How valid are belief systems?

[2Dbunk]

At the Royal Cemetery of Ur (ancient city in southern Iraq ), in 2,100 BCE, an entire entourage of court members were prescribed to take poison at the funeral of their exalted leader. The six oxen that pulled the carts into the unearthed grave, were killed after the entourage had succumbed. This is not fake news. This site was unearthed by archaeologist Sir Leonard Wooley in 1926 and later reconstructed at UK’s British Museum.
Do theists consider the evolution of belief systems through the ages, as bizarre as they can be? Heritages similar to the above have been reduced and refined considerably, but to a much lesser degree they still exist. In contrast, non-theists have pretty much wiped such activity from their minds and actions. Can anyone dispute this? Is this not an example of why one should question belief?

[2Dbunk]

At the Royal Cemetery of Ur (ancient city in southern Iraq ), in 2,100 BCE, an entire entourage of court members were prescribed to take poison at the funeral of their exalted leader. The six oxen that pulled the carts into the unearthed grave, were killed after the entourage had succumbed. This is not fake news. This site was unearthed by archaeologist Sir Leonard Wooley in 1926 and later reconstructed at UK’s British Museum.
Do theists consider the evolution of belief systems through the ages, as bizarre as they can be? Heritages similar to the above have been reduced and refined considerably, but to a much lesser degree they still exist. In contrast, non-theists have pretty much wiped such activity from their minds and actions. Can anyone dispute this? Is this not an example of why one should question belief?

No response to my challenge? I suppose what I pointed out in the OP is accepted truth by all theists: chalk one up for Reason, minus one for eccumenicals

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 2 by 2Dbunk]

What is the challenge again? Its not really clear what exactly challenging. History has always been written by the victors and is constantly being revised... but I'm not sure what you point is about belief systems.

Maybe you would have more responses if you clarify a little.



JW

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 3 by JehovahsWitness]

2Dbunk challenges:
In contrast, non-theists have pretty much wiped such activity from their minds and actions. Can anyone dispute this? Is this not an example of why one should question belief?

JW asks:
What is the challenge again? Its not really clear what exactly challenging. History has always been written by the victors and is constantly being revised... but I'm not sure what you point is about belief systems.

Maybe you would have more responses if you clarify a little.

Fair enough. I maintain that non-theists have discarded notions of burning in hell for less than a misdemeanor. My example of the 41-century old "exalted leader's" requirement that his supporting entourage follow him in death in order to serve him in his "afterlife" is to show how far religious belief has evolved.

Today that requirement is considered ludicrous, but burning in hell-fire torture for eternity because one chooses not to believe in Jesus is still the norm -- that's ridiculous!

Belief system = heritage, tradition, what mom, pop and preacher told you without more than hearsay verification!

How can today's theists sign on to such irrationality?
how do MODERN theists explain this?

[Peds nurse]

At the Royal Cemetery of Ur (ancient city in southern Iraq ), in 2,100 BCE, an entire entourage of court members were prescribed to take poison at the funeral of their exalted leader. The six oxen that pulled the carts into the unearthed grave, were killed after the entourage had succumbed. This is not fake news. This site was unearthed by archaeologist Sir Leonard Wooley in 1926 and later reconstructed at UK’s British Museum.
Do theists consider the evolution of belief systems through the ages, as bizarre as they can be? Heritages similar to the above have been reduced and refined considerably, but to a much lesser degree they still exist. In contrast, non-theists have pretty much wiped such activity from their minds and actions. Can anyone dispute this? Is this not an example of why one should question belief?

Hello 2Dbunk!

I think your example above is why we should question what we believe, who we believe, and why we believe it's true. Men can take something good in any arena, and make it warped somehow. Doctors, lawyers, nurses, and countless other professions, have been plagued in the past (and current stories as well), as going in a much different direction than their peers. It doesn't mean that medicine failed, or colleges for that matter. It does mean that the human mind can be rather warped, and swayed by unhealthy thinking. As far as religion goes, there have been many instances where unhealthy thinking led to devastation. This does not negate the importance or benefit of religion, but rather the delusions of some people.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 3 by JehovahsWitness]

In my post #4 I indicated "fair enough" in your request for clarification -- and did so.

Since I reiterated basically what I said in my OP, but in different words, there has been not a peep out of you, Ttruscott or Sally F. (the latter two seemingly agreeing with your inability to understand the English language). Therefore I say again: No opposition argument here -- I guess I win hands down: 1 for non-theists, zip for the theists.

Cheers!

[FWI]

In contrast, non-theists have pretty much wiped such activity (belief systems) from their minds and actions. Can anyone dispute this?

Yes, I can…

The non-theist or atheist have a belief system similar to many other belief system, including the religious ones. Where, a belief system is simply: a set of principles or tenets which together form the basis of a religion, philosophy, or moral code.
Note: In principle, there is no difference between non-theism and atheism. Non-theism means not believing in any gods, which is the same as the definition of atheism. The prefixes: "a-" and "non-" mean exactly the same thing: not, without or lacking. Thus, the term non-theism was only created and continues to be used in order to avoid the negative baggage that comes with the label: atheist.

The atheists or non-theists have commonality in several important areas, thus a belief system! This is pretty much an observational or scientific reality…The most prevalent of these commonalities is: a lack of belief in any gods. Yet, there also are political, gender, social, a desire for a public image and gatherings at regular times to discuss these commonalities. Virtually, no atheist or non-theist turn to religion for guidance on questions of right and wrong! Which, show an apparent disconnect from social standards held for thousands of years, to a new standard of beliefs…There, also is a strong pull to enhance their belief system by attempting to counter the belief systems of others, which seems to be a goal, which show that their position is different from the masses…

So, under the definition of a belief system it is clear that atheism or non-theism has a religious, philosophical and moral code of their own.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 7 by FWI]

FWI, thank you for your interest. Allow me to tear you a new one.

Yes, I can…

The non-theist or atheist have a belief system similar to many other belief system, including the religious ones. Where, a belief system is simply: a set of principles or tenets which together form the basis of a religion, philosophy, or moral code.

Myself: belief in no religion; yes to a philosophy; and yes to a moral code.

Note: In principle, there is no difference between non-theism and atheism. Non-theism means not believing in any gods, which is the same as the definition of atheism. The prefixes: "a-" and "non-" mean exactly the same thing: not, without or lacking. Thus, the term non-theism was only created and continues to be used in order to avoid the negative baggage that comes with the label: atheist.

Your last sentence is SO untrue. I don't mind being called an atheist. like you say, whatever you call me makes no difference. The word atheist has no baggage -- certainly not as much as you have -- with your cross and dogma . . . oh, the dogma. Oh... the church -- going to church once every three or seven or every day: for what? Pastoral purification for past improper deeds? What a waste of time since there is so much to be done to make this a better world (or make America great again).

The atheists or non-theists have commonality in several important areas, thus a belief system!

Sure Atheists believe in things. We just don't believe in the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, gods that go ballistic in the night, nor do we believe in the devil as many theists believe we do -- nor are we a part of same.

This is pretty much an observational or scientific reality…The most prevalent of these commonalities is: a lack of belief in any gods.

Trying to make do with your fragmented sentence, is it your intent to equate science with a lack of belief "in any gods?"

Yet, there also are political, gender, social, a desire for a public image and gatherings at regular times to discuss these commonalities.

Whoa there. Did you include fondling of goat entrails?

Virtually, no atheist or non-theist turn to religion for guidance on questions of right and wrong!

I wonder why? Just look at the Republican controlled Senate.

Which, show an apparent disconnect from social standards held for thousands of years, to a new standard of beliefs…

This may come as a shock to you, but have you ever heard of the word PROGRESS, a noun or a verb in which form one chooses to recognize and use it. Things are supposed to get better as we create and re-create as time goes by. I know it's not always obvious, but over the course of time we have learned how to prepare pork so we don't get sick, venture near the edge of the earth, and fly above the clouds (supposedly the domain of the angels).

here, also is a strong pull to enhance their belief system by attempting to counter the belief systems of others, which seems to be a goal, which show that their position is different from the masses…

Sigh, I rest my case.

So, under the definition of a belief system it is clear that atheism or non-theism has a religious, philosophical and moral code of their own.

I know I addressed this earlier

Have a good day.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 8 by 2Dbunk]

Myself: belief in no religion; yes to a philosophy; and yes to a moral code.

So, you do believe that non-theists or atheists (or at the least, yourself) has a belief system. This is clear by your agreement with the general definition of a belief system. Also, if we review the definitions of a religion, we view one that is: a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. Since, it is also clear that non-theists or atheists have the pursuit or interest to rebut the bible and its followers, as well as, consider this endeavor of supreme importance, non-theism or atheism is also a religion, when practiced! Another, point of interest is the reality that non-theists or atheists groups also solicit donations from those who were told that this type of action is only a money grab by the religious…Thus, the facts show that non-theism or atheism is just as religious as their counterparts.

Hence, the statement that non-theists or atheists don't support a belief system or are an organized religion is completely refuted by definitions and observable comments and actions…

Things are supposed to get better as we create and re-create as time goes by.

But, they haven't…And, this comment and the rest are not actually related to my statements concerning social standards or belief systems, where they just seem to be a sort of venting. Yet, the standards of honoring our parents and avoiding: murder, adultery, stealing, lying and desiring what others have are the hallmark standards of most civilized societies. Where, these standards have served the world well. However, as you suggest, change should be a betterment of social standards, not the opposite…They are not intended for individuals, who want to do whatever they feel will benefit themselves, but for the benefit of the societies as a whole.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 9 by FWI]

So, you do believe that non-theists or atheists (or at the least, yourself) has a belief system. This is clear by your agreement with the general definition of a belief system. Also, if we review the definitions of a religion, we view one that is: a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. Since, it is also clear that non-theists or atheists have the pursuit or interest to rebut the bible and its followers, as well as, consider this endeavor of supreme importance, non-theism or atheism is also a religion, when practiced!

Me thinks you are contorting the definition of belief system to include primarily "religious belief." Pure and simple: religious beliefs are held by individuals who believe in a supernatural deity. I don't buy into that notion -- though I believe in a lot of other REAL things!

Another, point of interest is the reality that non-theists or atheists groups also solicit donations from those who were told that this type of action is only a money grab by the religious…Thus, the facts show that non-theism or atheism is just as religious as their counterparts.

That is a stretch of your imagination . . . EVERY entity is out there solicitating for money -- where have you been?

Hence, the statement that non-theists or atheists don't support a belief system or are an organized religion is completely refuted by definitions and observable comments and actions…

That is no argument. You cover little ground with such a broad statement -- what you do cover is a very limited view of a global subject.

2Dbunk wrote:
Things are supposed to get better as we create and re-create as time goes by.


But, they haven't…And, this comment and the rest are not actually related to my statements concerning social standards or belief systems, where they just seem to be a sort of venting. Yet, the standards of honoring our parents and avoiding: murder, adultery, stealing, lying and desiring what others have are the hallmark standards of most civilized societies. Where, these standards have served the world well. However, as you suggest, change should be a betterment of social standards, not the opposite…They are not intended for individuals, who want to do whatever they feel will benefit themselves, but for the benefit of the societies as a whole.

I qualified that first sentence with "sometimes." Generally, things have gotten more comfortable for the human condition with the improvement of agriculture, medicine and science. But it is the naysayers who society is dragging, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. Who are the naysayers? Look in the mirror to see a religious iconoclast, bent on maintaining thousands of years of dogma and hearsay.