|
|
| Re: Atheist Billboard At Lincoln Tunnel Approach (702712) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Atheist Billboard At Lincoln Tunnel Approach |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Wed Dec 1 21:07:55 2010, in response to Re: Atheist Billboard At Lincoln Tunnel Approach, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Wed Dec 1 20:22:28 2010. The literal definition of the words aside, atheism (in its correct weak form, not the strong form that asserts that there is definitely no God) is indeed equivalent to agnosticism. It is indeed correct not garner belief in something for which there is no evidence. By that argument we are "agnostic" to a lot of things, like the Boogie Man, Fairies, and pink unicorns. I doubt most self-professed agnostics are undecided to about the existence or non-existence of these things.Agnosticism: There is not enough information to decide either way. There is plenty of information to make a decision about the existence of god, namely the complete lack of evidence of his existence, which leads one to the conclusion that he can be regarded to be nonexistent. In any case, theism is necessary. Our whole concept of marriage / family unit comes from it (otherwise men would simply fuck many women, and leave them to raise the children on their own, except for their 'favorite' - is that better than what we have now?). False. The Western concept of marriage and family is a culturally recent and unusual invention. It is typical of pre-Western societies to practice polygyny, which is quite different from the idea of family values we seem to hold dear. As well, all societies have developed an idea of the family unit. Our laws are based in it. False. This is an inaccuracy constantly repeated, mostly by the religious right about American laws. Who decides what is right and wrong? Society? But if you do not get caught society will never learn what you did, and you will not be looked down upon. At that point the line between right and wrong is completely arbitrary and decided on a personal basis. If people are free to move the line wherever you want, in a few generations it will disappear entirely. Quite to the contrary, as societies have moved away from religion they have moved towards a greater sense of morality and human welfare, and have moved away from the barbarism demanded by religious "morality," such as the stoning of women and homosexuals, the genocide of whole ethnic groups, and the enslavement of people. What your basically saying is that humans need religion for morality, which is patently untrue. Morality is not based on religion but instead based on the social contract, which basically states that in order to get the benefits of living in a social group one needs to adhere to certain rules. The development of morality and an innate moral sense was necessary for the evolution of a social species, and what allows humans to live harmoniously in a group. |
|
|
|