abaya, you're probably right. I have this competitive thing where I like to win and sometimes it overrides my intention to have a good, meaty discussion. Filth, do you want to start from scratch? You can have the last word. :)

Judy - welcome to TFP. Despite what you might've seen elsewhere, we pride ourselves here on being respectful to other posters, regardless of our disagreements. I'd very much like to hear your opinion on this topic, rather than your opinion of Will.

By evidence, I mean the various arguments that have been advanced for God's existence. I vary in whether I think they're logically sound or not, but I don't think any of them will convince the committed atheist. But what they do show is that there are reasons to believe in God's existence.

Do you have any specific things to list? Example: weeping statue of the Virgin Mary.

Juday, Juday, Juday...
/bad Cary Grant impersonation

If you have a problem with willravel's assertations, then attack his position...not him. As JinnKai has so correctly pointed out, we do pride ourselves here on being respectful to other posters. It is what makes this place a community, and not just another message board. You get a "pass" this time. I invite you to look around a bit, and get a "feel" for the environment that we have going.
Oh...and welcome aboard. :thumbsup:

Filth? That was like some kind of subconscious thing...right? :orly:

Will is to Willravel as Filth is to Filtherton, right? It was intended as a nickname and nothing more I assure you. Like calling your BOR instead of Bill O'Rights. It's the manifestation of my laziness. :thumbsup:

Riiiiiiight. :D

So, its trendy to be an athiest now? finally! I have been ahead of a trend. I think that sudden "raise of athiesm" stems directly from people having the abilty to think for themselves in a day in age where we can have different views and still tolerate each other for the most part. I have been athiest for many years. I dont flaunt it. I hardly even think about it. And if your not athiest and are committed to your belief, that impresses the hell out of me. Just don't push it down my throat. I love religious discusion and debate. Im jsut not a big fan of religious brow beating.

Can you elaborate on the "think for themselves" comment? Im not atheist and I think for myself all the time

I'm sure that what he meant was the "opportunity" to think for ones self. A lot of the stigma has being lifted in this, our enlightened age. Not so very long ago, to have proclaimed yourself as an atheist would've been akin to coming out of the closet as a child molestor, or...*gasp*...one a them ho-mo-sex-uals.

Look, atheism is nothing new. It's been around since man first uttered the words; "Say what, now?" I remember being in the first or second grade, and asking if Adam and Eve were cavemen. That ponderance began a lifetime of questioning, and searching for real answers...not rhetoric. Today, I am the result of what I've found.
Who knows? Maybe tommorow I'll turn over a rock that I have heretofore overlooked, and find something that will change my entire outlook. But, for now, and for the foreseeable future, I am an atheist. Have been for most of my life.

But what did that get you? You've been banished to Omaha! :lol:

Seriously, I started reading today's posts and as they went on, I was thinking, "shit, this getting nasty." But then... you guys just pulled it out of the nose dive.

Thank you.

Carry on. Pretty much all I wanted to say has been said, I just wanted to tell you all that you're awesome... really.

I don't know if filtherton was headed in this direction, but these two quotes get to what I consider the heart of the matter: there is no evidence for meaning. Meaning is unreasonable by scientific standards. It may be that, in general, theistic philosophy has more useless baggage than atheistic philosophy - thank William of Occam for the seeds of that idea - but neither has its values supported by any kind of evidence. It seems like you're criticizing theism for something that is inevitable in any kind of philosophy that claims the existence of meaning.

Am I missing a key distinction?

fta: i assume that you are talking about Meaning as in the Meaning of Existence or Life and not meaning in a more general sense (like semantics)?

which leads me to a little aside:

i am not sure about the way in which the opposition science/religion has been cast in this thread: scientific claims and theological claims get tangled up all the time--think about the claims made about string theory as giving some access to a single, ultimate structure of reality as we know it---the idea that reality has a single ultimate structure is itself a religious assumption, a mapping of notions of some divine agency--it doesn't follow from other premises---and you see this kind of mapping all the time in popularizing books and films that address developments in, say, theoretical physics, from "the tao of physics" onto that bizarre-o film (can't remember the title) that tries to combine ramtha with arguments for quantum physics as a lifestyle---the sciences are carried out by social groups and the folk who comprise these groups have a wide range of personal beliefs that can easily get crossed with their professional activities, particularly at the level of interpretations (but also in fashioning premises for experiments/modelling procedures, etc.)--it is not like someone who works in physics, say, leaves all their assumptions about the world at the door when they put on a lab coat.

in other words, i see no reason to position science as a realm of Objectivity positioned somehow above or outside ideologies (which include various religious affiliations)---to do this is to at once give the sciences too much credit (by virtue of assuming that they have climbed out of ideologies that continue to shape the views of the rest of us) and not enough credit (you make the sciences into a machine-like operation, and strangely enough put it in the same problematic position that a religious person would be inclined to put, say, the church)---you also erase the simple fact that the sciences have histories and that these histories are marked by quite radical changes of the most basic assumptions that shape/inform various interrogations of the world.

what is also curious is the way in which this thread has moved from what was essentially a sociological question (is there a new "atheist movement" out there and, if so, why now?) to a debate about axioms particular to two abstract systems---theism/religion vs. science--in a way that seems to me to reduce both to fictions.

at the same time, the debate is interesting in its circularity--which brings me back to fta's question, and to the start of this post.

I don't want to know the theory behind it. I want to know how you can prove it. What is the process and who does the certifying? Surely there should be some method. You can generalize it for me if you want. Certainly, if you're as educated as you claim to be you should be able to dumb it down for us physical science folk.

It's one thing to be able to theoretically prove something, actually proving it is something else entirely. Theoretically it's possible to make a heat engine with 99.999999% efficiency. As far as i know, no heat engine exists that comes close to that. For me to claim that the fact that it is possible means it is doable doesn't jibe with reality.


But okay, assuming that there is some way to prove it[not that i think that there is], to the extent that you can prove anything, have you gone ahead and proved that eveyone whom you think loves you actually loves you? Do you have any sort of certification you can provide if anyone in your family wants to be sure that you love them? If not, how can you justify your faith in their love, if indeed, you do have faith in their love?


You are also making claims without proof. Telling me to read a psych textbook doesn't amount to a very compelling argument.

It's not a case at all. Theism doesn't necessarily rely on the idea that god created the universe, or that god evolved within the universe. The fact that something cannot exist under our current understanding of the universe isn't good evidence either; any reasonable person will tell you that our understanding of the universe is relatively limited.

Well, i don't think that it's that simple for people who put a lot of thought into their faith. Why would the logical step be to dismiss?

I don't know, it doesn't really matter to me.

Then why did you even bring it up? You said that science can explain everything that religion tries to. And i pointed out that you were wrong; your response seems to indicated that you knew you were wrong before you even mentioned it.

I don't understand. I explained how it was reasonable based on definitions that i looked up. You said that i needed to use your definitions. I said that that was an irrational expectation because you aren't an objective player in this. Now you want me to use the dictionary. You didn't succeed in not wasting my time.

You keep saying this, but i do not think that word means what you think it means.

As if religion is the only thing that does this. For a psych major, you certainly seem to be unaware of how fucked up humans can be; they don't necessarily need religion to cause injustice or pain or death.

Political analysts aren't scientists, why would their position be evidence of anything?

By pretending to be superior to those whose opinions you want to change? Good luck with that.

I'm sorry dude, but you don't have anything relevant or compelling to say about "all religion".

Do you constantly point out to them how unreasonable they are?

Yes, that's what I mean. Sorry for the confusion.

I wouldn't call objective science a fiction, I'd say that it's impossible to disentangle objective science from our nonscientific assumptions. But maybe that's just a different way of saying the same thing.

...but our understanding through science is ever evolving and expanding. The same cannot be said of the Bible, Qu'ran, Torah, etc. which all remain stagnant. That's kinda what I've been getting at. It's not fair to assume that the Bible will give us some indication of quantum theory because it's 1500 years old. Using the Bible to address things like the origin of life or the origin of the universe isn't fair to the Bible, which is a book of philosophy. As a philosophy, theism can work just fine. If you want to give meaning to your existence through the belief in a god, go for it. It's not necessarily reasonable to believe in something that basically isn't there, but there isn't harm allowing yourself to take some better understanding of yourself or your world from it. When integrating it into science, everything falls apart. That's where the rise in atheism is coming from. The separation of science and faith is happening the same way that the separation of church and state happened (and continues to happen).
Maybe I should be having this debate with a theist.
No, religion is trying to explain the world around us, not just our philosophy. Science is for explaining how the world works on a fundamental level, not religion. That was the point I was making. When I became a humanist, I realized that not all the decisions I made could be made with science. Altruism, for example, is difficult to explain away by Darwinian theory. It's one of the things I take on faith (gasp!). The marked difference between my believing in altruism and a theist's belief in god is that my belief is in something that never claims to be tangible. There is no ancient altruism scripture that explains how we received altruism from a flying white guy that I follow. It's a philosophical decision that has no roots in the belief in unprovable creatures. When a theist is altruistic, it is because they need to believe that the altruism was given to us by a higher, supernatural being. I see a marked difference between the two.
I never said you need to use my definitions. Use any reasonable definitions. I suggested Webster, in order to reference one of Webster's dictionaries, but use whatever dictionary you want, so long as it isn't Jesus' Dictionary for Atheism Arguments.
Are you saying "it's one of many unreasonable things, so it's okay"? That's hardly reasonable.
My buddies who were all Political Science majors in school will be crushed.
Unless you're god, you can only speak for yourself when you declare what I say as being relevant or not.
One step at a time. First, end violence, then move on.

They are evolving. Interpretation of religious texts have been known to change with the times and a particular theist may or may not derive all of their beliefs from the bible.

Maybe, though i think we've frightened all but the most daring of them off.

I think that science is for explaining the things it can explain, which are less in number than the things that could theoretically be explained. Any other explanations are great, provided they don't contradict the things that science can tell us.

I used dictionary.com.

I'm saying that the idea that religion isn't okay because some religious people use it to justify bad things is like saying that economic theory isn't okay because some people use it to justify bad things. People who want to do bad things will find a way to justify the doing of bad things. Charismatic people are the mcguyvers of drivel.

I know, it was a dumb thing to say. I was totally thinking james carville when i wrote it, and then when i was walking to class after i posted it i realized that james carville is, in fact, a douchebag and not a political analyst.

I was speaking for me. I personally don't think you're qualified to speak authoritatively about all religion.

Amen to that. You may find that the differences between the more progressive/moderate religious folk and you are superficial.

I hope that the exchange between mr. ravel and i has been entertaining. I know feel personally entertained.

Well, take the Argument from Design. If we found a stopwatch on the beach, we'd presume someone put it there. It exhibits an orderly design we generally don't think happens by accident. But the universe, like a stopwatch, exhibits an orderly design. Therefore, someone must have put it there. Now, you might not think it's a good argument. But it's an argument, and not nonsensical. And you also have the teleological argument, the ontological argument, the argument from evil, the fine tuning argument, and probably others. These all indicate that there are in fact reasons to believe, even if you don't think they are particularly good reasons.

I also think you dismiss too quickly the claim that "Since lots of things cause injustice, Christianity can't be that bad." The conclusion that this leads me to is that injustice, strife, etc. must be a result of us, not our ideologies. If all the contemporary ideologies were eliminated, and people just stuck to science, do you think injustice would end? If not, then how can you claim that injustice is a result of these things? And this argument ignores all the good that Christianity has brought about. If it has contributed to the oppression of women and colonialism, it is also responsible for the rise of the modern liberal state and the end of slavery (not to mention the role it has played in the fight against racism and sexism). If you're going to criticize an ideology for its effects, it's not fair to only consider the bad effects and ignore the good.

I see that as the ultimate in nonsensical assertions.

Your argument assumes that the universe is perfectly designed. That is a flawed assumption. Let's look at it from a meteorological perspective. Sure, the rain brings water to places not near bodies of water, but what about floods? Other times it doesn't rain for years and drought follows. How is this orderly? As someone fascinated by biology, I can tell you that nature is ruthless. To live, each life form has to kill other life forms around it. Millions of human babies are born with physical or mental disabilities, or are stillborn and die soon after being born. Orderly, indeed.

I would argue that the evidence that you would present isn't evidence for god, but for natural selection. Why is our planet a perfect distance from the sun for life? You're thinking of it the wrong way. Life on Earth developed and the life forms able to survive in our atmosphere survived. All the life forms that didn't survive died off because they were not suited for this world.
I never claimed that injustice was a result of theism. This is the kind of strawman that gets us off track. I'm saying that god isn't real.

fool them all:

i was making more a sociological argument, but it comes to the same thing in this context. so yes. i think so.

=============

asaris: i think i know arguments that are referred to as "fine-tuning" arguments, but not in this kind of context, so could you explain it please?

==============

on the will/filtherton bout---a side comment.

in my world, the strongest arguments against belief in god come in two registers:
(1) on its own terms--that is within judeo-christian theology--god is unknowable. if i were xtian, i would be all about nominalism--in other traditions more about negative theology because both seem at least consistent with something that is axiomatic within these traditions themselves.
(2) belief in god tends to be also a belief that the world is ordered in advance. among the implications of this is that human beings do not create anything, not in any strong sense of the term. i think that is false in itself and the consequences of believing to the contrary have tended to produce such disastrous political outcomes that i would reject the idea of god as a function of them.
at least of this god that the major traditions have constructed for themselves.

personally i am fine with the cloud of unknowing.

Will -- I never said that the world was perfectly designed, only that it exhibited signs of design. And order doesn't imply lack of ruthlessness. As for never saying that theism causes injustice, what about the following:

You also make the claim that non-fundamentalist Christians just pick and choose what to believe. This is simply false. Consider the claim that God created the world in seven days. This is actually the more recent belief -- Christians at least as far back as Augustine believed that passage of Genesis to be metaphorical. An interpretation of scripture that says some passages are metaphorical isn't the same as simply picking and choosing what you believe.

roachboy -- in a nutshell, the fine-tuning argument argues that, given the extreme unlikelihood of the fundamental constants being suitable for the development of matter (not to mention life), it's more reasonable to believe in a God than to not believe in a God. The argument is, of course, a lot more sophisticated than this.

Because you offered no evidence, I had to try and guess at what you were talking about.
Religion doesn't cause the injustice, BUT it sure as hell facilitates it. Tell you what, why don't you name the worst crimes committed by atheists, then I'll list some made by theists. That would help me explain.
What about God killing millions of people for not believing in him? Was that a metaphor for getting to know yourself or being kind to strangers? What about flooding the planet? What about the slaughter of the former inhabitants of Jericho, except the young girls for the Israelites to keep for themselves ("Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.")?

This big guy in the sky killed, or caused to be killed, millions of innocent people. God ordered, or approved of, the murder of civilians, of little children, of helpless old people, defenseless women, prisoners of war, and even livestock. It tells us that God approved the instructions to soldiers to keep the virgins for yourselves. The biggest problem with the Bible, Torah and Qu'ran is that we have people claiming that not all of it should be taken literally and that it's more to give you a moral compass....but God is hardly a good moral compass by today's standards. So theists are stuck. Either they have to accept that the Bible is true and that the creator of the universe is a cold blooded killer, or (and much, much more often) they pick and choose, which is what I was talking about.

So I guess the question is: is god a murderer, or do you pick and choose what to believe?

I'm getting that sinking feeling again... :no:

I do want to say that I like what roachboy had to say about the Cloud of Unknowing. It's been many years since I read that book... but yes, I agree with you there. I'm alright with it, too.

Me too. At this point, will, i think i'm all debated out on this particular topic. I'm a busy fucker, and as much as i enjoy this whole deal i don't know if i can do it again for a while.

First off I want to apologize in advance. I have a feeling this post will ramble because I'm exhausted, and it may offend a few because it will deal with issues they would rather not see, but. . so be it.


It's important to continually challenge one's beliefs. Blind acceptance is never a good thing. That's what got us into the Iraq war. We blindly accepted the notion that they had WMD's and were harboring terrorists. Neither was true, and now we're in a mess. Had we not blindly accepted it, perhaps we would not be in this mess.

What does this have to do with religion? Well, I think it's important to question what you've been told about that as well. I'll give you an example. When I was young I was told about a guy who lived far away from me, and who I would never see, but who watched over everything I did and would judge my actions. Based on those actions, I would either get rewarded or punished. He loved me, and it was important to believe in him.

Story sounded pretty good to my 6 year old ears, but it was when the flying reindeer and the intra-chimney excursions with large objects came into play that I started having questions.

Point? Let's look at the interesting similarities between Santa Claus and God. We're told as children that both of them exist, that they watch everything you do, and judge you. We're told we have to be good or they will get angry. Santa will then give you coal or switches instead of toys, and God will send you to hell.

But look at the differences. As children we have direct evidence that Santa exists. We see him and his elves in the shopping mall. We see the presents he leaves us on Christmas. The cookies we leave him are gone in the morning. That's frankly a LOT more evidence of Santa's existance than we have of God's existance, yet we cover our chuckles with our hands as we watch our childrens' eyes glow at the thought of santa, and we think "How cute, they believe a jolly old elf gives them presents every year." Then we go pray.

The point in all this is that we really don't have any evidence that God exists. That's why it's called faith, not fact. I don't think we should be upset at the direction this thread is going just because Will states his beliefs in a no-nonsense way. I don't think he's pulling a Dawkins, and saying that all of you who do believe in god are morons, and I don't see any reason to think the thread is turning nasty.

In fact I think he has a very good point when he talks about homosexual marriage. I don't think anyone should be persecuted for their religious beliefs, whether you don't believe, you believe in God, or the Great Green Arkleseizure. Doesn't matter.

But by the same token, you should not persecute others because of your beliefs. In other words, if YOU feel homosexual relationships are sinful, then don't get into a homosexual relationship. But who are you to say what others can and cannot do, when it doesn't effect you at all. A gay couple living down the street will not turn you gay, and will not force YOU to sin.

I agree with Will that people who are religious should practice their religion in any way they see fit, but should not be allowed to impose it on those whose beliefs are different.

This is an interesting discussion. I'm interested to see where it goes from here.

Truce! :thumbsup:

Shakran, I'm not sure if you're talking to me directly, but since you quoted me directly in your response, I guess I'll reply! :)

Just to be clear: I have no problem with Will's beliefs. In fact, I agree with pretty much every single one of them. I went from being a card-carrying evangelical in my teen/college years to whatever contentedly vague and agnostic position I'm in now, precisely because I chose to question everything I was told. Most of it went out the window. So believe me, you're preaching to the choir in terms of my reaction to what Will is saying.

My only feeling was that whenever a thread starts becoming a line-by-line dissection of each other's threads... then yeah, it gets a bit tiresome to read. It's not necessarily nasty, but I find it difficult to keep interest in a topic I would otherwise love to read about. The presentation becomes more bitter/personal/backbiting, which I don't enjoy. Maybe that's just my bias and everyone else here loves threads like that... if so, I'll shut up. :)

I'm sure, Abaya, that none of us here, especially me, wants you to shut up :)

But I will say that I think a line by line dissection actually can be a sign of respect. If you make 10 points, and I only attack you on one, then that indicates I'm ignoring 90% of what you said. You're not just writing that stuff to see yourself type - you want it to be read.

But if I don't agree with that 90%, just saying "Everything Abaya just said is crap" isn't exactly the way to go about it either. So I take it line by line, explaining why I think you're incorrect in your conclusions.

True, that can lead to very long posts, but that's just a feature of the medium.

Realistically I think it's good that we write long posts and put the thought required into our posts to dissect other posts line by line. Our society these days is entirely too soundbyte driven. I'm told almost daily that if someone I interview is on camera for more than 7 seconds, the audience stops listening. 7 seconds! How are you supposed to get ideas across like that? That's why I routinely ignore this sage advice and let 'em talk, sometimes for a minute or more. And I get away with it because viewers write in and compliment us on those stories.

My point is, long posts are great! It's time we reverse the trend toward micro-attention spans. If you want to dissect my post line by line, that's excellent. I'd love to see more of that, to be honest.

Well, I agree with the other 90% of your post :lol: (no really, I do)... but I will say, I'm really not sure if everyone here "wants their words to be read." I think many of us, myself included, like to "see ourselves type," especially since we often have so much more to say, and less inhibition here, than we do in real life. And it's the attitude behind the line-by-line stuff that drives me nuts, I guess.

I hear what you're saying about it, though (the other 90%), so I see that I should give it another chance. Thanks for the insight, shakran. :thumbsup:

This is a really good thread. I also don't think that picking apart posts is a bad thing because how else are you supposed to discuss a topic on the Internet?

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us 'universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. "

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

"God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically."

"It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure."

"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish. "


Albert Einstein.



It is true organized religions and rituals are not important, but it's not a reason to stop searching yourself

Okay, I'm starting to get tired of this claim. While Galileo was surely religious, Einstein was not, particularly. While he did say things like:...which would seem to imply that he's religious, he also said things like this:...which most pious people find blasphemous. He didn't stop there, either...These examples really pissed the church off, especially the last one. Now, I know you don't put much stock into organized religion, and I appreciate that, but it's an example of how unorthodox his beliefs were. He even denied divine (absolute) morality! He basically used God as a metaphor for the forces of nature and was of a religious temperment so mild that they don't even bother Richard Dawkins.

Similarly, a lot of scientists that people on this baord have claimed to be religious really were not. None of this was particularly relevant to the various conversations in which they took part but I just dislike spreading misinformation...

As an aside to all of this, it's interesting how a zeitgeist can occur. There is a lot of talk of atheism these days and the more talk there is the more we seem to notice all the other things about atheism that are being discussed, so we talk about it some more.

I am finding it interesting that the most Atheist children's books, Bill Pulman's trilogy His Dark Materials, has been made into a film and the first book, The Golden Compass, will be released in December 2007.

As the Narnia series is to Christianity, so this series is to Atheism.

Mark my words, it will unleash a shit storm of "controversy" the likes of which Harry Potter could never dream. I was surprised it was made into a film given the ultimate human secularist message of the series.

But I suppose that is the nature of a zeitgeist.

You know, I was so preoccupied by my last post that I forgot to respond to the actual thread topic! So, why don't I do that...

You know, I don't really think that Julia Sweeney has a career to end. Her "conversion" seems genuine in light of her and her brother getting cancer (her brother didn't make it) and she's now making a new niche career out of it.

As an aside, it was weird hearing her do a (possible improv) stand-up routine based on her and her brother dealing with their cancers. During the whole ordeal, she would do a weekly routine at a local comdey club. How weird is that...

I'm sure there aren't nearly as many people "coming out" as you think...

It's just a fad for me. I'm thinking that I might want to become a creationist. I've been reading up on it and I find it fascinating.

For instance, creationists actually don't object to evolution, per se. They just object to some of the details, such as people being part of this evolution and the actual mechanism for evolution...

You've demonstrated quite clearly why you do not believe in Christianity. I do not think you have addressed the existence of a god or gods, however. You seem to be working under the assumption that if god exists, god must be as religion describes it. I don't think that is the case. If god exists, it is possible that god just set things in motion and then stepped back to observe. Science allows us to comprehend the rules of the universe, but not where they came from. It is theoretically possible that god built the universe and made it work according to the physical laws that we can study. That seems like it would be a lot easier than having to consciously think about every little thing that happens -- just program in some patterns of behavior and let the program run. I don't think science necessarily negates faith. I know several scientists who are extremely religious and view science as the tool to understand the universe the way god built it. I think that the real scientific method is to take something you believe could be true, make predictions based off of it, and then see if those predictions come true. If a religious person believes in god, prays to god to get through something, and then gets through it then they've used the scientific method to support the hypothesis that faith can help people through tough times. I'm agnostic myself because I don't believe in god exactly, but I do think it's possible that god exists. In response to an earlier point in this thread, I'm the same way about mythological or superstitious things. I don't really think vampires exist, for example, but I wouldn't be too surprised if I met one someday. I'd just be like, "Oh, so they *are* real..." (and then I'd probably die :p)

An interesting idea, but not an idea based in evidence. No evidence exists at all to suggest the existence of a supernatural intelligent creator. Anyone can guess as to the nature of the dawn of existence, but without proof it's just a guess. Without evidence or proof, it's really just a flight of fancy. It's as theoretically possible that god created the universe as it is that a super-intelligent race of corn cobs created the universe, and therein lies the ultimate truth about god: there is no ultimate truth about god.
But if you undoubtedly believed in vampires, without any proof beyond myth, then you'd be considered to have a disconnect with reality. Some people who've read Ann Rice one too many times actually do believe in vampires and some even consider themselves vampires. That's delusional. I'd say it's equally delusional to think that an immortal demigod that lived 2000 years ago lives in your heart.

Sure god might exist, but so far as reason goes, god does not.

I was a closet Atheist for years. I didn’t tell anyone. I don’t know if I didn’t wanted to be judged or piss people or didn’t want to argue with them. I didn’t even tell my wife, but she knew. I just never flat out said it. She asked me one time about it but I just danced around the question.

A close friend one day told me that she was agnostic, and she was the first person I told. I gradually told more and more people. My mom was the biggest obstacle, she is really religious and I didn’t want to break her heart. She flat out asked me over thanksgiving, and I gave her the hard honest answer that I have been wanting to tell her for so long. She took it pretty well. After that the big burden was lifted, and I don’t hide it at all, and have no problem telling anyone or expressing my views when the topic come up.

I think there is two reasons why Atheism is on the rise. First, people have more information, and starting to get skeptic to the stuff that they were spoon-fed since birth. Second, I think that there is a large percentage of the population that are closet atheist like I was, and society seems to be more understanding now, in fact more than it was five years ago.

This might be a little off topic, but I’m not sure what to do about my children with this. People of faith bring their children up to believe what they believe. I’m not sure If I should bring my children to believe what I believe, that there is no God, or present both sides and let them make up their own mind. It’s something that I really struggle with.

That's an honest struggle Ample.

My wife believes in God and I am an atheist. Our kids say prayers before bed and go to church on occasion. They have a grasp of the concept of God.

When they ask me what I believe I am honest with them. When they talk to my wife, she is honest with them.

I do not go out of my way to indoctrinate them one way or the other. I know what that I hope they will see things my way but that's not my call. I am leaving it up to them.

I think a lot of it is a response to the religious right and other fanatical religious movements around the world ramping up their rhetoric. People are starting to realize that fanatical, impractical, and nonsensical beliefs can do real damage.

A return to fanaticism and fundamentalism is usually a sign of an ideology in its death throws. When any given school of thought is incapable of reconciling its central tenets with modern life or simple objective reality, its most vocal proponents usually respond by undercutting their particular ideologies' ability to incorporate any new information. This was evident in the Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and the Christian uprising in Alexandria.

In the United States in particular, mainstream Christianity has really gone off on a tangent. The religious right routinely attempts to legislate morality and pass pseudoscientific nonsense off as legitimate science. You can only expect a rational human being to suspend their cognitive dissidence for so long. Eventually, they're going to start smelling the bullshit.

That, to a certain extent, is exactly what I think is happening. People feel more comfortable standing up and saying "You know what? BULL-SHIT."

Beyond that, I wouldn't say atheism is experiencing a growth period. We're just hearing a lot more from it's most vocal proponents. The same can be said for the batshit crazy variety of fundamentalists christians. There are plenty of believers out there who are capable of practicing their faith like grown-ups, but unfortunately they tend not to be the ones in any position of religious authority.

That being said, atheists still appear to be one of the most mistrusted minorities in America. I'm glad more are speaking up. There is a lot of unmitigated horseshit out there that goes unchallenged.

We are all atheists.

More or less. The only difference between myself and any given religious person is the fact that I don't believe in the personified existence of one more supernatural entity than they do.

I've always wondered why the non-belief in god[s] needs a label at all. After all, people don't have to identify themselves as anti-astrologers or non-geocentrists.

In post-communist Europe, we are currently privy to an unprecedented rise in the number of Catholic believers. It is a reaction against a half-century of forced atheism in some pretty backward social settings. They even banned Christmas for fourty years, do you imagine?

Of course the revival is hysterical and bigotted in nature, as revivals tend to be, and there have been some pretty far-out attempts at re-confirming Europe's Christian identity (my favourite is the attempt of the Polish parliament to elect Jesus king of their country), but they are all destined to fail since religion is always purely the matter of deep-rooted tradition and communal integration, and it's primary roles in the social structure have already been replaced by secular institutions.

The pelicularity which sets the USA apart from the EU is the fact that secularization never happened in your part of the globe, which is exactly why such a harsh and intellectualy harmful cultural war is being fought out. The reason why I have thrown myself directly into religious debate on these forums is that I have only recently come to grasp the magnitude of this acrimonious split in the american nation, having believed before that the 60s revolution was as good as the many twists and turns that have brought religion in a disadvantageous position on my own continent. But in fact, undereducation combined with the length and girth of the mideast/bible belt still seem to be eroding at your society's very core. Underinformation and the deregulation of the school system are familiar methods when it comes to theists vying for power, as are forced attempts at regimentalization of society. Frankly, I can't believe that atheism is actually something NEW in the 21st century, and that professing this worldview could actually lead to ostracism as early as three years ago. Or maybe I've gotten it wrong and atheism is emerging inan environment preconditioned by agnosticism and non-practitioning theists. But it still is a culture shock for someone who has fed on (obviously biased:P) countercultural material when attempting to learn more about your fascinating culture.

Holy shit, Prodigal... welcome to TFP Philosophy in a big way. Are you a social scientist? Also, how and why have you been able to learn so much about American culture? You're right on with pretty much everything, as far as I can tell... (in my opinion). There's hope on the coasts, though. We'll see how the next election goes.

Deregulated school......Oh lord :eek: that brings back the bad memories of that year (1993) I home schooled my daughter, in rural Indiana. :crazy: It (home schooling) was all about the bible :rolleyes: ....I was such a newbie fool to not know this going in, but boy....I sure found out quickly at the monthly home school mother's support group....:dead:

Prodigal, when you had atheism shoved down your throat, the US was making sure that every god fearing American knew that the communists were 'godless', doing everything they could to associate god with good and atheism with evil. I imagine it's an equal but opposite reaction when some Americans start turning to atheism in such a recently strong way. I wonder what a discussion between a new Catholic in Eastern Europe and a new atheist in the US would be like. I'd be very interested.

A Surety: Before we made up god there were no theists.

I bet this kind of talk went on in ancient Rome.....realistic type non believers having to deal with the righteous god fearers.....Beware! Zeus and Hera are watching! :lol: ;)
I'll tell you what too.....Halloween ain't got nothin on Easter :eek: .....tortured mutilated dead guy comes back to life and floats around, giant 6 foot bunnies hiding colored eggs.... ;)

A belief in god subtly undermines everything that we value in humanity. Can integrity exist if god is always watching? Is altruism possible if all good deeds will be rewarded? Are you really moral if punishment of a Higher Power is what keeps you from doing whatever you think you can get away with?

What's easy is pretending that Big Babysitter in the Sky doesn't exist for a while so you can engage in a amoral lifestyle of hedonism and violence... and then repent once it sickens you and tell everyone how you're a "former atheist".

What's hard is, knowing there will be no punishment for wrong doing, still doing the Right Thing because of whatever reality-based ethical system you've cobbled together for yourself. Actually, just deciding what's important enough to use as a cornerstone for your morality can be pretty hard.

Not believing is easy. Replacing belief with something real is hard.

My idea of athiesm, or nihilism, and what I think it boils down to
 

I am an "out" athiest, also a nihilist of sorts. I'm not sure my take on nihilism is original, but I am a nihilist who sees nihilism as necessitating (paradoxically, I guess) a value or moral.
If all belief is unbased in absolute Truth, all beliefs are equally acceptable and valid. So with no Truth to be had, everyone may decide on their own what values and beliefs are True (or at least true for them). That is, nihilism destroys all basis for institutionalized belief, but leaves a clean slate and even playing field for each to choose one's own. (That's not the moral yet, just how I see nihilism and athiesm universally applied).

That said, this is the moral: with no absolute basis for validating personal beliefs and morals, each person should pursue their beliefs in a way that impedes as little as possible others trying to do the same thing. Mine is no better than yours, and yours is no better than mine, so if it doesn't help, it shouldn't hurt.

This sense of not hindering others should extend into all sorts of fields. Excessive consumption of resources by one impedes those who lack those resources, oil, food, water, land, everything. Institutionalized religion that forces itself upon others, preaches blind faith and indoctrinates youth before they have an opportunity to develop their own beliefs. Murder, intimidation, coercian (sp?). And beyond, to carry it even further, wonton waste of our natural resources hinders the generations of the future from pursuing their beliefs.

Waddaya think?




**I'm floating on sunshine. :thumbsup:

(GOOD LORD) Yet another who sounds like they're sane! Thanks, fishhead91

I have been reading a particular website called This I Believe based on the NPR Edward R Murrow series of the 50s.

I stumbled upon this Penn Jillette essay which you can go to the website and listen to him read it. I'm in agreement with him, yet for some reason I still believe that there is some higher power beyond my understanding.

This Penn Jillette... it sounds like he has a buddha inside him.

Well, I don't really consider myself Atheist as well. Altho I suppose it fits me a liiiiittle better than agnostic.

See, me, I just dont give a crap.

There isn't enough hours in a day for me to concern myself with such trivial things.

Trivial? but Shauk, this is the question of the ages! How are we supposed to understand our origin if we don't discuss religion?!

Well, its simple to me. I didn't believe in any higher power when I was born, I also didn't believe in Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy. These were all characters and concepts imparted upon me by my parents, who had it imparted on them from thiers, and as such, are little figments of society. Society also thinks of garbage every single day, this stuff is processed and digested every day from minds to mouths, from writing to tv. We are our own self fulfilling little prophecies.

I dunno, I don't care about the origin, nor the destination, nor having a reason to make the journey, none of that has ever, nor will ever, make me tick, its not why I put my pants on in the morning. I dont need to try and validate my existance, nor cry myself to sleep not knowing who or what was behind the grand combination of events that got me here. The journey is all that matters to me. I know my time is limited, I cherish my interactions with people beliefs or not, good and bad. because its part of the journey. whether or not I accept or reject you as a human being I wish to associate with, I still respect you as a member of the Human Race. Nothing more, nothing less. Unfortunatley, with 6 billion or more people I wont meet, nor agree with all of them, all the same, its no reason for me to have a deity, or kill in the name of one.

My mother, as religious as she was, turned me away from the path of religion without realizing it by teaching me that for every answer given, there is another question to be had, to never stop asking questions until I was satisfied that I knew what there was to be known about any given subject

but if you take religion and apply this, I'm given 100 different accounts, pointed to 100 different religions and always met with a dead end at the questions "well then where did God come from?"

I held on to this question for YEARS. then I took a simple history class. an 8th grade history class. In covering civilizations, from aztecs, the romans, the vikings, the mongolian empire, i began to realize they all had dieties, and not that THIS part matters, but often, thier deities became scapegoats or justifications for wars.

I started firmly believing that if the world stopped participating in religion, they'd probably stop being a warlike race of life. Humans, and only humans, worship dieties, and humans only have wars.


now, churches aren't totally evil, we know this, they start with thier good intentions, they impart good intentions, but people get visibly LIVID when you put down thier deity of choice, even in this day and age, its spurs them into ANGER, a primitive emotion, and its like honestly? why fucking bother participating in having such beliefs if it is prone to make you act less civilized as a human being?

honestly, we should have stopped being fucking Neanderthals ages ago. Now people are just Neanderthals with AK-47's and Carbine rifles who yell HOO HAA
or whatever.

I dont care who claims atheism as a trendy whatever, its a common sense thing to turn your back on such an outmoded and disproven belief system.

so, fuck pride, fuck religion, fuck segregation. If we all want to be members of the human race we should just stop trying so hard to be unique in contested areas.

how so utterly utopian of me.

furthermore, to not believe in a Higher Power doesn't instantly make you without moral value. You can still have a very high respect for human life. Have good manners, tastes in the arts, and not be disloyal, or a thief for example.

I flew in the face
of a certain disaster
and it laughed at me.

What's the last widespread war you can name caused as a direct result of religious differences? I was just wondering, since you believe that religion causes wars.

When I think of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit I see:

Mr. Wizard, Bill Nye the Science Guy, and Angus MacGyver.

Does that make me an atheist?

That makes you pragmatist or a realist.

Angus....hehehehe...

I thought it would be more like a product of commercial television...

I think the recent zeitgeist surrounding atheism is interesting. I have been thinking about it a bit more and I think that while it has been a quiet movement that pretty much (with few exceptions) stayed under the radar it has bubbled to the surface because of a number of recent events. But the one most important event was the President's intervention in the case of Terri Shaivo.

I think that act drew a line in the sand and many atheists (and also many theists) sat up and took note. I believe that many of us are not willing to sit by and let the theists dictate policy and determine the course of western society.

Practice what you wish but leave me and mine out of it.

I feel that we are headed for an all out confrontation between those that want a secular state and those who would rather take their direction from a supernatural source. The theists want the power back that they lost after the age of enlightenment and reason.

Oh, please... Do explain to me this age of 'enlightenment and reasoning'? Being an atheist seems pretty easy to me; Just deny the existence of God because He can't be observed/proven and then cover the other side of the argument by stating that anything observable can't be-- And isn't-- God (As it would defy his very nature). Simple :)

General relativity is simple, too.

I think Charlatan is referring to that period beginning in the 17th century and developing in the 18th and 19th centuries, when being able to openly question the existence of God became a bit more safe. It was a period that espoused reason, meaning that no longer should we take things purely on faith. We need evidence such as observation. It opened the world up to ideas such as David Hume's writings on miracles, in which he writes: With the age of reason came empiricism, which open us up to the scientific age. Faith is fine, so long as there's evidence to support the investment of our energies into such a thing. One example of this, perhaps, would be the realization that following Christ's teachings tends to make other people happy. I would put faith in that, even though I'm not a Christian.

Ultimately, the Age of Enlightenment was not opposed to religion per se, but it certainly was willing to critique it and put it up to the challenge of the reasoned mind. If you want to see an opposition to religion, we should discuss modernity.

So if you think atheism is easy, as you say, be sure you say so after having read all the major philosophies between the 17th and 20th centuries, and, to be certain, read some of the major literary works that sprung out of modernity. I recommend James Joyce, T. S. Eliot, Virginia Woolf, and Bertrand Russell's "Why I Am Not a Christian." Trust me, a lot of thought went into this.

Baraka_Guru, I've got to say I'm a little surprised. You took four paragraphs to state what I did in one sentence. In an atheist's world, God is either unprovable and non-existant or provable and no longer God.

(Would you contend with that one sentence summary? And if you do then, by all means, correct me where I'm wrong.)

See how easy that was? Short, sweet and to the point! :thumbsup:

Thank you Guru, that is exactly what I was referring to.

Prior to that era, the Catholic Church ruled with a relatively iron first. To suggest otherwise is to not know your history.

Anything is easy, so long as you understand the basic concepts ;)

As for it being easy being an atheist... I would suggest life is just about as easy for a theist as it is an atheist. I just have more spare time on sunday. :P

That and you don't have to abide by any written code of conduct (Seeing as how no one's taken the time to write a book on atheism).

well for some theists that pray much more often from several times a day, you have lots more spare time.

Which I take as a backhanded way of say that atheists are amoral. What malarkey!

So if theists didn't have the fear of god, retribution or hell, they would be out breaking all the commandments? That suggests to me that atheists, who generally don't break these "rules" any more than the average theist does is increasingly moral as they follow their moral code without coercion.

I think you're ignoring laws. Also, you don't need to be a theist to have morals, nontheists just need to think about their morals (not that theism precludes thinking about one's morals).

That ain't what I meant.

Christians, for example, are expected to abide by the Ten Commandments while Muslims are required to abide by the Five Pillars of Islam. I doubt we'll be seeing you remembering the Sabbath or taking a pilgrimage to Mecca any time soon. That's not to say that you're amoral (As some of your beliefs might inherently coincide with those contained within organized religion), but rather that you're not bound to a strict code as most theists are.

True. Dogma and rituals are not exclusive agents of moral virtue. This is why the closest I'll ever get to having a religion is through Buddhism. It looks at morality through a practical lens. Observation, meditation. As an applied philosophy, Buddhism is inherently atheist.

Abandoning rituals, the morality that informs Buddhism is learned. Without nonsense. It has been called a path that can be followed as easily as that of a bird's.

You must make your own path.

I skimmed through a lot of what was said here and i'd like to comment on some things.

The correlation between intelligence and atheism- It's a fact that the more intelligent or say... inquisitiveness a person is, the more likely they'll become an atheist, at least this is what logic and reason tell me so. Also if i'm not mistaken polls have been taken and african americans are something like 25% more likely to believe in God, +or- 7% in my estimation in terms of the accuracy of my recollection. This isn't a knock on black people, but the situation they grow up in generally doesn't allow for as much inquisitiveness due to the poverty and other factors.

WillTravel- You claim you're positive God doesn't exist. Well if you're refering to the God, that is attributed to the various religions on our planet than i'd be inclined to agree with you. If you think about it the most likely scenario is, people needed to come up with a control method to instill various philosophical and moral principles in people who otherwise would be very unruly. For example the extremely harsh punishments in the old testiment if you didn't abide by the rules, this struck fear into people. It's also a means of attempting to make people feel more secure in terms of the meaning of life and battling the fear of the unknown (death). However if you're also referring to a supernatural God, I would have to disagree with you simply because there's no way in the present state that can really be a certainty based on the current things we have to base it on, such as how the universe was created, etc.

Filthy- Your debate with Will about faith and science. I would have to side with Will on this one. I feel a lot of religious people throw logic and reason out of the window in respect to their faith and dealing with science. I think they often pick and choose which aspects of their religion to follow whereas when they're dealing with science it's almost all logic and reason. I feel a lot of people want to believe in something so badly they simply unplug the logic and reasoning part of their brain and use purely blind faith. Which is okay, as long as it makes them happy i'm all for it, all i'm trying to say is they're being a bit more illogical and unreasonable when dealing with religion in comparison to science.

Ooo... Shame on you for making a backhanded remark (No matter how covertly) at black people as a whole :shakehead:. Generalizations are almost never true...

*Goes back to doing whatever he was prior*

Edit: Ehhh... I had a comment, but thought better on it.

respond to the content please. The statistics are what they are, if it were the other way around, I would have to rethink my opinion, but based on logic and statistics I feel this definately makes me more certian of my opinion.

I just really don't like the fact you don't respond to the content, you throw out some racial card, that's just 1 example of a situation where, a group of people in general are way more likely to be in poverty and I think that correlation defintaely has merit.

However, in case you're interested i'm a very moral guy and whether someone is fat, a minority or ugly i don't care, just as long as inside theyr'e good people.

care to cite your assertation of said statistics? I'm inclined to call bullshit on those.

Why would you call bullshit? Just google any poll about what % of Americans believe in God and i'm sure every single poll will show that a greater % of African Americans believe in God than caucasians. You will also most likely see a correlation between education and belief in God. Just think about it, the higher level of education you have the more likely you're thinking questioning things and trying to figure out the truth, and the more you think about things, if you're a logical and reasonable person, the more likely you will come to the conclusion, that religions are basically a hoax in terms of a higher power having directly influenced the writings and teachings. If you can justify sacrificing lambs or stoning a woman to death who has just been raped, and is actually an innocent victim, that's totally up to you, I cannot do that any longer. I respect all of your opinions, i'm not saying i'm right or you're wrong, Just we have different opinions. So basically I'm attempting to explain to you how I come to my conclusions as to what the most likely possibility is in my mind with this post.

I really am shocked people are like attacking my posts, it's just my opinion that I feel is the most likely scenario and the most important aspect in my work is to figure out what direction the odds deem to be the highest probability of truth. I respect everyone's beliefs, I care a lot about every human being, i'm not out to disrespect or hurt anyone's feelings sure i may make generalizations, such as African Americans havea higher propensity to believe in God, as well as people with a higher level of education. You must first analyze data to come up with the best possible answer to the question. So basically to break it down, in general African Americans, have less money and get less education than the rest of America. So my conclusion based not only on statistics but logic and reason as well is that they on average grow up with more hardships, less financial security and a smaller chance to advance in school, which really is what allows your intellectual capacity to grow, it's as simple as that. All of these are generalizations yes, you can't have statistics on different races or levels of education without generalizing the particular statistic you are highlighting. I'm looking forward to a response from you guys and I hope we've reached an understanding that i'm not trying to call any group of people out, simply trying to deduce how different povery levels, and levels of education affect people's beliefs in religion and God etc
=].

Just looked up this poll this was really the only one i could find tbh, let me know if there are other ones. I hope I've explained myself throughly here because I care about each individual person that I know, regardless of the mistakes they make or how they're born, I probabaly care too much.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/har...ex.asp?PID=408
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/har...ex.asp?PID=359

You stated statistics. I'm not attacking anything, not even your posts. I'm just requesting that you back up your claims of "african americans are something like 25% more likely to believe in God, +or- 7%" because I don't believe it. You put the statistic, I didn't. I'll be more than willing to visit your link provided to find out more about where you are coming from, but for you to state something akin to "Well, go find it yourself, I'm sure you'll find it" doesn't lead me to where you are and how you formulated your opinion and how it frames your viewpoint.

If you can't, then, well, frankly *sniff* *sniff* it smells like bullshit to me.

I dunno I guess I just don't appreciate your rude attitude. So bluntly calling bs etc, when i'm simply trying to broaden my horizens and spark a good discussion on some of the things i've been thinking about. Btw I did look for links, I didn't find too many polls or research that invovled different races or levels of education, really only that one link i edited into my post because I forgot to enter it. Anyway yeah i'm not crying or anything, simply trying to fill you guys in on my position and beliefs and character because I take things like racism and predudice very seriously as I believe everyone is equal, whether they have 0 dolllars 1 million dollars, or their race or their looks etc.

I will also add:

Correlation does not imply causation.

from Loopy Links
I'm all for discussion. I'm happy to discuss just about anything under the sun. But to be quite frank, there is no reason to not call a spade a spade. I called bullshit on your statistics and you put the onus on us the reader to prove your claim. You then tried to back them up, and couldn't plain and simple. So that portion of your discussion claiming african americans are more likely to believe in God, and then insert education as a point of difference is a fallacy on it's face. There are many cultural indicators that you aren't taking into account. Many Europeans are highly educated, but still have a strong belief in God.

Cynethiq that's a good point that you make there. Also let me clarify another aspect of my thoughts on what I was getting at earlier. for about the past year i've been studying psychology, philosophy, religion, dreams, just tons of things, baiscally trying to better myself and come closer to my ultimate goal that being a good person and living a happy life and bettering myself etc, all that good stuff. Previous to this past year, I wasn't really thinking in depth and analyzing things, my potential intelligence was the same then as it is now so to speak. However due to personal journeys and a dedication to my work, to mastering that which I due, i Feel my mind right now is several times better. My IQ has increased simply out of expanding my thoughts and just thinking on whole different levels and different ways, I am a more intelligent person now. let's say I had taken a different path in life, and was simply happy with not really delving into the meaning of things and dissecting and studying things as best as I could. I feel i would be a less intelligent person. So basically what i'm trying to say is, in general I feel people who are busy working jobs such as manual labor jobs for exmaple, have less time on their hands to explore their mind and really think about things. I believe their IQ or the capability in which they can think about things will not reach their maximum potential. Basically what i'm trying to say is, this is why I feel educational levels and financial predicaments do matter, from personal experience even.

Thanks for pointing out the correlation might not be related to the cause that I think it is, because that definately has to be taken into consideration. Yeah I could be wrong, I'll do some more thinking about this specific correlation i'm making, because the statistics could very well be, because of a different reason than the suspected reason I have, based on an example from the above paragraph.

closest thing I can find, but doesn't break down the race or education of the polled.
Newsweek

Well simply telling me i'm wrong saying there's other cultural indicators that i'm not taking into account, then not expanding upon that doesn't spark any discussion. Feel free to bring up some points about something I might not be taking into consideration. I admit there's a possibility a different factor could be more prevalent than what I suspect, but saying i'm wrong and not stating your opinion doesn't really do much.

Wonderful that you are trying to broaden your mind. I caution that you stay away from stereotypes and overgeneralizations.

Priests, monks, brothers, and sisters, can be examples of how that is not the case. Gregor Johann Mendel is known as the father of modern day genetics, but he was a priest working in a garden.

Many Chinese Buddhists wrote of being one with nature and the universe by doing simple tasks in the fields.

Thomas Aquinas was quite a learned man, philosopher, and quite religious.

Quite honestly, God is where you decide you find it or don't find it.

The whole premise of the statement I made was based on generalizations, and i'm aware there are exceptions to every rule etc and so forth. Also I think you react way too strongly about generalizations in general, i'm not saying that 100% of the people who would qualify under the generalizations I made is the case or even close to that. I'm simply saying it could be as small as a 1% greater likelihood within those groups I was thinking about could be more likely to be an atheist or believe in God etc.

Psychology has always been a HUGE interest to me, so part of how i think relates to that. As someone who studies something in terms of cause and effect and things of that nature you have to be able to make generalizations in order to learn how people behave and the odds of all of the different results that are possible. For example, I don't know if you know anything about the Chris Benoit situation. Well a former WWE champion named the Ultimate Warrior went on to a news program and gave his opinion on the whole situation. At the end of the show The Ultimate Warrior said, "there's no excuse for what Chris Benoit did" and basically said trying to blame it on drugs or roid rage is bullshit, that the man was simply a monster. Okay yes if Benoit did commit these crimes I would agree he's a monster, but if you're trying to understand what went on you have to look for possible things that attributed to Benoit's actions such as those drugs he was taking so that in the future you can possibly avoid that situation by getting something done about it. So really Warrior's opinion that Benoit is a monster is fine and dandy, however when he doesn't have an opinion or give it on the possible influence the drugs had on this whole entire ordeal that simply ends all attempts to try to understand and learn from this situation in order to prevent such a horrendous accident as this in the future.

What i'm trying to get at here is, basically saying all generalizations are evil simply stunts the ability to gain more knowledge and a greater understanding of the topic at hand. I'm sorry if you're sensetive to generalations, honestly, but I think they have to be made, and considered in relation to a better understanding about things.

its the way of "tfp" that when you start spouting statistics you back it up. Your "go find it for yourself" is as bad as "google is your friend" IMO

and since Im to unintelligent because I believe in god and have faith...thats all I have to say about the ongoing discussion

I'm not saying you're unintelligent. What I am saying is that you're illogical. This is a discussion board, it pains me to see people actually take offense to other opinions you could say i'm stupid right now, thats' fine with me, i'm just looking for some opinions and different thoughts and I haven't been getting many of those. For some reason people keep taking offense and really not offering any of their insights or anything really. Right now I really feel shorted, i'm putting a lot of thought into this and the only responses i'm getting are basically people taking offense to my opinion. I've explained what my goals are, to have a good thought provoking discussion, but apparently some of you guys can't look beyond your own ego's and respect someone else's opinion without feeling as if you're being called out or insulted. I mean you guys read the Bible, you guys know that ego, pride and negative things of that nature should be quelled. The Bible has a lot of positive things in it. read proverds, there are a lot of great paraboles in it, and you should know that you should be able to quell negative human emotions and characteristics and try to be the better man even if you feel you're being called out or whatever. Ask yourself, what would Jesus do?

If you read thru this thread you will see I have said many things on this subject, I see no reason to repeat the same things over again

Generalizations IMO are intellectually fraudulent especially in the face of the discussion you are trying to have.

I can't speak for Shani, but nowhere have I felt insulted nor attacking in this thread. I just can see that you have holes in your logic bridged with generalizations. I can also attest to the last statement WWJD is patronizing.

Someone's opinion is whatever shape it takes. Ultimate Warrior's opinion is how it is, nothing more and nothing less. Because it doesn't fit into what you decided an opinon should be is the crux of your own process of "spurring discussion."

Thanks for the discussion sir.

Willravel. There's no "T".
The difference between being positive that god doesn't exist and believing it's very likely god doesn't exist is, in my mind, as big as the difference between theists and weak atheists. A complete lack of evidence does not mean certain non-existence. It suggests non-existence. That's why I am a weak atheist, or a person who believes that god almost certainly doesn't exist. By my reasoning, it's the safest assumption based on what we know. It's also entirely possible that the easter bunny is real.

As far as control, anything can be used as a tool for control, but religion is about faith in something that runs contrary to everything we know, which means that these people are susceptible to going against what they know to be true. I know this because at a very young age, I was convinced that if I had sex, I would go to hell. Pretty good control, eh? I knew that if I questioned god's existence, I was going to hell and I'd never see my grandpa again. It turns out that it stands to reason that the only way 'll see my grandpa again is in my memory, and all the threats of hell in the world can't take that away from me. Also, sex is magnificent.

Well, aside from this being kind of presumptuously borderline racist, i would be interested in stats comparing intelligence and religiousness. Especially in light of the fact that the concept of intelligence is rather shoddily defined.

Even as far as education goes, a correlation between education level and atheism doesn't necessarily mean anything. There's a correlation between education and socio-economic status and therefore perhaps a correlation between socio-economic status and atheism, but i've never heard anyone try to claim that wealth causes atheism or vice versa.

Well, i agree that there are plenty of religious folk who lack credible reasoning skills when it comes to certain topics. I don't think that scientists necessarily have a monopoly on rationality - there are plenty of instances of scientific genius going hand in hand with complete insanity.

There are many noted scientists who were also pious - newton, descartes, leibniz mendel, einstein - anyone who claims theists are necessarily bad scientists is suffering from a bit of irrationality themselves.

I think an interesting dynamic is the one between scientists and their adherents. It is analogous to a pastor and congregation, sort of. On the one hand you have the scientists - the folks who have been to the mountaintop, know how to do actual science. On the other hand you have the people who put their faith in science and scientists. I think that most people who claim to carry the torch of science fall into the latter category, especially in light of how few of my fellow americans can be bothered to take math and science classes beyond those required for a liberal arts degree. These are people whose subscription to evolution or global warming isn't based on any sort of informed knowledge, but rather a sturdy faith in the actual practitioners of the scientific method. In other words, their embrace of science is based on faith rather than direct knowledge.

These folks are essentially theologists of a different sort - instead of putting christ on a pedestal they put einstein. Either way, most of them don't actually know shit about what their particular exalted one thought, or why their contributions were significant. How many people know what the "e", the "m", and the "c" mean in the e = mc^2? How many people understand the models used to predict the effects of global warming? How may people know what a decibel is? From my experience the answer to these questions is few.

It doesn't matter if what your selling is pure, uncut rationality if the people who buy it aren't themselves rational. That's why i think this whole atheism vs religion debate is dumb. The atheists are basically just deluding themselves into thinking that the broad acceptance of atheism will bring about some sort of golden age of reason, when in reality all it will mean is that more people are putting their faith in scientists than reverends. People will still be dumb animals, they'll just be dumb animals with loosely held beliefs based on what some guy in a white lab coat told them as opposed to dumb animals with loosely held beliefs based on what some guy in a white robe told them.

I don't know that a strictly rational model offers that much tangible benefit over a strictly theistic model as far as creating a comfortable, stable society. Neither seems ideal to me. Hobbes was one of the original atheistic social planners, and he advocated a democracy only to the extent that an iron-fisted despot could be elected.

Relying only on science and rationality as guides to the way things ought to be is just as likely to get a brave new world as relying on the bible as the way things ought to be is to get a fundamentalist theocracy. Most useful solutions to complex problems are a mixture of information and intuition, facts and faith (see economics).

I understand that this might be a tad bit tangential to what you were saying, but i wanted to say it.

As far as I know, many people understand that energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared. I think it may be a mistake to assume that atheists put their faith in scientists. I think a better way to put it is that atheists put their faith in reason and the scientific method. I'm not a physicist at all, but I can probably explain the general theory of relativity, and what it means to you and I. I'm not a biologist, but I understand the how of evolution pretty well. I'm not a geologist, but I understand carbon dating pretty well.

I think it's dangerous to suggest that the whole of humanity = sheep of one color or another. I wouldn't dare call all theists sheep, though the fact that Jesus is labeled a shepherd in the Bible is rather telling as to how those that wrote the Bible viewed a believer's role compared to a deity.

Okay, well, e=mc^2 is just an example. It is an interesting one in this context, do you know how it's derived off the top of your head? Do you agree with the logic behind it? I have no idea about any of it, but i don't doubt that the people who do know these things have given it their approval. Whether it will stand the test of time is another thing altogether.

Science is complicated stuff. I'm sure you know this. It takes several years of mathematics(at least in the u.s. public school system) to get to the point where you can derive the quadratic formula, and that's just algebra. Apparently, the amount of math you have to learn from elementary arithmetic to get through 2 years of calculus is the same amount of math you have to learn to get from the end of your calculus sequence to the kind of math needed when working with string theory. That's several years of math beyond multivariable calculus and differential equations to understand something that in popular science literature is portrayed as a simple matter of rubber bands and exotic dimensions.

Based on really simple models i've worked with, i imagine that climate models are also incredibly complicated.

The point is that the scientific knowledge we take for granted today is actually incredibly nuanced and rich, so much so that it seems to me like it's practically impossible for many people to have a comprehensive and/or meaningful understanding of any large portion of it. This isn't to say that general knowledge doesn't often suffice, but sometimes the nuance is the most important part.

You might have a general knowledge of many different subjects, but having a general knowledge doesn't mean you understand something in any kind of useful way. I have a general knowledge of fracture mechanics, but you wouldn't want to trust my opinion on the likelihood a given real beam will fail. Not to flatter you, but i imagine you have a better knowledge than most people on things scientific, since you're going to school for sciencey stuff.

Why is it dangerous? If you're talking about people in general, the noble sheep is a great approximation. You might be surprised about how simple assumptions about the nature of human interaction can be used to create complex computer models that accurately predict observed human behavior in groups. I think sociology as a discipline is held together by the idea that people are essentially sheep of one color or another.

Do you think acceptance of atheism will coincide with some sort of golden age of rationality? I don't. I think that of all the different appealing aspects of atheism, the commitment to rationality is the most hollow and the least sexy.

I don't want to get too off topic, but the reason I'm familiar with the works of Einstein goes back to curiosity in school. I loved how his playful nature gave birth to revolutionary ideas, and the scope of those ideas. As far as standing the test of time, it's all relative. :thumbsup:
Yes, most of the delicious stuff in science requires years of study. That doesn't make it unattainable to the masses, though. Yes, a lot of people are more knowledgeable on subjects like Clay Ainkin's sexual orientation, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're not knowledgeable on how a skin cell works. The Discovery type channels have good viewership and cover a vast range of subjects. Even non-sciency shows like Good Eats feature lessons in organic and inorganic chemistry that are applied in front of your eyes to cooking a delicious meal.
Some people are sheep, of course, but many have shepherd skills that are applied with reason and scientific or social knowledge every day. I think that type of stereotype is disingenuous. I'd go as far as to say that for every 25 sheep there is a shepherd, which would translate to 280 million shepherds in the world. That's nearly the population of the US.
I think the only time we'll see a golden age in rationality will be when we're extinct and replaced by something that evolved a more rational nature.

IMO most people only know that E=MC^2 is the theory of relativity and maybe attribute it to Einstien.

People know more about Paris Hilton than of scientists and even politics.

Oh so saying black people are more physically gifted and that women are shorter than men is a racist and sexist statement? PLEASE lol. It's simply statistics, it's fact. As for sterotypes, they're natural and must be made in order for us to get a greater understanding of someone we don't know. Sure they can be completely off, but if you ever meet that person you'll obvoiusly readjust your opinion about them. If you see someone with gang tattoos on their arms, the sterotype that gang members are more often than not more dangerous than the average person walking in the streets will aid your survival and make life a whole lot easier if you avoid that person. Sure this person could be a good person but this is the image they're representing so the fact that people will be less inclined to interact with them is due to the choice they made to join a gang.

That could be a possibility that the more materials one is able to obtain makes the need for God a little less appealing, however I think that is a less likely scenario although i'm sure it has been a key factor in some people's beliefs. However, I certainly don't think it's as prominant as the level of education is.

Willravel explained it very well earlier at the start of the forum an said basically what I was trying to get at, only I used some generalizations. He said something about, accumulating knowledge allows for one to analyze something, question it in an attempt to determine whether it is fact or fiction many times over and then come up with the most reasonable conclusion.



I wouild say there are more irrational religious people, did you not see that poll taken, 51% of Americans don't believe in evolution? That says a lot about humans in general and is quite mind boggling. Those are the group of people i'm talking about when I say they simply ignore any threat to their comfortable belief system, they literally turn their brain off, and will not even consider the possibility of something that is threatening to their faith. Oh ye of little faith?


I don't see how bringing up 6 examples out hundreds of millions of people is relevant.

Yes but if someone asks a scientist the sun revovles around the earth he'll get an answer. If you ask God that question, you probabaly won't receive any answers anytime soon.

That is an interesting point though, about how a lot of people put faith in things without really thinking about them on their own regarding religion and science alike. I think that's telling about human beins in general.

Even if the debate is dumb it's still thought provoking and that's all I want. You've made some good points about various things I may have not thought about.

Yeah I don't know about this either. My faith in mankind has dwindled over the past few years, I realize how immoral so many people are, and without religion all these, "sheep" that you have mentioned, what then would they do? I mean I consider everyone on this board pretty intelligent and ration in general, no matter your views about religion etc. However, the everyday people who just go around doing what feels good or doing what they're told is right or wrong because they'll be punished if they don't, what happens if they find out there are no reprocutions awaiting their afterlife? However in the same token religion has been known to create more than a few wars in the past.

That's not to say there aren't risks if religion was removed, I think more people would be lost and depressed because all of a sudden there's no meaning of life, so i'm sure that would lead to some bad things as well.

Who knows, there are way too many variables and possible outcomes for me to speculate anyway heh.

how interesting. i am an atheist myself, in love with the ideas of marx and sartre. to the post about atheism being easier because you are not held accountable for anything after death:

what???(!) where is the problem in carpe diem, madame? to say that you are not responsible for your deeds in the afterlife does not mean refusing to accept responsibility for your actions. one can accept responsibility for then during life! one can act honorably, not for the sake of religion or a fear of the afterlife - but because it is important to do so in and of itself.

i have seen an increase in agnostics, moreso than atheists. i have met some agnostics who definitely only do it because they are afraid to call themselves christian - out of fear of rejection among their peers. they believe in heaven and hell, and yet "question whether there is a god". that is something i don't understand, and i doubt these individuals do much questioning at all.

the atheists i know are very few...i find people have difficulty declaring, "there is no god!" (presumably out of fear). another thing, i know hardly any atheists who were raised as atheists...most of them are christians who have stopped believing. i have to say that i do not think it is a trend...although, it is definitely somewhat easier to say these days than it has been in the past. people's outlooks on it have changed, but not to the extent that being an atheist will generally get you accepted, or make your life easier...at least not from what i have seen.

oh crap - i just realized there are five pages to this thread. that's embarrassing. ah, well; you live and learn.

Reponsibility- In general people are inherantly more selfish than not therefore the notion that you're held responsible in life after death definately is a means for people to hold themselves accountable. As humans we're all trying to survive be happy and things like that etc, so in an attempt to feel good and be happy we'll often overlook the feelings of others in order to further our own agenda. I"m guilty of this sometimes myself. For example a friend of mine sort of pissed me off and I was really pissed considering not being his friend, however this friend had a lot of value to me. Thus, I thought about how basically not being friends with him would effect me negatively. How it would effect me overrode the principle and also his feelings on the situation.

Agnostics- As you said I doubt they think about their beliefs in depth.

Atheists- Those who may not appear to be atheists, might be, but they don't want to be thought of differently or have to explain thier position so it's just left unsaid.