what age did you stop beleaving in the religion you where raised with?

[tuttle88]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

Are you saying that we can't progress in religious discussion beyond faith vs. faith?

Yes that is exactly what I am saying.

One side tries to prove that God exists the other side tries to prove that God doesn't, neither side will win because people will continue to believe what they believe. Individual people may change their minds but there will always be people who believe and people who don't.

It goes round and round in circles.

[ryanvc76]

Originally Posted by tuttle88

Yes that is exactly what I am saying.

One side tries to prove that God exists the other side tries to prove that God doesn't...

This is where I disagree - non-believers have no need to prove that gods do not exist, be it the Christian "God" or any other imaginary thing people waste time talking to. The burden of proof is on those who claim that something exists and not on those whom are in agreement that it does not. I do not have to prove that I lack the ability to fly, yet one claiming to have such an ability would need to prove it. If the believers could somehow prove that their sky-daddy exists, then I am sure that many non-believers would change their stance. However, I am not too worried about such proof surfacing.

[Leixes]

Morality is the underlining keyword.

But morality is a closed discussion. Each have is own.

What really troubles religious people on atheism (and evolution, and chance) is that they can't conceive it as a source of 'good morality'.
Ironically those suspicions are based on their own personal weaknesses and flaws.

[dzagama]

Originally Posted by Leixes

Morality is the underlining keyword.

But morality is a closed discussion. Each have is own.

What really troubles religious people on atheism (and evolution, and chance) is that they can't conceive it as a source of 'good morality'.
Ironically those suspicions are based on their own personal weaknesses and flaws.

Now we're getting somewhere. Morality is a meatier topic than 'god'. I suppose one only has to hang out in a Biology department (or a forest) for a while to see thousands of examples of emergent social orders.

Again, who commands and supervises ants to do things like this? :



The answer, of course, is what you want. It may or may not include 'god'. But the simplistic claims that Christians make on morality are somewhat silly. The true answer is probably much more complex than our ancestors, 2000 years ago, could have imagined.

[dzagama]

Oh, and btw,

Writings of Thomas Paine Volume 4 (1794-1796): the Age of Reason by Paine - Project Gutenberg

[Sparrow]

Our survival relies on our coexistence, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility we have an innate, instinctual moral standard.

[dzagama]

Originally Posted by MonsteroftheId

Still religion remains a major subject of interest and study for me (I've read both the King James Bible and the Qur'an in the past six months) but only as a human social construction and not for any "spiritual" interest.

The biggest problem I see going forward is the immense mystic aura that religious texts seem to have. For the very reasons they lack scientific credibility, they have emotional allure.

In truth, On the Shoulders of Giants, is probably a more useful philosophical book than any religious text, but is far less charming.

I don't believe in the holiness of men, but in the intelligence of men.

[dzagama]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Our survival relies on our coexistence, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility we have an innate, instinctual moral standard.

Yup, but theists like to correlate this instinctual behavior with their own teachings. I think we both see that this could merely be an emergent phenomena.

Again, no one taught my catter to bashfully cover his poop in the litter box; that behavior is instinctual for his survival, but I like to anthropomorphize it into cuteness.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by tuttle88

Yes that is exactly what I am saying.

One side tries to prove that God exists the other side tries to prove that God doesn't, neither side will win because people will continue to believe what they believe. Individual people may change their minds but there will always be people who believe and people who don't.

It goes round and round in circles.

It's not just a matter of people believing, and the fact that you can't see that is pretty sad.

I've already said why what you've said is wrong, why those are not the only options, why that exists.

Originally Posted by Leixes

What really troubles religious people on atheism (and evolution, and chance) is that they can't conceive it as a source of 'good morality'.
Ironically those suspicions are based on their own personal weaknesses and flaws.

Exactly. I've always seen it as a condemnation of the human race to believe in a concept that we have to be motivated by fear to be moral.

[Sparrow]

My SuperEgo fears noone. GRAWR!