider that morally acceptible either.
The point of morals is a very long winded one. Morals are not god-given rules to live by. They're rules invented by people and sometimes adopted by society as a means of functioning as a society. Consider the morals of file sharing. No deity came down and said, "Thou shalt not share digital files" or "Thou shalt share digital files." Well, unless maybe you consider the MPAA to be close to that level of power. No, people, as a whole, generally looked at the situation and thought, "It takes 50 cents to stamp a CD/DVD. Why am I going to pay $20 for it when technology has made it easier to produce this stuff?" or, "They're making enough money as it is. This is just gouging. I'm not going to pay, but I'm still going to enjoy their works." Or whatever have you, and thus P2P took off.
The mans morals may be "made up", as you say, but that's nothing special. I doubt that his morals are quite so unclear. They may be situational (as they should be, like "thou shalt not kill" doesn't apply to someone trying to kill you first!), but you're not going to find a person's entire morals and situational clauses in a 3 minute conversation. That would be like taking a glance at 5 unrelated fossils in total and scoffing at the idea of evolution.
The "protagonist" of the video is clearly a better speaker than the "antagonist" and this plays on peoples perceptions and influences them. Which is why this video was chosen. To put it bluntly, it is propoganda and has every bit the trappings of manipulative influence.
So would you say it is wrong or right? Atheists use anti-religious propaganda frequently. Is there a difference other than what one connects the dots with?
You get handed anti-religion pamphlets all the time?Or is it the athiest television shows?
Those temples built to nothing?
Pledge of allegence?
All those wars athiests have started?
You say anti-religious propaganda like you're bombarded with athiests on a daily bases trying to convert you.
It wasn't an athiest that walked up to my door on christmas morning while gifts were being opened. No sir, was not. I highly dought that athiests are organising a march, or event in your area. I highly dought that athiests are ACTIVELY trying to convert you.
Get out of here with your anti-religious propaganda. I'm bombard daily with religion. It's a part of life, and athiests are a minority.
I've been asking people I know lately how old they think the planet is. Of about 10 people, only one has said billions of years, the rest think the planet is between 6-12 thousand yours old. Now when the number of people start giving me the correct answer you can start to talk about anti-religion propaganda. The only reason these people beleive the earth is only thousands of years old, is due to religion.
Life is like one big religious propaganda compaign.
Notice it was a christian drilling the athliests in your video. Who's working a propaganda compaign here? That's right, the christian.
Wish Darkfall would release.
The whole thing is that the christian guy is getting at is that the Atheist has a moral standing that he just made up out of thin air by what ever he prefers right/wrong at any given time..
If religion never comes up in a household (like in my own upbringing, and I should note that my parents claim to be Christian), then is this raising a kid as an atheist? By the strict definition of, "without god", then yes. Raising kids as anti-theists may have better results than as theists, but I do not consider that morally acceptible either.
The point of morals is a very long winded one. Morals are not god-given rules to live by. They're rules invented by people and sometimes adopted by society as a means of functioning as a society. Consider the morals of file sharing. No deity came down and said, "Thou shalt not share digital files" or "Thou shalt share digital files." Well, unless maybe you consider the MPAA to be close to that level of power. No, people, as a whole, generally looked at the situation and thought, "It takes 50 cents to stamp a CD/DVD. Why am I going to pay $20 for it when technology has made it easier to produce this stuff?" or, "They're making enough money as it is. This is just gouging. I'm not going to pay, but I'm still going to enjoy their works." Or whatever have you, and thus P2P took off.
The mans morals may be "made up", as you say, but that's nothing special. I doubt that his morals are quite so unclear. They may be situational (as they should be, like "thou shalt not kill" doesn't apply to someone trying to kill you first!), but you're not going to find a person's entire morals and situational clauses in a 3 minute conversation. That would be like taking a glance at 5 unrelated fossils in total and scoffing at the idea of evolution.
The "protagonist" of the video is clearly a better speaker than the "antagonist" and this plays on peoples perceptions and influences them. Which is why this video was chosen. To put it bluntly, it is propoganda and has every bit the trappings of manipulative influence.
So would you say it is wrong or right? Atheists use anti-religious propaganda frequently. Is there a difference other than what one connects the dots with?
You get handed anti-religion pamphlets all the time?Or is it the athiest television shows?
Those temples built to nothing?
Pledge of allegence?
All those wars athiests have started?
You say anti-religious propaganda like you're bombarded with athiests on a daily bases trying to convert you.
It wasn't an athiest that walked up to my door on christmas morning while gifts were being opened. No sir, was not. I highly dought that athiests are organising a march, or event in your area. I highly dought that athiests are ACTIVELY trying to convert you.
Get out of here with your anti-religious propaganda. I'm bombard daily with religion. It's a part of life, and athiests are a minority.
I've been asking people I know lately how old they think the planet is. Of about 10 people, only one has said billions of years, the rest think the planet is between 6-12 thousand yours old. Now when the number of people start giving me the correct answer you can start to talk about anti-religion propaganda. The only reason these people beleive the earth is only thousands of years old, is due to religion.
Life is like one big religious propaganda compaign.
Notice it was a christian drilling the athliests in your video. Who's working a propaganda compaign here? That's right, the christian.
Nope atheists do not want to come knocking on my door. They would rather try to change existing laws(AKA the US Constitution) into laws that conform with atheist ideology. As to propaganda it is used daily by both sides.
Common sense ftw!
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I have a feeling that atheists in school are horrible with any public speaking or debate courses.
We had an atheist at my high school who was very outspoken about her beliefs. She was a member of the debate team along with one of the most hardcore Christians I have ever known in my life. After a few debates they were dating and she was no longer an atheist.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Our schools debate team made it to nationals; on the team there are 4 atheists, 1 agnostic, and a Jew.
Most people are bad at public speaking, you are just attacking atheists, without proper cause, nor information, yet again.
I'm sick of your anti-atheism threads, at least in the threads geared against religion, I often find some interesting scientific facts; here, I just see ignorance.
And draenor, I am arrogant enough to say that my morals do come from my own emotions and common sense. On top of that they come from the many things I read and have read, including the bible.
God makes you a good public speaker?
Is that a christian thing to say?
You don't seem to understand. All this complaining you do of athiests is just you doing what you keep saying athiests are trying to do. Only you insist on incorporating insults into the discussion.
Not that it amounts to much, but I'm a rather good public speaker, and I'm particullarly found of debating. But then I'm a rather artistic person, and speaking is an art.
Everytime I create a piece of art I don't thank god for giving me that talent. I thank myself for having the dedication and patients to learn. Why is my belief such a big deal to you?
Wish Darkfall would release.
Our schools debate team made it to nationals; on the team there are 4 atheists, 1 agnostic, and a Jew.
you just happen to regularly poll the religious beliefs of the people on your debate team?
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
As someone said earlier, atheists never bother others, we merely act in self defence because everywhere we go we find Christian style hatred, we find Christian propaganda, we find insecure people, such as yourself, who will not stop until everyone believe sin the same god (and when that happens you Christians will finally turn on one another once you realise how different each sect of Christianity is).
If Christians would just stop trying to convert people and keep to themselves then there would be no need for us atheists to lash out against you.
As someone said earlier, atheists never bother others, we merely act in self defence because everywhere we go we find Christian style hatred, we find Christian propaganda, we find insecure people, such as yourself, who will not stop until everyone believe sin the same god (and when that happens you Christians will finally turn on one another once you realise how different each sect of Christianity is).
If Christians would just stop trying to convert people and keep to themselves then there would be no need for us atheists to lash out against you.
Dude , why do you only attack christians? Sounds more like you have prejudice than any real profound fact. Please feel free to make a statement without having to use a sub religion based stereotype. I just know you can do it. Perhaps mention some defacing hate towards Krishna or a Hindu or Morman?? I think your motivation of being a atheist is based more on hate and prejudice than actual atheism. Perhaps refocus.