Atheism Examined

While it's true that the word "rape" comes from a Latin root meaning "to steal", I'd say that's a pretty sexist interpretation of the commandment. Sex isn't something that she has that she gives or doesn't give; sex is an activity that she does or doesn't participate in.And your answer seems to disregard marital rape, where a husband might insist that he "owns" sex with his wife. But we all know that marital rape does occur, it is possible to rape your spouse.I don't see a prohibition against rape in anything but the most tortured interpretation of the 10 commandments.

There are 13 posts left until the end of this thread.It is a shame that a thread on examining atheism is still examining Christianity.Please get back to the topic.A summary concerning the topic would probably be nice about now.Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.

​

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.Thank you

That, um... was exactly my point. Why not do more? You stated what was wrong with only keeping those 5 commandments. If, um... if you agree that we should already do more then that, then, well... I agree with you, and don't really understand why we went through this. I agree. It really doesn't seem to make sense since we're, apparently, both arguing the same side.In closing, I'd just like to say I learned a lot from reading/conversing in this thread. I'd like to apologize again to Catholic Scientist and anastasia. I think I lost my cool a bit back there, and said some inappropriate things. Ah well, I'm learning And that's exactly why I come here.

I agree that we should be the very best that we can be but to accomplish that you have to have a starting point.It has been fun and I have learned a lot.

---

Just because I believe it that does not make it true.

• Do not interfere with your neighbors life so long as it does not harm anyone (that is not a willing informed participant - tattoos & piercings come to mind).
• Respect the rights of all individuals to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
• Basic human rights apply to all individuals, including Freedom, Justice and Equality.
• The right to a good education and health care.

Just some thoughts ...Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added last item

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Many atheists believe in values that we can associate with God. Many atheists don't believe in the image of God they have formulated. Since God is quite a personal thing we can only truly believe in God once we have experienced what God is for ourselves. Atheism is often the refusal to believe in other people's god. Our belief in God changes as a result of our experiences. But God does in fact exists for virtually everyone.

Nonsense. Religions have merely included values that are blindingly obvious for people living together. You have it backwards. Isn't the existence of something a matter of fact? How can a matter of fact be true (or false) for some people and not for others? Either there are invisible pink unicorns etc, or there are not; not both at once.

StevieBoy I must disagree here since I find that most atheists do not refuse to believe,but, rather, find no evidence to support a belief in any god.
You claim that God exists in fact, therefore, it seems reasonable that you can demonstrate this gods existence. Is there any way in which you can show evidence of your god that does not first require that you believe the god is there to begin with?

---

``A paradox is not a conflict within reality. It is a conflict between
reality and your feeling of what reality should be like.''- Richard Feynman

I'm new to debates like these so I hope you can forgive me for making assertions and then not really explaining myself. It's OK to question; Backwards? I think belief in God and the truth and love God provides brought about Religion. We don't have to subscribe to any one Religion to believe in God. Believers and non-believers can follow the same values without necessarily being of faith or religious. I am referring here to the belief in God, so what I'm saying is that we can choose to believe in God if we want to and God is always there for us (becomes existential) if we choose to believe. Atheism is a belief but not in God (a higher power). Invisible pink unicorns are higher powers. But I would question your sanity if you chose to believe in them.

Yes, certainly. What I was getting at is that a lot of the values expressed in religions are necessary for any human society and would be included in any sensible collection of values. Athiests do not subscribe to them for any reason having to do with gods. Does this mean that gods exist only if they have believers? Do they disappear if it happens that no one believes in them any longer?I am puzzled by your phrase "chose to believe in God". How can one choose to believe in something? If one encounters convincing evidence that something is true, then one believes it, otherwise one does not. If one can choose to believe things, one could choose to believe something one knows to be false. That is a very odd idea. There is somehow a taint of hypocrisy about this.I wonder if some people confuse actually believing things with thinking that they ought to believe them.

Well I question the sanity of those who believe in god(s) for the same reason. What's the difference?

quote:

---

Invisible pink unicorns are higher powers. But I would question your sanity if you chose to believe in them.

---

Why?There is exactly the same amount of evidence for them as there is for any other supernatural entity.The only reason most do not question belief in the Abrahamic god, for example, is merely becasue it is culturally accepted.Cultural acceptance of an irrational idea doesn't make it any less irrational.

quote:

---

I wonder if some people confuse actually believing things with thinking that they ought to believe them.

---

I think this is quite common.I once worked with a college kid who's father was a preacher. This kid wasn't at all any sort of ardent religious person, and one day we were talking about belief in God. He made some kind of wishy- washy comment like, "Well, you gotta believe in something, right?"Well, no, you don't. But culturally, and personally, it is often much easier to hold on to a nominal, vague sort of faith than to question and then let go of it.

Thanks for your reply sidelined and sorry it was my first post and rather garbled. I also applogise for taking this off topic. Yes I see your point, it is not an active refusal rather an absence of evidence. And my point is lost in that sentence. I would say instead that since they don't believe in their own God they don't identify themselves with any one else's God either. The belief in God exists for everyone (you can choose to believe and nobody can rightly tell you otherwise). The only way God can exist is through belief hence my failure to clarify. It's difficult to prove one's belief in God however. But perhaps Jesus came close to that through his sacrifice. Since nobody is forced to believe in God, I don't believe we should ask ourselves to provide evidence (we will nevertheless question our beliefs on a regular basis). However centuries of Religious belief amongst the people of our world is evidence enough that there is a God. Again I would use the clarification that I mean the 'belief'. Perhaps this is often the cause of confusion and disbelief when people talk about God.Edited by StevieBoy, : No reason given.