Question for the atheists who post here

[Rooster7]

If you make moral decisions based on the outcome of a 7/10 split, then yes - bowling is a religion. I'll stick with sound logic...hide behind a dictionary if you must, but the truth is plain to see. If you're conducting your life according to a belief system (i.e., there is no God), then for all practical purposes - you're subscribing to a religion. It may be a Godless religion, but it's a religion.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Hunt]

Look, the primary definition of religion in Webster's is "a belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers." That's also the common understanding of religion. Atheism is not a religion. It's a belief system that competes with religion.

 

It's also simply untrue that atheists by definition lack morals or ethics. It's an interesting argument whether their morals and ethics have any real basis without a religion, but to say they don't have any just isn't so, and is insulting to people of good will who aren't religiou

[Eamonn]

Rooster, Please believe me when I say that I admire you for your deep faith in the teachings of your religion. I don't agree that atheists don't know the difference between right and wrong.

My reason for asking the atheists that post here if they doing anything to bring about change in the military and the White House office of Faith-based initiatives was to find out if they were just out to bring down the BSA or if they really want to bring about change in all the areas that the U.S government spends taxpayer money on faith based programs.

While it might be wrong of me to say but Deloe seemed a little unsure about the Faith Based initiatives and he never mentioned the Chaplain Service in the military.

Merlyn seems to have got side tracked and didn't address either.

This should lead me to some sort of a conclusion?

Could it be that Merlyn is really only posting here in order to rattle and rile up the Scouter's here in the forum?

Both the programs I mentioned are faith based, both are funded by the government, both receive a lot more funds then the BSA.

The Military has a forum where as tax payers the atheists could post their displeasure about the millions of taxpayers dollars are spent funding religious doctrine.

I'm sorry guys, all the name calling and misinformation that you choose to post here is lost on me. I know that you aren't going to lose any sleep over it. But if you thought that you might gain any support from me by posting in this form, it just isn't going to happen.

Eamonn

 

[NJCubScouter]

Wow, in one post (9:55:58 AM today), Rooster manages to bash almost his entire "hit list": Atheists, evolution, science, homosexual activists, abortion rights advocates, the feminist movement, Democrats, "most liberals," and really, anyone whose religious beliefs do not match his. I say that last part because many of the statements that Rooster seems to believe are integral to a belief in God (in other words, to not be an atheist), are not. They are simply what he (and in many cases, a majority of people who believe in God) believe. But they are not true of everybody who believes in God.

 

Like:

 

After all, if there is no God, then whos to say what is right or wrong.

 

People. I personally believe people decide what is right and wrong. I believe that God created the Universe, and directly or indirectly gave mankind the ability to decide what is right and wrong. I think that in our society at least, we do a pretty good job of deciding what is right and wrong, though individually we obviously don't always do a good job of following the rules. Now, I recognize that a majority of people believe that God intervenes more directly -- but you don't have to believe that in order to believe in God.

 

Rooster also refers to a "fixed definition of good and/or evil." In reality, ideas of what is right and wrong are not always fixed. Certain things will presumably always be considered wrong, like murder, rape, assault, theft, etc. But if you look back at history, some ideas of what is right and wrong have changed. I won't get back into the old debate over whether slavery is condoned in the Bible, but just look back say 60 years in this country. Racial discrimination was not considered immoral by many people, in fact some looked to the Bible to support discrimination. Now racial discrimination is considered wrong. (I think the recognition that other types of discrimination are wrong, is following along as a natural result of the civil rights movement, but I won't get into any of that specifically.) Business practices are another example. For centuries the rule was "buyer beware," now there is a recognition that business should be conducted by a higher standard. That is a moral issue too, in my opinion.

 

And then there's this:

 

3) Mankind is not capable of creating anything that is truly good without God.

 

First of all, I don't even know what that means. If God created the Universe, then man does not exist without God. But you don't have to believe in God or any particular version of God to be a good person or to create something good. I think you sell mankind short.

 

By definition, God is not just a superior being, but rather He is the Supreme Being.

 

Indeed, so supreme that I don't necessarily think he (using the conventional pronoun) really gets involved much in what we do. Again, I do not mean to argue about religious beliefs, and I know that many of the people here with whom I agree on many issues, do believe in the Bible and do believe in a more "active" God than I believe in. I have no problem with what anyone else believes. I am just making the point that belief in God does not necessarily mean all of what Rooster thinks it means.

 

Why do human beings, one of His creations, think that they can comprehend his ways?

 

Good question, but I find it curious that you are the one asking it. You seem to know a lot of specifics and details about what you think God wants and doesn't want. And I know where you get those ideas, you get them from a book. But that book is one of the things that is not essential to a belief in God.

[Achilleez]

Rooster,

 

Why do you make the assumption that since I do not beleive the universe is controlled by a singular conscience force that I have no sense of ethics, morals or right and wrong? How do the two connect together? I understand how you could think that since I don't beleive in what you think is the ultimate source of good and love, that I am not capable of understanding or applying those things, but this is simply not the case. To make blanket-statements about a group like they have no guilt for their actions, based entirely on whether-or-not they beleive a supernatural being is present in the world makes no sense. Knowing the difference between good and evil is something all beings possess, and it is up to them to choose for themselves. For example, I know that murder, rape, theft and prejudice are all wrong not just because of their immorality, but because a healty society of beings cannot function with such things. So it becomes necessary to penalize those found guilty of such things to discourage similar behaviour from others.I do not consider myself an agnostic because in my opinion agnostics are fence-sitters who try not to think about theology because they are either undecided or don't consider important enough. I am not a agnostic in that I put a great deal of thought into it. Rooster, how many true atheists do you personally know? How many of them do you consider immoral or without conscience? I beleive that if you were to look at the matter with more depth, you would find that almost all of these unethical, immoral people are actually agnostics, who give no thought to theology and thus are more compelled to not be guilty or conscienceous of their actions. In theory, an immoral atheist is not a true atheist in the same way an immoral Christian is not a true Christian. Because to abondon ethics and morals is to succumb to chaos and evil, and atheism embraces a beleif in order and natural structure. Please remember, atheism does not mean nihilism, not to me.

 

On a side note, when did it become OK to insult atheists to savagely as FOG does? As Christians, you must beleive that all other tenents of faith like Judaesm and Islaam are fundamentally wrong because they don't recognize Christ, right? Yet if someone were to talk about Jews or Muslims the way FOG talks about atheists, they would meet harsh retribution, not? If you beleive both are wrong, why do you pick on atheism? In fact, you should be condemning other religions even worse, since they actually replace your god with another, which would logically be worse than just not beleiving that yours exists.

[Deloe]

Eamonn:

Your first post was worded impolitely, and it was followed even ruder posts by other posters. It is no surprise that Merlyn would take offense at these posts. And you conclude that Merlyn is a troll?

And I wouldn't characterize my position on faith-based programs as "unsure". I am quite sure these are questionable at best. I did qualify the claim that no non-Christian groups have received any money, because I have not personally verified this, and I am open to the possibility that I have received incorrect information (a quality that I apparently share with very few members of this forum).

I think that the fact that we have been repeatedly insulted, and you accuse us of "name calling and misinformation" (unless you were talking to FOG et al., which seems unlikely), shows that there isn't much hope of explaining our position to you.

[edited to fix codes](This message has been edited by Deloe)

[packsaddle]

Whew! Just back from a long, really great trip with the troop and what have I discovered in the forums?

Eamonn, I think "have it in" is a poor choice of words for your view. I wonder how many persons, actively excluded from a club, exercise the restraint and clarity toward that club as displayed by Merlyn. He weathers some withering diatribes in this forum and usually responds clearly and succinctly.

 

My view of FOG (aside from that 'rough as a cob' comment awhile back) is to substitute "cantankerous" for the "F" part of his moniker. Gotta love 'im.

 

And I guess I should feel besmirched by Rooster in that I am a scientist, but no offence taken. I still occasionally encounter similar absolutist views in the classroom. Most of them see things differently as they mature intellectually.

 

I think Merlyn has good points to make and he has been consistent in his arguments. If it is illegal for government to support or fund one or any religion, then I agree with him that such criminal activity should be identified and stopped.

 

It would have no effect whatsoever on this troop or its future if BSA allowed 'avowed' atheists to be members. And I don't understand how there could possibly be any bad effect. Ditto (sorry NJ) the homosexual issue.

 

The avowed atheists who respond to this forum confirm my view that they develop their thoughts through careful deliberation. Compare their approach to ideas, if you will, with that employed by Trail Pounder.

 

As for a moral code, I disagree that such must be decreed to us from a supreme being, or read from a book (or a stone inscription, gold plate, etc.) I believe that a code nearly identical to that which most of us share can be derived from scientific principles and a simple assumption or set of assumptions. I further believe that, for those of us who question such things a pronouncement alone is not good enough...it must also make rational sense in order for us to accept and practice it (or to follow up on another thread, "just following orders" isn't sufficient justification for doing something).

This is another way of saying that I believe that people are inherently good and that most share an innate (dare I say 'instinctive'?) moral sense. Worshipping a rock (or anything else) is fine but it isn't required.

[LovetoCamp]

After careful deliberation, I've concluded that packsaddle can go pound sand too!!!

[firstpusk]

"This is incredibly amusing, if not outright hypocritical, because evolution does not have a factual basis. In truth, many of the scientific communitys best and brightest concede that evolution does not even qualify as a theory. In the end, its merely a worldview a religion, if you will that permits its followers to embrace whatever feels good."

 

Evolution has a factual basis. The support for the theory becomes more solid with each passing year. I don't know where you get the idea that the "best and brightest" disagree with evolution, but you could not be more wrong.

 

Evolution is a tool that helps us to understand the world we live in. However, it is not a worldview or a religion. As science, it simply does not speak to these questions.

[willysjeep]

(hear those chimes ringing? I'm chiming in)

 

Athiests, as I have only met a few in person, seem to arrive at their world view, their sense of good and bad, and their moral convictions through logical processes. I would assume that the reason some of them work on the BSA to change their rules is because they are more envolved in the BSA, and it has a more direct effect on them than say the chaplains in the army would. I would think that if they were in the army they might try to get the chaplain service changed if they thought it was wrong. It isn't a matter of who they have it in for the most, but who has the most bearing on their lives and the development of their kids. If you wanted to have a law passed, you might start with the city conucil, before you try to change the stance of the government of Trinidad.

 

As to the logic behind athiesim, I can understand it pretty well. Many morals, mores, folkways, what ever you call them, can easily be arrived at without divine intervention. Example: cannibalisim is bad. If we could just up and kill and eat each other when we felt hungry we would all have to live in constant fear of each other and probably wouldn't interact with each other at all. Sociotey would not progress, we would not even reproduce. Therefore, if cannibalisim were good sociotey would self destruct. Pretty logical, huh?

 

Now as to religion: I think I am a Methodist, and the Methodist concept appeals to me. John Wesley got sick and tired of the unfulfilling and strict ceremony and order of the CHurch of England. He developed a philosophy that was less dependant on mindless ceremony and more dependant on self exploration and study. Basically I am a methodist because I have decided that we are about as close to "getting it right" as any other religion. I see athiests as taking the same information I have and arriving at a diferent solution. Untill we all die there is no way for sure to check the answer thoug.

 

I have my reasons and I am sure everybody else has theirs. I don't know for sure if they are wrong, but I have a good idea that I am right. I do not think it is my right or my place to tell other people that they are wrong though, because I am pretty sure they dont have exactly the same information and experiences as I have. Live and let live.

[Achilleez]

Amen willysjeep.

[PatBB]

Darrell believes in & lives by the Scout Oath & Law. He even does the deeds/actions which most believers call 'Duty to God'--even though he believes that God is a fictional character. OK, if I joined Toys for Tots & IF they required me to promise to 'do my duty to Santa Claus,' I would so promise even though I disbelieve in the existence of a Man With 8 Reindeer Who Comes Down Chimneys. Indeed, because I know that he doesn't exist, I would be all the more committed to filling his noble function of bringing gifts & joy to children on December 25.

 

Please also note that orgs do exist which are favorable to belief in God, so they foster & encourage it in their members & the outside public without REQUIRING it as a condition of membership: YM/YWCA, Jaycees, & as of 2003 the VFW. Also, the US Armed Forces & Congress have chaplains & prayers WITHOUT expelling nor dissing atheists.