Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
There are a lot of people who misconstrue what a scientific theory is. They don't realize that a scientific theory is in fact a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. This differs from other types of theories which propose an explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation. It's easy to get the two confused.
And then, of course, there are those folks who refuse to have their eyes opened to new possibilities regardless of the evidence put before them. They choose to remain blind to reality in favour of a strongly held belief or view of the world. No amount of facts will ever convince them.
Exactly. At this point in our development where we have a rather good idea about the ways of the world(I.E. Humans evolved from some form of ape), the only thing I feel like I need a god for is telling me the difference from right or wrong. I don't need him to have created the world.
Exactly. At this point in our development where we have a rather good idea about the ways of the world(I.E. Humans evolved from some form of ape), the only thing I feel like I need a god for is telling me the difference from right or wrong. I don't need him to have created the world.
Well, actually, we're not descended from apes, but rather a common ancestor. But that's neither here nor there. Also, I learned right from wrong from the two most important people in my life: my parents.
Well, actually, we're not descended from apes, but rather a common ancestor. But that's neither here nor there.Also, I learned right from wrong from the two most important people in my life: my parents.
Let me ask you one thing i've never understood. How do you respond to the fact that it has been more or less proven that we evolved from other animals, we did not simply appear.
Alright fine, it hasn't been proven, but it has been proven that we did not simply pop up.
Also, why didn't the bible mention dinosaurs? (Maybe it did very rarely, but not really.) Is it as if they did not exist? Because they did, and if god did not create them, who did? It seems he created the earth, and everything in it, except the prehistoric beasts, as if a whole time period was skipped.
Is it pertinent? Did they need to mention dinosaurs? The Bible didn't mention some red ant that nobody cares about. God did create dinosaurs; they could have died in the flood.
Is it pertinent? Did they need to mention dinosaurs? The Bible didn't mention some red ant that nobody cares about. God did create dinosaurs; they could have died in the flood.
It's too bad they died out about 65 million years ago. And, the best part is, we know that for a fact, due to carbon dating methods. That is an incontrovertible fact, and no amount of scripture can change that.
On one side of the aisle, you have people waving holy books in your face and saying they contain all anyone needs to know about God, the world, and everything.
On the other side of the aisle are the people who equate the question with asking "What is wisbfkdkhdjek?", and proceed to regard anyone who believes in "sky fairies" as uneducated morons(though they may or may not say it outright).
Apparently there's no middle ground, and these groups sit in their aisles straw-manning and ad hominem-ing each other as they have for years. Typical humans.
Obviously, I can't claim to know any better than anybody else what God is or whether he/she/it even "is" at all. I have a few thoughts on the overall matter at hand, but I'll spoiler them for those who'd rather skip them and just want to know what my idea of God is.
Spoiler:
1. Regarding arguments for a god as though they're similar to arguments for flying spaghetti monsters and unicorns really doesn't fit. I have yet to see anyone invoke arguments trying to prove flying spaghetti monsters or unicorns in order to control people, give people hope and/or purpose, or show nonbelievers that death isn't simply erasure.
2. I, personally, don't see the idea that existence just popped into being(or that it just is)inherently more sensible, rational, logical, or even testable than the ideas on the existence of a higher power that seem to get ridiculed so heavily on the internet. Either way, things are just suddenly appearing for no apparent reason sounds vaguely "magical" and not overly scientific. We don't exactly view spontaneous generation as a high-level idea anymore, do we?
3. It's pretty clear that the more interventionalist ideas of god(or gods)aren't the case. We haven't been annihilated for our evils, we haven't seen any demonic or angelic forces dueling it out recently, and we most certainly haven't seen the sky open up with trumpets sounding the return of Jesus, suddenly causing all the dead to rise. We haven't seen anything major like that, nor have attempts to deal with disease via nothing but prayer worked in any reports I've seen.
4. People will believe(or disbelieve)what they want to believe(or disbelieve). This is true with most other aspects of life, so it makes sense it would apply to religion. I can recall of AT LEAST one story in The Bible where people doubted Jesus himself, even though he was right in front of them. I know the Bible was written by humans, and as such I don't take it very literally(I realize it was written by humans, and god or no god, I don't trust most humans for ♥♥♥♥), but I feel like there's something to it. There probably are a lot of people who, even if the Second Coming happened, would just persist in believing some mass hallucination was going on until they finally concluded otherwise.
5. I can't speak on the beliefs of other religions, as I have no background in them. What I can say is that nowhere in Jesus' teachings is it said that "Thou shalt proceed out into yon Holy Land, and where thou finds those who believe not the one true way, thou shalt smite them down with the holiest conviction." Nothing like that. Not even once. The Crusades, the Inquisition, and the likes were perpetrated by the Christian Church, but they were most certainly not founded on anything beyond the loosest possible interpretation of Christian belief.
6. Oh, and the idea that religion hindered scientific advancement for the majority of history is myth. I don't want to go off into a tangent from a tangent to explain this, so just message me if you want more on this.
My view is as follows. Any human view of God will likely be inadequate, as there is only so much we can conceive of. Any attempt to personify God will by its very nature be inadequate, as it results in our projecting our personalities and prejudices into this being. Even typical logic dictates that something(like a universe, perhaps)doesn't just pop into being from nothing, nor does anything just always exist, and therefore all things must have a cause. But then, why would that cause be there? How/why could God be there? And how/why could anything be rather than pure nothing if there is no initial cause?
I do think there's something at work here that we don't quite understand yet. Why don't we? Well, religion made its conclusions thousands of years ago, and science made its conclusions in the last few centuries, putting a lot of people on two opposing sides that refuse to even look for common ground. So long as we're there, flinging feces at each other like the apes we descended from, I doubt we'll ever figure out what that something is.
Is it pertinent? Did they need to mention dinosaurs? The Bible didn't mention some red ant that nobody cares about. God did create dinosaurs; they could have died in the flood.
That would pre-suppose dinosaurs existed alongside man. But we know this not to be true. It is only young-Earth creationists who content that the world is only a few thousand years old. But since this view of theirs is so preposterous no serious credence can be given to such views. It flies in the face of every scientific fact we've learned up to this point. Fact 1: Dinosaurs died over 65 million years ago. Fact 2: Human beings, as we are today, did not exist at the time of the Dinosaurs.
If we were to in fact assume that the bible mentioned dinosaurs living alongside man, then it not only could be considered the best-selling fiction book of all time, but also the best-selling science-fiction book as well!
It's too bad they died out about 65 million years ago. And, the best part is, we know that for a fact, due to carbon dating methods. That is an incontrovertible fact, and no amount of scripture can change that.
And, if I may point out, dinosaurs were pretty much everywhere in their day, and they were also quite big, so no, maybe they won't mention a tiny red ant, but a gigantic t-rex coming to destroy the village? I doubt the bible would leave it out.
I feel like I should edge this in here, but nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly state or even imply that the Earth is only but a few thousand years old. That seems to be a misconception shared by Creationists and a lot of their opposition.
Hell, even when I was younger and more sure of my beliefs, I had a larger obsession with dinosaurs and other ancient life, and just came to the conclusion that, if the flood happened, Adam and Eve popped in somewhere after dinosaurs had come and gone. What that would imply(though I didn't know it back then)was that if God created everything in 6 days, it's likely it wasn't 6 periods of 24 hours each.
I feel like I should edge this in here, but nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly state or even imply that the Earth is only but a few thousand years old. That seems to be a misconception shared by Creationists and a lot of their opposition.
Hell, even when I was younger and more sure of my beliefs, I had a larger obsession with dinosaurs and other ancient life, and just came to the conclusion that, if the flood happened, Adam and Eve popped in somewhere after dinosaurs had come and gone. What that would imply(though I didn't know it back then)was that if God created everything in 6 days, it's likely it wasn't 6 periods of 24 hours each.
The conclusion that you came to is what the Catholic Church believes - one day is a metaphorical amount of time, that could mean any millions of years. The "one day" used to create man could have easily been the amount of time that it took us to evolve, and even overlap with other days as God's time doesn't match ours; in that way it doesn't interfere whatsoever with evolution. Evolution/dinosaurs and religion in no way have to be at odds.
I'd give BadPokemon the benefit of the doubt here in not knowing the exact scientific timeline of dinosaurs and man; unless he's a Young Earth Creationist, it could easily be explained as the fifth day spanning the time period from when animals evolved from the waters to when humans had fully evolved. In the "morning", the dinosaurs died, and in the "evening", man was created/evolved.
The way the Catholic Church handles evolution is actually quite graceful and allows the separate spheres of religion and science to coexist peacefully.
"Is"ness. Could it be possible that, attempting to grasp something as oxymoronic as "God" in absolutes, will lead to utter confusion between individuals? I think so.
Does the possibility exist that this confusion (and the inherent limits of language to express some "things") adds aggression, fear and the like to communications? Possibly. One may only speculate...
Here is some food for thought, and an interesting journey should any reading find themselves brave enough to attempt it. :P
Try this exercise in consciousness, God, and "divinity".
1. Calm your mind (anyway you know how will do). When you are certain that the only thing you hear in your head is your own thoughts, begin to question yourself in the following manner.
2. Ask yourself, what am I. Then, answer. Keep going until you know something 100% or more.
Do so in an unrelenting fashion. You will be your own worst enemy, but if you want to find the cool goodies at the end of this "test", you will try this >___< Try to not laugh at your silly answers, or be annoyed or bored by the ones that are obvious (i.e. I am human, I am a man, I am alive, etc. Accept them politely and keep going!).
3. Once you reach the end of this suggested thought path (you will know the end by clarity that seems "otherworldly") , and you are absolutely certain that your "reality", objective and subjective, are solid... attempt a conversation with "God". Only try this after you are without doubt in your entire "being" about your current state of clarity.
4. The final part of the exercise is this... Ask for something, make sure its small, something hard to get but achievable. Make sure that at least 5 other people know that you are going to ask "God" for whatever it is you are asking for. We are not talking about santa here, so, make sure you are VERY specific. Be sure to be thankful for what you have as you "converse", but also be sure to think of OTHERS first.
If one goes deep enough into this, some interesting things happen :D
I have personally used this technique since I was 4 years old. I have won the lottery (4 1/2 years old), never broken a bone (till this day even), never been stung by ANY insect (ditto), and survived many near death situations (too many to list living in Detroit for all those years) . I have also been able to predict the future (currently the farthest I've ever experienced and been able to talk to others about is 3 days. For some odd reason anytime longer than that becomes unstable for me). If you need proof of my adventures with this, I am more than happy/comfortable to give contact info to anyone and facilitate conversations with those who have known me for most of my 26 year life here on Earth.
What am I suggesting with this weirdness? It is possible that every version of "God' is real? Haha, you tell me! Get to know "God" on your own terms. Take risks, do personal experiments (documentation helps most here), and try to foster a since of equanimity and acceptance of the "other" (that which is not well understood, or considered WRONG by ones current paradigm). At my most romantic, I like to imagine that "God" exists within all things. I imagine that "Is"ness can be removed and "God" then becomes. Not what is, but something else. Like, when you feel alive. When you see someone/something you really care about go away forever. When you are in maximum pain and can't remember what it felt like to be without it. When you laugh so hard you cry and pee your pants a little. I mean, we are all guessing even though some of us are not willing to admit it
Learning acceptance and tolerance, patience and consideration will go a long way for our whole species, and dare I say it...
ALL OF LIFE AS WE KNOW IT!!!
Peace y'all. Oh, and, I never stopped loving you Katy Perry. You just broke my heart a little when you made a movie.
Well, I for one do believe in G-D, but I do not view Him as some bearded man in the sky. In fact, I don't believe He has any human form at all, or any form we can process. I think the whole idea of G-D looking like this:
is just because we need some images in our minds to associate Him with when He is being referenced.
(Why did I join this topic?)
EDIT: Of course, Pagan religions humanize deities all the time, but I'm just referring to the Abrahamic G-D, FYI.
I get that you're Jewish, but Christianity sort of 'humanizes' the Abrahamic God as well. The Romans never shaped their gods in a specific human form, that was the Greeks. So I don't think it's right to say that pagan religions humanize deities all the time.
Regarding arguments for a god as though they're similar to arguments for flying spaghetti monsters and unicorns really doesn't fit. I have yet to see anyone invoke arguments trying to prove flying spaghetti monsters or unicorns in order to control people, give people hope and/or purpose, or show nonbelievers that death isn't simply erasure.
Because the idea of God is different from the idea of a flying spaghetti monster. God, for many people, is a real and actual source of hope and love, while the flying spaghetti monster was created to make God look like a coriander. The unicorn is the national animal of Scotland.
I, personally, don't see the idea that existence just popped into being(or that it just is)inherently more sensible, rational, logical, or even testable than the ideas on the existence of a higher power that seem to get ridiculed so heavily on the internet. Either way, things are just suddenly appearing for no apparent reason sounds vaguely "magical" and not overly scientific. We don't exactly view spontaneous generation as a high-level idea anymore, do we?
It's pretty clear that the more interventionalist ideas of god(or gods)aren't the case. We haven't been annihilated for our evils, we haven't seen any demonic or angelic forces dueling it out recently, and we most certainly haven't seen the sky open up with trumpets sounding the return of Jesus, suddenly causing all the dead to rise. We haven't seen anything major like that, nor have attempts to deal with disease via nothing but prayer worked in any reports I've seen.
We haven't been annihilated for our evils
Both the Bible and the Qu'ran (along with several Hindu texts) record accounts of God devastating humanity with a great flood, usually as punishment for their sins. I'm not saying it actually happened, I'm saying you can't be completely certain that the flood didn't happen.
We haven't seen any demonic or angelic forces dueling it out recently
This is a weak argument, since believers believe that demons and angels are fighting this very instant.
And we most certainly haven't seen the sky open up with trumpets sounding the return of Jesus, suddenly causing all the dead to rise
You mean rapture day? That's probably because it hasn't even happened yet.
We haven't seen anything major like that, nor have attempts to deal with disease via nothing but prayer worked in any reports I've seen
Right, because everything that's not in the news isn't true.
People will believe(or disbelieve)what they want to believe(or disbelieve). This is true with most other aspects of life, so it makes sense it would apply to religion.
I can recall of AT LEAST one story in The Bible where people doubted Jesus himself, even though he was right in front of them. I know the Bible was written by humans, and as such I don't take it very literally(I realize it was written by humans, and god or no god, I don't trust most humans for ♥♥♥♥), but I feel like there's something to it. There probably are a lot of people who, even if the Second Coming happened, would just persist in believing some mass hallucination was going on until they finally concluded otherwise.
I can't speak on the beliefs of other religions, as I have no background in them. What I can say is that nowhere in Jesus' teachings is it said that "Thou shalt proceed out into yon Holy Land, and where thou finds those who believe not the one true way, thou shalt smite them down with the holiest conviction." Nothing like that. Not even once.
The Crusades was a formal act of war, not some overzealous holy pilgrimage. The Muslims (or at least, the Seljuk Turks) were a serious threat to Christendom. They had the Levant, Byzantium, Northern Africa, Spain, and Southern Sicily. Worse, they harassed any Christian pilgrims who tried to visit Jerusalem for a pilgrimage. Sure the Crusaders did terrible things as well, but that was on their part, and not on the Catholic Church. In 1945, the US dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. Was that terrible? Yes. Was it necessary? Arguably.
And yes, the Inquisition sucked. No argument from me.
The Crusades, the Inquisition, and the likes were perpetrated by the Christian Church, but they were most certainly not founded on anything beyond the loosest possible interpretation of Christian belief.
The Catholic Church. Please note that there were already three major Churches that time -- Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental. I can't see how you came upon the conclusion that these things were founded on loose interpretations of Christianity, since you're not Christian yourself.
Oh, and the idea that religion hindered scientific advancement for the majority of history is myth. I don't want to go off into a tangent from a tangent to explain this, so just message me if you want more on this.
True. If it wasn't for the Muslim scholars who preserved Greek and Roman texts, or for the Christian monks who recorded accounts of everything happening, we wouldn't have science as we know it today.
I feel like I should edge this in here, but nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly state or even imply that the Earth is only but a few thousand years old. That seems to be a misconception shared by Creationists and a lot of their opposition.
Let me make it more visual. Religious people believe the following: God-->existence, and God always was. Athiests seem to think this: complete and utter nonexistence-->suddenly existence. Of course, neither of these make any sense under conventional human logic. Scientific law doesn't allow matter and energy to just appear, nor does it(in any form I've seen)posit anything plausible where something can just materialize from pure nothing just "because".
TheVoid said:
You can't say that for sure.
(1)We haven't been annihilated for our evils
Both the Bible and the Qu'ran (along with several Hindu texts) record accounts of God devastating humanity with a great flood, usually as punishment for their sins. I'm not saying it actually happened, I'm saying you can't be completely certain that the flood didn't happen.
(2)We haven't seen any demonic or angelic forces dueling it out recently
This is a weak argument, since believers believe that demons and angels are fighting this very instant.
(3)And we most certainly haven't seen the sky open up with trumpets sounding the return of Jesus, suddenly causing all the dead to rise
You mean rapture day? That's probably because it hasn't even happened yet.
(4)We haven't seen anything major like that, nor have attempts to deal with disease via nothing but prayer worked in any reports I've seen
Right, because everything that's not in the news isn't true.
1. Well, even if we operate under the assumption that those events did, in fact, happen, it's not like things have gotten any better since then. A more recent example of events that aren't as debated as to whether or not they happened in which interventions of God such as those of the Bible might be expected are the events leading to and during World War II. I would think between the concentration camps, the wholesale slaughter done by both sides, and science's unleashing of something that one could compare to hellfire over two Japanese cities would've been a great time to at the very least least drop by our plane of being and say "Now hold up people, what did I tell you before?"
2. I'm sure they do, but I haven't seen any of it lately. Of course, this may well be going on somewhere I just can't perceive.
3. And I'm uncertain as to whether it will, at least in the exact way it's said to come in the Bible.
4. Well, I don't see how I'm expected to know of cases not in the news. I mean, I'm not God. I can't possibly know things I haven't seen myself or been told about. And then, the stories I have heard haven't been all that positive.
TheVoid said:
The Crusades was a formal act of war, not some overzealous holy pilgrimage. The Muslims (or at least, the Seljuk Turks) were a serious threat to Christendom. They had the Levant, Byzantium, Northern Africa, Spain, and Southern Sicily. Worse, they harassed any Christian pilgrims who tried to visit Jerusalem for a pilgrimage. Sure the Crusaders did terrible things as well, but that was on their part, and not on the Catholic Church. In 1945, the US dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. Was that terrible? Yes. Was it necessary? Arguably.
And yes, the Inquisition sucked. No argument from me.
What I was saying is that events like that are generally taken by athiests(well, anti-theists, really)to show the "only" contribution organized religion has given to society. Aside from the fact that it's not even true, blaming the religion and core beliefs for the acts of people who tend to do what they want anyway(but prefer to bring justification)is unfair to the beliefs in question.
I don't see too many people saying the United States is evil for setting off nukes over Hiroshima and Nagasaki(which to me is weird, nukes are way worse than anything this country has done recently).
TheVoid said:
The Catholic Church. Please note that there were already three major Churches that time -- Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental. I can't see how you came upon the conclusion that these things were founded on loose interpretations of Christianity, since you're not Christian yourself.
Actually, I was born, raised, and confirmed Lutheran(Protestant). Just because my beliefs aren't 100% unshakable doesn't mean they aren't there. I learned my share of what Christ taught in Sunday School and through gospel readings at service. Like I said, nowhere in there did it say "thou shalt bring forth all nonbelievers, and thou shalt punish them for their ignorance", or anything even remotely similar.
Not sure what you're trying to indicate here, sending me to a Creationist website. Obviously they're going to try and make things read in ways that suit their beliefs. I've gone through Genesis a few times myself, no "EARTH: AGE 6,000" in there that I could find.
Let me make it more visual. Religious people believe the following: God-->existence, and God always was. Athiests seem to think this: complete and utter nonexistence-->suddenly existence. Of course, neither of these make any sense under conventional human logic. Scientific law doesn't allow matter and energy to just appear, nor does it(in any form I've seen)posit anything plausible where something can just materialize from pure nothing just "because".
Well, even if we operate under the assumption that those events did, in fact, happen, it's not like things have gotten any better since then. A more recent example of events that aren't as debated as to whether or not they happened in which interventions of God such as those of the Bible might be expected are the events leading to and during World War II. I would think between the concentration camps, the wholesale slaughter done by both sides, and science's unleashing of something that one could compare to hellfire over two Japanese cities would've been a great time to at the very least least drop by our plane of being and say "Now hold up people, what did I tell you before?"
Maybe you're right; maybe it won't happen. Scholars today are saying the Book of Revelation possibly referred to the Romans destroying the temple of Jerusalem. But like you said, we can't know.
Well, I don't see how I'm expected to know of cases not in the news. I mean, I'm not God. I can't possibly know things I haven't seen myself or been told about. And then, the stories I have heard haven't been all that positive.
What I was saying is that events like that are generally taken by athiests(well, anti-theists, really)to show the "only" contribution organized religion has given to society. Aside from the fact that it's true, blaming the religion and core beliefs for the acts of people who tend to do what they want anyway(but prefer to bring justification)is unfair to the beliefs in question.
I don't see too many people saying the United States is evil for setting off nukes over Hiroshima and Nagasaki(which to me is weird, nukes are way worse than anything this country has done recently).
Actually, I was born, raised, and confirmed Lutheran(Protestant). Just because my beliefs aren't 100% unshakable doesn't mean they aren't there. I learned my share of what Christ taught in Sunday School and through gospel readings at service. Like I said, nowhere in there did it say "thou shalt bring forth all nonbelievers, and thou shalt punish them for their ignorance", or anything even remotely similar.
Sorry, I didn't think you were Christian. Since Lutheranism was formed from the idea that Catholic Church was corrupt and only loosely basing itself on the Bible, I can't argue with you about that.
Not sure what you're trying to indicate here, sending me to a Creationist website. Obviously they're going to try and make things read in ways that suit their beliefs. I've gone through Genesis a few times myself, no "EARTH: AGE 6,000" in there that I could find.
I was just proving that creationists have somehow found a connection between the Bible and the Earth being 6000 years old. I don't believe in it myself, but you should check the website anyway.
Fun fact, according to the CCC, it's the fault of religious believers that atheism even exists because you didn't do your job and educate us.
Whoops.
CCC-2125: Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion.61 The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion."
Earlier in the discussion someone said that atheists, or people that don't believe in the Abrahamic god do not have morals. That they are jerks.
I comment on this again, because I am an atheist. I was once a devout, very very devout, Catholic. I was an active member in my church. I used to brag about becoming a nun when I was younger.
Then, I learned. I learned the truth about religion. Why my questions weren't answered or why I shouldn't even ask. I learned the sexist ways of Christianity when I could not step foot on the altar when I was a visitor in a different church, because I was a woman, even though I'd been a head server for three years, and an altar server for ten. I received all the Sacraments appropriate for my age. (Baptism, Eucharist, Confession, Confirmation)
To this day I still can recite every prayer I ever learned.
I learned of other religions. I learned, I spent my whole life learning and studying religion, especially Abrahamic religions. I learned I was indoctrinated. I learned I had no choice in my own belief system as a child. Every child is born atheist, our parents, our surroundings, shape our beliefs.
Do I not have morals? I donate money regularly to shelters. I co-own a food shelf that feeds over two thousand families a month. I volunteer my time at multiple nursing homes. All my animals are rescued. I run a LGBT alliance at my former high school. My food shelf does a AIDS food/medical donation program. I would, and have, given the coat off my back for a stranger. I work to save lives as an ambulance tech, and am going to become a paramedic when I go back to school.
I go out of my way to live an honest life while giving back to the community.
Yet god would hate me. Because I'm homosexual. Because I love my girlfriend and would do anything for her, just as any other person would who loved another. I cannot marry my girlfriend in the church that I spent my childhood in, that I grew up in. Hell, until recently I could not marry in the very state I lived in because homophobic Christians made it illegal. God would hate me because I questioned its existence. In my religion, as a woman, I was nothing more than an object.
I never turned my back on religion. I embraced it. I learned everything I could, not about my own, but of every one I could. I'm not an atheist because I 'hate god'. I'm not an atheist because I hate religion. I am atheist because I know better. I am atheist because I am no longer ignorant of religion. I am atheist because I am not a sheep; I am my own person. I am my own person who makes her own choices on what to believe or what not to.
Does that make me immoral? Evil? A jerk? A terrible person?
Atheists and agnostics certainly have morals, some even more than the religious. My question is, on what grounds do they base their morals on? The law?
I comment on this again, because I am an atheist. I was one a devout, very very devout, Catholic. I was an active member in my church. I used to brag about becoming a nun when I was younger.
Then, I learned. I learned the truth about religion. Why my questions weren't answered or why I shouldn't even ask. I learned the sexist ways of Christianity when I could not step foot on the altar when I was a visitor in a different church, because I was a woman, even though I'd been a head server for three years, and an altar server for ten. I received all the Sacraments appropriate for my age. (Baptism, Eucharist, Confession, Confirmation)
To this day I still can recite every prayer I ever learned.
I learned of other religions. I learned, I spent my whole life learning and studying religion, especially Abrahamic religions. I learned I was indoctrinated. I learned I had no choice in my own belief system as a child. Every child is born atheist, our parents, our surroundings, shape our beliefs.
Of course you had no choice in your own belief system as a child. As a child you wouldn't have the right mind to pick for yourself yet. Blaming religious education isn't really a solution.
Atheists and agnostics certainly have morals, some even more than the religious. My question is, on what grounds do they base their morals on? The law?
How about general human nature... not being a dick is usually a good place to start. Take a philosophy class. It's called Secular Morality, more specifically secular humanism.
Of course you had no choice in your own belief system as a child. As a child you wouldn't have the right mind to pick for yourself yet. Blaming religious education isn't really a solution.
Let's ignore the thousands of dollars spent on a proper 'Catholic' education.
If children don't have the right to pick for themselves, why are they baptized not long after birth, and confirmed in the religion less than twenty years after that? (usually fourteen-sixteen)
How about general human nature... not being a dick is usually a good place to start. Take a philosophy class. It's called Secular Morality, more specifically secular humanism.
Let's ignore the thousands of dollars spent on a proper 'Catholic' education.
If children don't have the right to pick for themselves, why are they baptized not long after birth, and confirmed in the religion less than twenty years after that? (usually fourteen-sixteen)
