Chuck41

Very often, theists will argue against atheism by using religious terminology. Calling atheism a religion, with Richard Dawkins or Charles Darwin as our deity, talking about having "faith" in atheism, or not having enough faith to believe in evolution, aren't these all tacit acknowledgements of the bullshit nature of religion, and these are attempts to make atheism appear equally bullshit? When atheists point out the mass murders, genocides and terrorism done in the name of religion, Theists will immediately invoke Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and (incorrectly) Hitler, but they won't even try to defend their own position by claiming some sort of geopolitical, societal or even religious justification. I'm not saying those arguments are valid, but they'd have to be better than 'Oh Yeah! We'' so did you!"

The positive aspect of religion argument always fails when it's pointed out that all religions, and a large number of secular groups also do humanitarian work. This doesn't denigrate the good done by religion, but it does take away any claim of "exclusive" or "necessary" goodness which would justify a need for religion or any claim to be "the correct religion!"

Faith is belief without evidence! Why then are theists always either (a) claiming that there is evidence, the atheist just won't admit it, or (b) demanding evidence to the contrary from the atheists? Is it the case that theists know that their position doesn't stand up to honest inquiry? Or are theists of the opinion that these are valid arguments which add to the credibility of religious belief?

I'd be interested in hearing from theists on this. Note that I'm not attacking your beliefs (I'll do that some other time!), I'm simply asking if you think that the majority of arguments used by theists to defend their position are rational or not, or if they could be better framed?

For the atheists, do you agree with my analysis, or is there something I've missed? Are these arguments valid, and requiring of serious rebuttal?

Firstly, I'm an Atheist, so I don't buy into any of this, but it's a question that came to me while watching a Richard Dawkins debate on youtube. We're all aware of what the male Muslim terrorists thought that they would get, and I'm led to believe that the same concept of paradise applies to all Muslims (even the moderate ones). I don't think I'm alone in thinking that Islam is an incredibly patriarchal religion that demeans women, but I've also heard several Muslim women deny that that's the case.

So, where do Muslim women think they go when they die? What do they get? Presumably not 72 male virgins?

Or someone else?, Can Simoncelli show the style that worked for him in the 250's? Can Ben overtake Colin as the most successful ex-WSBK rider currently in MotoGP.

Justify your answers. I've got my opinions, I want to hear yours!

(Go Casey!)

I recently read an article by a member of an NRA-type group in the States who was quoting "statistics" from Australia and the UK showing the crime rate skyrocketing after strict gun laws were introduced. I did a little research on these statistics and found that they were largely either misrepresented, or entirely made-up! In the case of the UK, they've had strict gun control for decades, so there's no real "before/after" comparisons to be made, but in Australia, stricter gun control legislation was introduced in 1996/97 after the Port Arthur shootings, mostly as a result of public outcry. I didn't agree with these new laws at the time, but there wasn't any increase in crime as a result, in fact crime rates of all types (with the possible exception of drug crimes) have been dropping fairly consistently.

I realise many Americans see their Second Amendment rights as sacrosanct, but you do have the highest gun-crime rate of any western civilization. Any calls for tighter gun-ownership regulation is seen as a Second Amendment violation, and shouted down, usually with accompanying "statistics" like the ones I mentioned at the outset. So my question is simply this.

Do most Americans think that they're safer in America because of the lack of gun laws, and that countries with strict gun laws must be much worse?

Because if you do, you're wrong.

Another person asked "Do you think Halal meat should be outlawed in the UK. We've been using humane slaughter for years and are now going backwards?"

There was one answerer who said "No, you're Racist" (By the way, that answerer, you're an idiot!).

So I answered, but when I went to submit my answer, it said the question had been deleted. I'd like to know why, and I'd like to know why in open forum.

Is it because many people reported it as abuse? If this is the case, then any group can stop any serious inquiry into their beliefs just through this process. If an aim of Yahoo Answers is to promote an open exchange of ideas, this is simply ridiculous.

If the question violated guidelines, I'd like to know in what way?

The processing of meat under Halal guidelines is inhumane. It should be made illegal! Consider that other religious practices have been dropped or modified by the groups that practice them when these practices have conflicted with the law of the land. An example is that Mormonism used to be a racist organisation, saying that the only way a black person could enter heaven was as a slave. This changed just in time to prevent the Mormons from being outlawed as the KKK was!

The process of Halal brings Islam into conflict with Animal Protection laws in most civilised countries. Why is it unreasonable to question why this process should not be banned?

During a lot of debates on Youtube, one of the popular arguments for the existence of God is "absolute Morality, as in "How can their be any absolute morality without an an absolute moral arbitrator?", yet when someone brings up the abject immorality of the god of the old testament, the blatant immorality of the concept of infinite punishment for finite sins, the wicked concept of vicarious redemption, the theists resort to "gods ways are not our ways" or basically "It's not immoral if god does it!"

Isn't that the definition of relative morality? When whether something is good or bad depends on the circumstances (such as "'coz god did it!").

Many of you seem to be extremely anti-homosexual, and when pushed on the issue, it's because the Bible says it's an abomination. Many of you then go on to attempt to support this with made-up statistics (Gays being more likely to molest kids, etc!).

My question is this... How many of you wouldn't have a problem with homosexuals if the bible didn't tell you that you were supposed to? Are there any other passages of the bible that cause you to be pro-this or anti-that, but which you'd be ambivalent towards if the bible didn't mention it? Abortion, for example. Who among you would say it's a useful medical procedure that can save the life of a women in certain circumstances, but the bible says you can't do it, so that means you're against it?

Lastly, How many of you are constantly amazed at how perfectly the bible parallels your own opinions on these things, so that the bible never changes your opinions, it merely reinforces them?

I'm currently running a 1970 Suzuki T250 on Methanol. It's got 2 x 34mm carbs, heavily modified to run methanol, which included mods to the needle and seat, and a range of jets from 2.5mm to 2.8mm. I'm about to ask the person who modified those carbs to do the same for a T500, and he directed me to get VM34's again. I would have thought that a T500 would require much bigger carbs than the 250.

does anyone have any thoughts on this, or can provide me with any information as to whats involved, and what I should be asking for?

I just answered another question about pro-life Vs pro-choice, and in my answer I alluded to the religious aspect of the Pro-life argument. My question is therefore twofold.

1. Are there any Atheists out there that are anti-abortion? please give your reasons for this opinion.

2. Are there any theists who are pro-choice? How does this reconcile with your beliefs? Please also explain your opinion.

Thanks

I have a 1970 Suzuki T250 Post Classic race bike, which bent a conrod at the last meeting. The crank is away at the moment getting re-done, and when it comes back I'll be reassembling the engine. My spare barrels, heads and engine casings and covers are all in good condition, but they're dirty and tarnished. I've also got the aluminium rear drum brake and front forks which I'd like to clean up.

Any advice would be appreciated.

I've heard it said on many occasions, "you have to respect their beliefs!"

I disagree. I think it's important to respect THE RIGHT of every person to believe as they wish, but I don't believe I necessarily have to respect those beliefs. i.e. If someone told you they fully believed in little pink unicorns that live under bridges, you might treat them with a little derision. But if that same person demanded that he/she was serious, and that this belief was core to their very being, would that be worthy of respect? If that person were to apply to you for a position of responsibility, would that be a positive factor in their makeup, or a diminishing one?

While I'll defend a persons right to believe whatever crap they want, why should I respect a persons beliefs?

A lot of theists on here deny any direct relationship between humanity and animals by claiming "God gave us a soul, animals haven't got a soul!" So once again you are claiming the existence of something, provide some evidence to back up your claim.

1. What is the soul? describe it, and provide evidence to support your assertions.

2. Show evidence that Humans have a soul!

3. Show evidence proving that animals don't have a soul!

Conversely, my position is that what you are calling a "soul" is nothing more than cognitive self-awareness, which is the result of our brains having evolved to the level that they have. Therefore, if it is a function of the brain, when the brain stops, there is no more soul.

Prove me wrong!

In every Atheist / Theist argument, Someone will bring up the argument of "If there's no God, where do you get your Morality?" It's a crap argument, one that's been well answered on many occasion.

I watched a Christopher Hitchens interview today, (an old one on Youtube), and he made the point that the whole idea of God sending Jesus to die for our sins, is possibly the most immoral idea humans have ever come up with.

Firstly, It's immoral to think that you can remove responsibility from a person for their own actions. It's a sign of morality that you take responsibility for your actions, and not try to shirk it. To want to shift responsibility is weak and cowardly.

Secondly, it's immoral to condemn people for things they haven't done, to punish people for things they didn't do and to blame people for something that they had no control over, which was done (supposedly) centuries before, and for which the perpetrators have already been punished! Not to mention the whole idea of infinite punishment for a finite misdemeanor, or conversely, infinite reward for a small finite act of goodness.

How do Christians justify calling these kinds of idea Moral?

Seriously, Science has shown us that the Earth is millions of years old, and the Universe, Billions! The study of the evolution of species has shown how the magnificent diversity if life on this planet came to be via a gradual process that's taken almost as long as the Earths been around. Science has never disproven God, it just hasn't found any evidence of his direct involvement, and millions of his believers are absolutely fine with that. They think that the sheer wonder of how it all came together shows how it must've been all conducted by a great conductor.

So God put together this fantastic plan to create a universe, install simple microscopic life on this planet, and watch it bloom across the millenia into the myriad of life around us! But because some Bronze-age goat herder was incapable of imaginative thought that spanned over a few centuries, you people stamp your feet and say "No, God said "Let there be BlahBlahBlah!", and did the whole job in 6 days, after which he was knackered, and sat down on the back porch with a cold one!" Why? coz it's written in a book!

I'm not a believer, but I used to be, and when I was (as a kid), I was in awe of how there was this great and mighty god who made all the plants and aminals and everything.

You people really don't have a high opinion of Gods capabilities, Do You?

I've watched plenty of interviews of Professor Dawkins, and he has been asked on many occasions what he thought when people called him arrogant. His response was that he was surprised, because his tone and language is way milder than any political discussion you'll ever hear. I tend to agree with him (on most things, but that point especially!)

So my question to Christians is, If you find Professor Richard Dawkins arrogant, why? Please justify your answer, and compare it with the tone of most protagonists in any other discussion. People get more personal discussing sport than Dawkins does in any of his books or interviews. Is it just because of the nature of the subject?

This questions for anyone out there who's tried to write a song.

Have you ever started to try and write a song, had an idea for lyrics, and then started to try and fit a melody around it, and then catch yourself thinking "Hang on! That's <insert name of some famous song>!

I've occasionally tried, even to put a poem to a song, and I keep coming up with these great melodys, only to think "that sounds really familiar" and then eventually recognizing it for what it really is.

Is this common? In a way, I think it's because of my musical memory, I remember so many great songs, that any tune I think of just sort've morphs into a classic tune. It's fairly frustrating!

Why does Y!A have the separate categories of "Religion and Spirituality" and "Mythology and Folklore"?

Surely Religion falls in the "Mythology" category?

If I made the statement, Orange juice is carcinogenic (causes cancer...for the home educated!), Wouldn't you demand to know where I got my information? Wouldn't you want to know how I came to that conclusion?

So, If I said that I know it's the truth, because it came from a Readers Digest story which claimed to be a true story, wouldn't you press me for details? and if it happened that you found the story that I was talking about, and it said nothing about orange juice and disease, wouldn't you question my interpretation of the story, as well as the validity of the story itself?

So when Theists make absolute claims to knowledge about the will of God on subjects like Abortion, Gay civil rights, and even on political nominees, why are you suprised or angered that we deny that you have any authority to make such claims?

It has been said over and over again, that the existence of god cannot be 100% disproved, and that all of us (well...most of us) support a persons right to believe as they wish. but it's when theists (specifically Christians in the US, and Islamists in the rest of the world) try to inject their religious view into Politics, Law , Science, Medicine and Education, that we, the rational thinkers in the world, ask what right do you have, and by what authority do you claim this?

Many of the debates I've watched will bring up Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, as examples of atheist aggression. Firstly, Hilter was a christian, and was defended by the Catholic Church for many years. Stalin was an atheist, but he used the peoples commonly-held beliefs against them, recognising (wisely), that a people suddenly bereft of their religious support, would fall to someone who claimed "god-on-earth" status. He didn't do what he did in the name of Atheism, on the contrary he used his peoples spirituality against them. Pol Pot was a sceptical buddist, who thought that his country would be better off if he could revert the country to a simple peasant farmer economy. He encouraged spirituality in order to keep his people stupid and compliant.

In recent times we've been bombarded with news and images of religiously-motivated violence. Mainly Islamic, but let's not leave out abortion clinic bombings, and the sheer hatred of the Westboro Baptist nutbags.

So Theists, here's your opportunity. Please list any and all acts of violence and terrorism that've been committed in the name of Atheism!

In the interest of fairness, If you are going to include those occasions where a theist has provoked someone, and has been "forcefully" rejected, please provide details!

It's been a little over 2000 years since god allegedly sent his son on a suicide mission to earth (I'm sure after seeing the crap that's being done in his name, if he could go back, he wouldn't have bothered). Theists claim god is real, and omnipotent! If that's the case, then there's no effort involved in showing himself to everyone. I know the christys will say, "but ya gotta have faith", but it's an assumption that god doesn't show himself because he wants to test your faith....maybe he just wants some privacy?

Think about it, several billion years ago he started a universe, he played with it for millenia, manipulated one planet so it could sustain life when just watching planets became too boring, then watched the evolution of life, which woulda been cool! Then life evolved further, species became more sophisticated, and at some point, people started to suspect a higher power, so they started making stuff up. After several thousand years of human sacrifice, animalism, etc, God tried to set the record straight by sending his son. Unfortunately for god, all those bloody humans just went NUTS!, praying all the time, doing the most horrible stuff to each other, then claiming it's ok coz god said so!, So god just stayed out of it, hasn't said a word for 2000 years. That hasn't stopped the Religious nutbags claiming that he contacts them (and ONLY them) on a regular basis.

So If god COULD make him/herself known ... but chooses not to..

Shouldn't you theists respect his wishes? All you saying "You've found Jesus", maybe he doesn't WANT to be found?

So my question is for the Theists

If God just wants to be left alone, why can't you respect that? Why keep bothering him/her?