Hindu's to Christians in India: "convert or die"

[slikster]

Originally Posted by photon

Animals have their own sense of right and wrong... higher primates have very complex systems that show many resemblances to our own, even things like altruism.

I was saying we have to teach animals that live with us to behave how we want them to, not that they don't have brains of their own.

Feral children which have never been taught by humans still show innate values.. so there is some innate portion of value systems.

The girl in Ukraine that was raised by dogs, acted like a dog. The kids that are locked in cages and denied any contact barely know how to function. Your point refutes mine how?

Edit: And what are values? Yours or mine? Where did they come from? Why are they different?

[slikster]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

The notion that atheists "proselytize" more than any religious group is ridiculous too. I figured the whole infrastructure of Christianity might demonstrate just how ridiculous it is. I guess you don't agree.

One might say internet forums such as this are used by atheists pontificates to extol the virtues of atheism.

[flip]

I for one welcome the Hindu's finally acting like a true religion. Too long have they abstained from the time honoured religious tradition of murdering all those who do not believe in a religions specific god or gods.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by photon

Animals have their own sense of right and wrong... higher primates have very complex systems that show many resemblances to our own, even things like altruism ....

.....Which makes sense, as an intelligent species evolves things like values that benefit the whole species would become part of the basic structure of the brain, in the same way that "instincts" in animals occur.

Not to go off-topic too much but I would argue that altruistic behaviour in animals is more based on kin selection and the selfish gene theory which goes against the whole concept of benefitting the species as a whole (more about the individual). By being altruistic to a kin it at least helps you ensure the survival of genes closer to your own. There's an evolutionary benefit/advantage to it.

Humans on the other hand. They're willing to go off to foreign lands to commit altruistic deeds for others who they have little genetic relationship to.

[photon]

Originally Posted by slikster

I was saying we have to teach animals that live with us to behave how we want them to, not that they don't have brains of their own.

You said right and wrong were taught, not innate. That other animals have systems of values that they adhere to demonstrates that it's not nurture only. Unless you are saying that different species evolved similar sets of values all in parallel independent from each other.

We may teach animals to interact with us in a specific way, but they have their own sets of morals or values.

The girl in Ukraine that was raised by dogs, acted like a dog. The kids that are locked in cages and denied any contact barely know how to function. Your point refutes mine how?

That those children still show moral behaviour despite having no nurture from humans. Not killing your family, protect the young, that sort of basic thing.

Edit: And what are values? Yours or mine? Where did they come from? Why are they different?

Values are a combination of nature and nurture IMO. Nature because some values are evident in pretty much every society across time, nurture because obviously some values are very different between societies or groups.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Not to go off-topic too much but I would argue that altruistic behaviour in animals is more based on kin selection and the selfish gene theory which goes against the whole concept of benefitting the species as a whole (more about the individual). By being altruistic to a kin it at least helps you ensure the survival of genes closer to your own. There's an evolutionary benefit/advantage to it.

Agreed, I just meant that the value itself came to benefit the species, not that that was the actual root of the behaviour.

When you put it that way, with kin selection working on each small group, but all of them coming to similar basic sets of behaviours, maybe it is more like troutman posted.

Humans on the other hand. They're willing to go off to foreign lands to commit altruistic deeds for others who they have little genetic relationship to.

We've moved past being completely influenced by just our genes, the impulse is still there but who we identify with (who we deem to be worthy of our altruistic deeds) is determined by more than just the ones we've grown up with our whole lives, now we determine it by higher level things.

[photon]

Originally Posted by slikster

One might say internet forums such as this are used by atheists pontificates to extol the virtues of atheism.

The whole point of internet forums is for people to pontificate and extol the virtues of whatever's being discussed. Be it one's religious leanings, political orientation, or how much Vancouver should be hated.

No one's forcing anyone to engage in a conversation.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Unfortunately, you don't have the right to not be offended.

Ouch, a double negative.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by kermitology

I actually hold Atheism as a faith of sorts.. faith is something you believe in despite concrete evidence supporting it.

There is no empirical proof that God exists or does not exist. The absence of proof does not in itself prove that God does not exist.

So by that logic, an Atheist, claiming that there is no God, despite a lack of proof, is taking a leap of faith. Therefor, Atheism can be classified as a faith. A faith that there is nothing to have faith in. Odd..

You sound you're diving into pseudo-Cartesian doubt.

Atheism constitutes a faith just as much as believing the monitor or keyboard in front of me actually exists constitutes a faith.

Aristotle spoke of things differing in degree and in kind. My faith (atheism) and the theists' faith (Christianity et al.) differ in degree so much that it is arguable that they differ not in degree but in kind. To say they differ in degree may be true, but it is quite misleading and the average Christian would jump all over that representation and misconstrue it.

[Azure]

Spin it this way....

Since nobody really 'knows' whether or NOT God exists....you must have 'faith' that he does, or doesn't exist.

Or how else can you be SO sure to even call yourself an atheist?

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Azure

Spin it this way....

Since nobody really 'knows' whether or NOT God exists....you must have 'faith' that he does, or doesn't exist.

Or how else can you be SO sure to even call yourself an atheist?

Okay.

1. There is a computer in front of you.
2. There seems to be a computer in front of you, but you really know that there is an evil demon tricking you into thinking there is a computer in front of you.

Atheists take position one, theists take position two. Both take faith.

Like I said, they do in fact differ only in degree, but it is not constructive to speak of them as such.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by evman150

Okay.

1. There is a computer in front of you.
2. There seems to be a computer in front of you, but you really know that there is an evil demon tricking you into thinking there is a computer in front of you.

Atheists take position one, theists take position two. Both take faith.

Like I said, they do in fact differ only in degree, but it is not constructive to speak of them as such.

So you think that being an atheist requires some level of faith? Isn't that a knock against atheism, considering it is supposedly against the basic tenet of religion....faith?

[Antithesis]

Originally Posted by Lithium

I got kicked out of a Chapter's once for moving all the bible's to the fiction section.

Even if this were true, it wouldn't be funny. I know you don't care, but why bother coming on to an internet forum to post something that isn't true? You didn't do this.

Anyway, I love how a post about something awful like the news in the original post gets changed all around to be some theist vs. atheist thing.

They are both matters of faith in my mind; no one can KNOW that there is a God any more than someone can KNOW that there isn't one. I'd love to listen to someone try to debate otherwise without resorting to ridicule (that means don't bother, evman) and to have a serious discussion about it.

Why does this even matter? Why are we labelling entire religious groups as being awful given the actions of some obviously very upset radicals. You don't go around saying all Muslims are terrorists, so why would you resort to equating all theists with these clowns in India?

[Azure]

Was I the only one who laughed at what Lithium posted?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by slikster

This is absurdly wrong on so many levels. To say that human ethical beliefs are natural laws akin to mathematics? Please. And this in no way takes into account anything evil that people around the world do every day.

Humans must be taught right and wrong, it is not innate. If we did not have the capacity to teach our children right from wrong, we would be no better than animals (whom we as humans also have to teach.)

I never said innate, I said natural, as in not super-natural.

[Antithesis]

Originally Posted by Azure

Was I the only one who laughed at what Lithium posted?

Do you mean laughed at it because you found it genuinely funny, or laughed at it because it was so absurd it couldn't possibly be true, or laughed at him for thinking it was (while untrue) funny to be that disrespectful of an entire group's beliefs?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

Do you mean laughed at it because you found it genuinely funny, or laughed at it because it was so absurd it couldn't possibly be true, or laughed at him for thinking it was (while untrue) funny to be that disrespectful of an entire group's beliefs?

Probably laughed because I thought he was being sarcastic.

[Antithesis]

Ah ... right. Hm, I suppose that is an option. I suppose I could see how someone would think it's funny ... I guess I just don't.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by slikster

One might say internet forums such as this are used by atheists pontificates to extol the virtues of atheism.

And one might also say that internet forums such as this are used by religious types to extol the virtues of their particular brand of religion.

[jammies]

Atheism is not based on faith. To assert that a god or gods exist is not a conclusion but a premise; accepting that premise does require faith but this does not mean that dismissing this premise is also an act of faith, as the onus of proof is on the person asserting a premise, not the ones rejecting it.

The idea that atheism is a faith is entirely due to the inability of the religious to step into a frame where belief is completely discounted as a tool with which to understand the world; to them it is much like someone claiming they don't see any shades of blue, and thus is impossible to credit because they can clearly see there is blue everywhere. Therefore the tendency is to try to fit atheism as a different kind of faith to make it comprehensible, but it is NOT. It is a denial of faith, and labeling a denial the same thing as what is denied is not logic, it is a deliberate twisting of semantics.

Atheism is fundamentally incomprehensible to the faithful because it views the world from entirely outside the frame of belief - for a religious person to understand atheism, he/she has to become an atheist. It is also very difficult for an atheist to understand the faithful, even for those who have lost their faith: you can no more truly remember what it is like to believe than you can remember what it is like to be a child; everything is seen thru the lens of Now.

This is why it is so frustrating for an atheist to argue matters of religion with the faithful; there is no shared vocabulary which can overcome the differences in world-view between the two camps: each finds the other obtuse and irrational. It is why discussions like this are of little benefit between the ostensible opponents involved - what people are really fighting for is the minds of the undecided.