I agree with you on the agnostic front:)

Originally posted by justin

I agree with you on the agnostic front:)

Heh.

How about Sick of it All?? I got my ass beat in one of their pits once. Lost a sneaker and got surfed to the front where I stayed for Helmet!!! It was scary! Class 5 pit!

I feel like a fish following a lure. I've got plenty to say and feel that I could debate either side very effectively. So, do I bite making for a long drawn out fight that won't change the way anyone thinks in the end, or let this one go. You will know by the length of this post before you even started reading it that I am letting this one go. But I would be be happy to debate anyone in person anytime.

Originally posted by franzhorner


It takes just as much faith to be an Atheist as it does to be a Christian.  One believes there is no God and the other believes there is a God.  Neither one has proof.
The only realistic bunch are Agnostics.

I disagree here, "faith" is what many of us (including me) struggle with...  If an atheist chooses to do anything (lie, cheat or steal) and doesn't get caught there is no punishment.  To have "faith" is to live by scripture, which is NOT easy.

If an agnostic can reason that it was okay by his/her own rules (not written down), there is no punishment.

Religious folks believe that even if they don't get caught here... there will be consequences.

I kinda like the thought that the guy down the street has the same definition of morality that I do.  I don't understand why people want to tear down Christianity or many religions for that matter.  I have never heard of any religion that says "do whatever you want, hurt anyone you want... just don't get caught." 

Even if one thinks all Christianity (or any other religion) is full of idiots...  Why try to convince them there are no consequences for immorality?  I think many criminals/evil folks are dangerous because they no rules to live by...  As an educated atheist, would you want all those idiots running around with less reason to be good?  I think a lot of people who argue on this don't think things though very well...
 
"Anyone who thinks there is good in everyone.... has not met everyone." 

I'm definitely not saying people of faith are stupid, but I hear many atheists saying that religious folks are fools.  If they honestly feel that way that the smarter thing is to sit back and laugh quietly.  What happens if atheists win and the fools have no consequences? (as long as man doesn't catch them...)

Ahh the complexities of this discussion... this is probably going too far at this point, but I don't think what I've said should offend anybody, I promise I will NOT ask you if you believe in Zeus before bagging you out of a hole!

I feel like agnosticism is being misconstrued a little with anarchism, just because someone believes that there is no way of knowing whether or not there is a "God", it doesn't mean that they don't believe in some sort of morality.  I guess what I'm saying, is that "God" and morality aren't mutually exclusive..... did I say that right?

ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. 


One does not need organized religion or the threat of eternal damnation to be a good and moral person.  How about just treating others how you would like to be treated?  Using our sympathetic and empathetic abilities?  It works for a lot of us.

And then some people need the constant reminder of a hot miserable eternal hell to keep them on the straight and narrow.

I realize there are some cold, callous , anti-social people in this world...maybe religion can keep some of them in line....but for many, well there's prison.

Organized religion has it's merits and I'm not going to knock them, but as Justin pointed out, it's not a be all end all for a healthy, happy and socially responsible life.

http://news.yahoo.com/belief-god-boils-down-gut-feeling-104403461.html

Why is it that you need a God to answer to in order to have morals?

I answer to myself and I have morals.

Ralph Waldo Emerson was kicked out of Harvard for suggesting that people drop their religions and look to themselves for forgiveness and salvation.

That code will change to make rape, murder, theft, etc. ok?  Without organized religion?  Really?  

A worthy quote:

Good people do good because they want to do good - not because they will personally benefit from it or because someone has forced them to do it. People who do good solely for personal gain or to avoid personal harm are not good people. Someone who saves a drowning child, for example, only because he was offered a reward or was physically threatened does not deserve our praise. Thus, if your only reason for performing good actions is your desire to go to heaven or your fear of going to hell - if all your other-regarding actions are motivated purely by self-interest - then you should go to hell because you are not a good person. An obsessive concern with either heaven or hell should actually lessen one's chances for salvation rather than increase them.

http://blog.ted.com/2010/03/22/science_can_ans/ Sam is much more eloquent than I.

MORALITY : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7xt5LtgsxQ

This is a good one !!!! all good points boys... Although someone is still missing the point. I choose to be good without god. and it feels better to be good and good to people without expecting something back like a ticket to heaven or someone wanting me to be a good person for praise. What if you found out you there was no god tomorrow how then would you find your "strength" and "wisdom". you would have to look into the void and yourself.   MORALITY This video is good and the british guy sounds better explaining it then me.....

Well said James. And moral codes must inherrently change as we learn new things (hopefully) as a society. When did the terms "leave no trace" and "pack it in pack it out" surface? Arguably these aren't classified as morals but rather as principles of conservation, but still if we include the planet and its many non human inhabitants in our considerations of how we interact with our world,it seems to bear mention.

(What I'm saying here is that while we all drag our boats from time to time, and seal launch quite a bit, don't drag your boat when you can carry it just cuz you're too lazy. And while seal launching is easy and fun its not always necessary- watch the plastic shavings in the wildernes, folks)---just to tie it into boat'n a bit.

And some morals need to change. Stoning peeps just ain't cool. Getting peeps stoned? Well that may be a good deed for the right peeps, legalities not withstanding. Many of history's "morals" were obviously skewed and distorted by those in power, namely. Patriarchal system designed to keep men in power, and to keep property over generations within bloodlines,ect. And we can't even have this discussion without at least breifly mentioning how both the Bible and the Koran has been and is used as a means of socio-political control. How moral is that? That's not to say though that these ancient texts should be invalidated because of the power hungry assholes that manipulate whole cultures with them.

Regardless, using religion to uphold or defend moral codes is a double edged sword. Too many differing cultures on this planet to possibly hope we can have a single uniform moral code. So why do religious fundementalists fight so hard for a uniformity of (their own brand of) religion? I won't single out Christianity, but the other Abrahamic religions (Islam and Judaism) are just as bad with this sort of "my way or the highway" approach.

There is some sort of African fable I heard once- maybe I read some Joeseph Campbell or something, can't remember but the essence of it goes like this:

Two peoples live on the opposite sides of a long lake. The people see their god paddle by to the north end of the lake, and the peeps on the east shore notice he is wearing a blue hat. Of course the peeps on the west shore, they observe their god paddling northbound wearing a red hat. So now they gotta argue and fight about it. Later the next day, the next week, or whatever, their god comes paddling southbound. Once again: peeps on the east shore insist he was wearing a blue hat, peeps on the west shore say it was a red hat. First of all, what difference does it make? What no one realized was that their collective god was simply flipping his hat around just to fu*k with all them dumb asses- the hat was blue on one side and red on the other.

Now I know that there are a lot more complex differences between belief systems- some nuanced and many more stark. But this is why I'd have to put myself in the Agnostic camp- hell, I never even seen the hat, let alone the god wearing it. Peeps say thats a cop out, but I say I have way too little info to make an informed decision.