Fallon

This statement right here is why I do not like religious folk. I don't have problems with most, but the ones with attitudes like this put their cause backwards, not forwards. They make me commit myself more to my "unbelieving" because it is such a blatant attempt to make us feel weak.

bryan2766

Until i experience something truly not of this world, im going to remain atheist

CSflim

I just wish that I could be a smirking bastard when it turns out that I'm right!

__________________

Moonduck

When I was still in college, I had an interesting conversation with a friend of my roommate at the time. He was a self-admitted Christian and serious about his beliefs. I was, at the time, a self-admitted atheist prick that enjoyed screwing with Christians for some misanthropic reason.

We'd been arguing religion for a while and it came down to an agree to disagree situation. I decided, in my smart-ass way, to give him one chance to sway my views. He said, "I can't sway your views. You either feel it deep down, or you don't."

It was one of the most profound things I'd heard about faith, and his delivery was dead serious. That sort of off-handed tone that a good listener detects utter truth in. I consider that to be one of the most amazing things I've heard in my life, and I'm too poor a wordsmith to convey the impression it made, or why it made such an impression.

I evolved beyond my atheist pricks days to realize that lack of faith was more a weakness than a strength. I hit life face-first and found out that there is no comfort in atheism. When life has you truly down, there is nothing to turn to in atheism. It is a hollow faith. Yes, atheism is a faith in a way. There are plenty of atheist crusaders and evangelists out there, and a few have posted here.

I would believe in God if I felt it, deep down.

The.Lunatic

How about another profit in my life time who was able to perform miricales, and predict future events, and could do no sin.

That would convince me in a second.

lumpenprole

Jeez, that's the most profound thing you ever heard about faith? Obviously, you were waiting to be swayed. I went through seven years of art school hearing people say that very same phrase, and it doesn't impress me any more now than it did then. Fuzzy thinking is fuzzy thinking.

It reveals itself in your comment about there being no comfort in atheism. You see, it doesn't matter whether there is comfort in it or not. Just because the thought of a universe that is not designed soley for our edification scares you, doesn't make it not true. It might be a comforting thought to think that each and every government official has the best interests of the republic at heart, but it would be extremely naive, and perhaps suicidal to assume so.

In fact, watching a documentary about John Nash last night, I was struck by his description of madness as an escape. Noone could describe what he went through as pleasant, but his delusions that he was the center of a vast conspiriacy brought him a kind of comfort. Now, I'm not comparing religious faith to madness, just pointing out the unreliability of wanting something to be so.

Moonduck

Ah, an Atheist Evangelist responds. You will note, if you choose to reread, that I said it was the delivery that mattered, and that I am not a capable enough writer to relay that point. As to fuzzy thinking, it's religion. It's fuzzy. And?

As to the universe scaring me, it should. We're insignificant bugs. There's a lot of scary stuff out there. We should be afraid. You will note that I ended the post with a statement giving the conditions under which I would believe. This implies, correctly, that I do not believe.

The only thing that is obvious here is that you did not take the time to comprehend what I posted. If you had, you would not assume that I'd been swayed, nor make the accussation that I was waiting to be swayed. You would also have noted that I mentioned the delivery, not the words, as what gave the statement its' profundity.

I believe in nothing simply because I want it to be so. It is not in me to simply accept that which I cannot prove, or cannot accept proof of. It is not in me because I don't feel it deep down, as that fellow I referenced said. Fuzzy thinking? Whatever. Crusade all you want. I am no atheist simply because I will allow myself to associate with a belief system that identifies itself solely in the negative.

Athiests waste entirely too much energy and time simply being negative towards other people whose beliefs offend them. If God and religion are such farces, why do you care? If people that you cannot like, will never enjoy the company of, decide to delude themselves as to the nature of reality, what business is it of yours? Give a reason why you crusade against religion. What principle drives you?

Dragonlich

What principles drive me...

1) Religious nuts wanting to "save" me by pointing out how cool their god is. It's just rude.
2) Religious nuts that try to convince the rest of the world that they are right, and everyone else is wrong. (Example: the Pope saying Catholic politicians should oppose gay marriages.) This is just incredibly arrogant.
3) Religious nuts blowing up each other over their religion.
4) Religious nuts blowing up *other people* over their supposed "wrong ideas".

The list goes on and on.

Face it, religion is often abused by people to do bad things. After all, you are right, and your holy book tells you that everyone else is wrong, bad, degenerate and going to hell anyway; you might as well help them get there...

lumpenprole

Argh. Usually, I don't do the whole point-by-point thing, but I dislike being called an evangelist, so here goes.

Actually, I did note that you mentioned the delivery. However, that doesn't mean you should take it as being a more unassailable position.
As for the fuzzy thing, well if you choose to give someone an out in a conversation by saying "hey, it's fuzzy, so what", that's your thing. However, if someone is talking to me about why I should believe something I don't they better have a damn sight better argument than that.



Yeah, I think that's what I said.



Actually, you'll note that nowhere did I imply that you believed one thing or another. I was just interested in you being so affected by such a minor argument. And please don't get pedantic about what I did or did not comprehend. It's an argument ad hominem and rather insulting.




Well, okay. First of all, I have never crusaded for anything in my life. I've argued for and against things. I've tried to effect changes in my city, my state, and my country. I've drunkenly screamed about how much I like certain bands or movies. But crusaded? I think you're mistaking me for somebody else.
Whether you're an atheist or not makes not one iota of difference to me. It's your life. However, I do rather take issue with you calling atheism a 'bellief system' since there's no church of atheism, central tenets of atheism or heretic atheists.

I've never wasted any time being "negative." Your assumption that I don't like people who believe differently than I do is kind of amazing. I think you're projecting other people you know onto me. Many, many of my friends have different beliefs than me. I strongly support their right to do so. I love them in spite of, and sometimes because of, our disagreements.

People who believe in god do not "offend" me. As for what business it is of mine, none really. But if you'll note the begining of this thread, this question was adressed to atheists. So, if you get an atheist, in this case me, responding to something you posted, don't assume I'm hunting down people who believe differently than me to single out for ridicule. I'm just arguing ideas in the open marketplace. Don't take it so personally.

Moonduck

Okay, let's see.

[quote]1) Religious nuts wanting to "save" me by pointing out how cool their god is. It's just rude.[/qoute]

Not a principle. This is a gripe.

Also not a principle, a gripe. I begin to wonder about your definition of "principle".

You sure that you know what I asked for?

Where is the principle here?

Government has also been abused by people to do bad things. If government bad? Sex has also been abused by people to do bad things. Is sex bad?

Moonduck

I don't mind the point for point thing at all =)

Who said it was unassailable? I said I found it, overall, profound. There is also the attendant implication that I never have heard anything more profound about religion. Might be one of the reasons I don't believe.

[quote]As for the fuzzy thing, well if you choose to give someone an out in a conversation by saying "hey, it's fuzzy, so what", that's your thing. However, if someone is talking to me about why I should believe something I don't they better have a damn sight better argument than that. [/qoute]

Again, reread the post. We'd come to an impass. He admitted that he'd never sway me. He made the final comment as a closing remark. Trust me, when I said that I was an atheist prick, I meant it. I gave no quarter on fuzzy thought. His closing statement was an emotional answer, not a logic based answer. This obviates the fuzzy thought comment and took my thoughts on relgion in another direction. I realized that perhaps I was simply incapable of being religious because I had no such feelings, and that looking at the subject in such a coldly logical fashion was rather innaccurate.

not really, but we agree, so I don't think we need to pick nits.

Actually, your "waiting to be swayed" comment did imply some form of swaying, and thus belief, on my part. Perhaps it was an unintended take on those words. As to the ad hominem, I would say that it is a tad snide, but not insulting. If it makes you feel better, I found your tone eminently insulting, just didn't fell the need to cry ad hominem, and let slips the dogs of whinge.

Perhaps. I did so somewhat purposefully, as I wanted to see how the shoe fit on the other foot. It seems the province of atheists to tar all believers with the same brush, so I figured some tit for tat is good for atheists as well. It was fairly low of me, but I do dislike hypocrisy, and you were admittedly nothing more than a convenient target.

Take issue all you want. It is a belief system. Heck, the dictionary of philosophy that I have describes it as "atheism: Belief that god does not exist". The very definition is one of belief. After all, a negative belief is still a belief, and you can no prove the non-existence of God than a religious person can his existence.

Good on ya. As I said earlier, you were a convenient target for some quid pro quo.

Glad to hear that my generalization was incorrect. Something tells me other generalizations and assumption were similar.

Well, actually, I did not take it so personally, nor should you. I ended my post with a generalization about atheists, then asked what principle guided you. I'm not sure where you got this "ridicule" idea from as I neither said nor implied it. I said atheists spend time and energy being negative towards folks that are religious. Let's examine this statement.

Atheism, by tenet, believes that no God exists. This is inherently a negative point. Atheists frequently make comments such as (to quote another poster) "Religious nuts" which are a bit off from positive. The "fuzzy thinking" comment is not complimentary, is it? These are all examples of being negative towards someone that does not believe as you do. As such, my statement that atheists tend to spend time and energy being negative towards those who believe is fairly accurate.

Now, before this goes any further, I hold no rancor towards you, or any other atheist. I just dislike hypocrisy and double standards. Not necessarily accusing you of such, but more of accusing the general rank and file of those who rail against religion as if it were a personal crusade.

Dragonlich

Ah, the good old straw man argument, combined with a simple ignoring of *my* arguments. Okay, a principle: if I ignore religious people, like you advocate, they will not go away. Religious morons will still try to influence my life, other idiots will still try to blow me up; all in the name of religion. Therefore, I will not ignore them, but will instead try to confront them and their stupid belief system.

That is a principle, isn't it? They want to kill me, therefore I'll try to change their mind. And before you start about other systems killing people: religion is responsible for more deaths on this planet than any other system of beliefs, including the "atheist" communism. No argument can possibly change this underlying fact.

Moonduck

Do you know what a Straw Man Fallacy is? I asked what principle drives you, you respond with a series of fairly random complaints about religious people. That is not a principle. Me telling you that it is not a principle is not a Straw Man.

The term Straw Man comes from the idea of setting up a fight in which your opponent is a straw man, then claiming victory. In essence, you set your opponent up for defeat by denying worthwhile channels of argument. I denied nothing. I asked for what principle drives you as an atheist (you in the generic sense). You did not answer with a principle. A straw man would be "Aside from the unprovable nature of God, what reason do you have for not believing in him?". Another version, the more common of which, is to restate your opponents position in the weakest manner possible, so that you can then attack it easily. Do yourself a favor, learn what a fallacy is before you decide to call someone on it.

Lastly, and here is the big one, you never mentioned ignoring anyone in your post. You made a laundry list of complaints, nothing more.

Now this is a Straw Man: "Before you start about other systems killing people*snip*". You really should try to avoid incorrectly calling someone on the use of logical fallacy when you plan to use the selfsame logical fallacy in your own argument.

As to the killings that you are alluding to, I would counter that population pressure and power struggles were the root cause, that religion was simply window dressing to get the normal populace to comply. I would also hold up the examples of Hitler and Stalin, both secular in their reasoning behind their pogroms, both responsible for more deaths any other two figures in coupla centuries.

You're right that religion was abused by many people. You are incorrect in assuming that it is the root cause. The modern and post-modern ages have both been dominated by a long series of secular causes behind wars and massacres. Quite an enormous chunk of people have been murdered for entirely secular reasons in the last two centuries alone. Does this make up for 18 centuries in which you claim that religion has been killing people? Probably not, but it does beg the question as to whether it is religion's fault, or simply human nature to murder each other.

As an atheist and skeptic, you really should be more skeptical of some of these arguments. Then again, this is why I call popular atheism a belief system. It has its' own lies, propaganda,and dogma, just like any other belief system, as well as its' evangelists and foot-soldier True Believers.

I really should add a sig with the definitions of ad hominem and Straw Man, so people will know what they bloody well refer to. I see those terms being misused more often than any other fallacy term. Feh.

Dragonlich

Well, Moonduck, you did ask me the hypothetical question: "Government has also been abused by people to do bad things. If government bad? Sex has also been abused by people to do bad things. Is sex bad? "

This would definitely qualify as a rather dubious argumentation, in that I never said that either government or sex had not been abused. We were talking about religion. Therefore, I'd say that, although it may not technically be a straw man argument, it's certainly a silly one. Religious abuse, government abuse and sexual abuse cannot be compared like that; I will try and explain my reason for saying that...

Religion has been abused in the past by many people to allow the most dreadful massacres in human history. According to you, this has more to do with population pressure and power struggle than with religion. I'd like to dispute that. Religion in itself is to blame, at least for a large part.

The reasons I say this are the following:
- Religion is inherently non-rational; "accept what this book says without question, lest you be punished." It encourages one to *feel*, rather than to think.
- It is also inherently authoritarian; you are to listen to the elders/priests/pope, and do what they say - they know best.
- Most importantly, religion is always right; no matter the reality, the holy book cannot be wrong; anyone opposing this is a heretic and must be stopped from spreading their nasty ideas.

Because of these three reasons alone, religion *can* be used to justify the most horrid of crimes - it facilitates them, so to speak. Atheism is different, in that it cannot possibly be used like that.

Hitler and Stalin, your examples, may seem "secular" to you, but they weren't really atheists; they simply set up their own religion, based upon their person, a cult of personality if you want. Again we see the same three problems: these cults are non-rational, authoritarian, and convinced they're right.

So, just to go slightly back to your part of the line: any social system that encourages people to stop thinking for themselves, and accept whatever their leaders tell them, is inherently bad, and must be stopped. This includes nationalism, the cause of WW1 and WW2, but this also includes religion, the cause of many a massacre in recent history.

Jesus Pimp

If you had conclusive, objective proof, would you need faith?

__________________
Never date anyone who doesn't make your dick hard.

chavos

I'd be surprised if you can make a case for religion that doens't also indicte governments. Don't mean to steal moonduck's thunder, but as a person of faith, i just had to say something about your assumptions.

Quote:

- Religion is inherently non-rational; "accept what this book says without question, lest you be punished." It encourages one to *feel*, rather than to think.

Perhaps...but many religious systems around the world focus on meditation, reflection, and using the mind to unlock the reality of God, Nirvana, etc.... You also skip ahead and make the claim that religion is authoritarian by nature, and that it is about punishment. Many forms are, but most historically have not been. The exceptions have been certain strains of the great monotheisms...whereas the more popular polytheisms and animisms do not contain this "high stakes testing" of belive or else.

Quote:

- It is also inherently authoritarian; you are to listen to the elders/priests/pope, and do what they say - they know best.

Some kinds yes...but many not at all. It is quite popular in bhuddist regions for all boys to enter the monestary for a time, and thus make it so that everyone has at least some religious training...a much more level playing felid than the top down authoritarian vision you present. In rabbinic judiasm, arguement and discussion of torah is the right and responsibility of active participants in the community. In quaker circles there are no clergy, no authorities, and anyone who feels moved speaks freely in community gatherings.

Quote:

- Most importantly, religion is always right; no matter the reality, the holy book cannot be wrong; anyone opposing this is a heretic and must be stopped from spreading their nasty ideas.

The lovely legacy of the inquisition...another broad stroke that doesn't fit. Yes, there are many strains of Christianity, Islam, etc...that claim this. But that's not the whole story. Polytheisms and non-theistic faiths have an abhorrance for orthodoxy...and it does not develop in those religions. Ever find a Fundamentalist Hundu Temple? I didn't think so. Nor is every monotheist such a limited thinker...as i mentioned, rabbinic Judiasm carries the idea of conflicting ideas leading to deeper understanding, there are several major denominations of Christianity that have become homes to radical new thinkers, and there have and continue to be many tolerant and cosmopolitan forms of Islam.

Quote:

Because of these three reasons alone, religion *can* be used to justify the most horrid of crimes - it facilitates them, so to speak. Atheism is different, in that it cannot possibly be used like that.

Put as much fear behind a strong belief as seems to show up in the posts that get made to attack religion, and you're talking about a system capable of its own pogroms and brutalities. In fact, with out a religious injuction as to the supreme value of human life, it is more likely that ends justify the means policies will be enacted...and that human rights and lives will be shortchanged.

Quote:

So, just to go slightly back to your part of the line: any social system that encourages people to stop thinking for themselves, and accept whatever their leaders tell them, is inherently bad, and must be stopped. This includes nationalism, the cause of WW1 and WW2, but this also includes religion, the cause of many a massacre in recent history.

Let me summarize your statement: "Kill religion, before it kills us."

This comes out of ignorance, it comes out of fear, and is a dangerous kind of claim to make. I hope you change your mind.

Dragonlich

Chavos, without a "religious injunction as to the supreme value of human life", Atheism cannot possibly be used as an excuse to kill anyone. The reason: there is no such thing as organized atheism, thus nobody to implement any policy. In fact, given the overall level of atheists' ethics, I'd say you're just plain wrong.

You seem to claim that only religious people have enough moral value to stop "ends justify the means" policies, even though, in the past, these policies have mainly been enacted by religious people. For example, Hitler did not kill the Jews because he was an atheist and they were not; in fact, he wasn't even an atheist- he was very much into occult beliefs, and would often search for clues in ancient texts. Hitler killed the Jews because he hated them, period. His system of government made this easier, because it shares the three things I said about religion.

You also mention the many non-monotheistic religions as being different. That may be so, but they're still inherently non-rational - any belief system that prefers belief over evidence is non-rational, after all.
They're also still authoritarian, because there are not too many religions without at least some holy books or holy men - without authoritarianism, nobody would even consider following them, now would they? Perhaps the term is a bit overstated... Let's put it like this: in any religion, people prefer to listen to the holy books/holy men instead of listening to their own mind; in many religions and cultures, this gets turned into "the priest is always right". Besides... you're still *worshipping* a god/multiple gods/animals/rocks/whatever, aren't you? You're still a lesser being compared to these things; they have authority over you. I know this is kinda hard to apply to worshipping a rock, but still: you're depending on the rock to help you. Worshipping a god can easily turn into blind obedience to anyone claiming to speak for a god, as history has shown countless times.
As for the "we're always right" part: being open to other ideas does not mean that this part doesn't apply. After all, you're not being swayed by those other ideas: you know you're right, even though they might have some good ideas too. If you'd know you're wrong, you'd follow another religion, now wouldn't you???

Finally, the "kill religion, before it kills us" part... true, very true (if by "us", you mean mankind in general). And it's not quite as dangerous as you seem to think it is. I want to remove religion from this planet, not by force, but by education. Religion is bad for you. It leads to extremism, and this leads to war. It's the 21th century, science has moved beyond anything religion can offer in terms of understanding. We need independent rational thinkers to move beyond the age-old cycle of violence, and religion has shown that it will often increase violence (or even initiate it), instead of stopping it.

MuadDib

Religion is ultimately a personal and faith based part of peoples life. The expression that you can lead a horse to water but not make him drink is very fitting here. There is no way to "convince" someone who doesn't want to believe in god(s) if they don't want to or aren't prepared to. The most you can do is try have them see that there is something unifying and greater than mankind. That doesn't make it god(s) nor is it in anyway conclusional evidence, but its a premise that needs to be grasped before someone can accept religion and it the thing that many atheists/agnostics have a hard time with.

In case you are wondering I am a former Christian, former atheist, fomer Buddhist, former agnostic, liberal/unifying Christian.

Dragonlich

You make it sound as if religious people are somehow special (or even "better") than atheists/agnostics, because the latter cannot or will not accept the notion of a higher power. I'm sure you don't mean it like that, but you say it anyway.

You cannot make me "see that there is something unifying or greater than mankind", simply because there isn't. It's like telling me to accept that there is a pink unicorn standing behind me.

How's about this: someone who beliefs in God is simply unwilling/unable to accept that there *isn't* anything greater than mankind, that there *isn't* an afterlife, that there *isn't* any reason or meaning in life, that we just *are*. That's a premise that needs to be grasped before someone can grow beyond the childish idea of a father-figure in the sky following and judging our every move. This is something religious people have a hard time with.

sixate

There is absolutley no way in hell I will ever believe. It's all a bunch of crap to me. There's a greater chance in me believing in Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny. There is no higher power. Get over it people. We die. We're gone. I don't have a problem with it. I think most people fear death and don't want to belive that after they stop breathing that it's the end. I'm perfectly fine with it.

MuadDib

On the other hand Dragon, you make it sound as though there is something better about not seeing that there is something more or unifying. There's no way to present the issue without a hint of bias. The important thing I am trying to say is that there is nothing you can really say to a secure athiest or agnostic to make them believe in god just like there is nothing you can say to a secure religious individual to make them not believe. However, if you are dead set on testing someones security in there stance you are going to have to try to show them that there is something more because thats the key first step, just as if you wanted to convert a religious person you'd have to show them that there isn't.

more fire

If god himself came down from heaven to talk to me, I'd beleive. Nothing less will do.

chavos

Any ideology can be used...any religion, or lack there of. I don't make any claim about the immorality of atheists...was one for many years, and it's time I don't regret. That said, I don't think that it's unreasonable to claim that religion has a value in society of moderating people away from effective but immoral means. For evidence, I would point to the cessation of the West African slave trade, beginning with Britain. Religion, and specifically the theology of Bartholomew De Las Casas, played a crucial role in this. To me...this is one of the shining examples of how religion did what it was supposed to: to override our profit motive, and reminded people of their moral obligations to each other.

Please. You cite a time when governments killed, claim WITH OUT PROOF that religions are like that government and then expect that you've shown religion is equal to Hitler. I don't even know where to start with that mess.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?GodwinsLaw

That’s for starters….Using rank emotionalism to tie religion to Nazism is just about as irrational as it gets...and this is what I’m talking about when I say atheism can be just as dangerous.... You mix enough fear and hate with an ideology and it's going to get lethal.

You think they don't have evidence? You think that faith is some random event? No...faith happens when people see something and find inner meaning in those events. For some, they may realize something about life on the top of a mountain in deep mediatation...others think God loves them when they win the lotto. Some experiences are probably more valid than others...but that's not the point. Societies across time and space have all explored the meaning of life with religious imagery and thought...and it's my assertion that there is something to that. Call it God, call it "being" call it whatever you want...but there is a reality that is shown in our religious life. Saying there is no evidence for God is like saying there's no evidence for Freedom. Some people don't understand freedom, some people don't experience it...and some people hate it...but nobody can physically prove that it exists. Believing in that must be horribly irrational, and by your logic, dangerous.

Now, I’m not here to say I’m special because I have experienced faith in my life. I consider myself lucky, but that’s because this vocabulary, this world view works for me. If atheism is how you address the problems of human existence, and it works for you, then that’s peachy. But hating on people because you think their faith is irrational is no different that me telling a Muslim or a Jew that their faith is stupid and that they should believe in Christ.

I love how easy it is for you to skip over my entire post. I prove to you the non-authoritarian nature of several faiths, and you just keep talking like I didn't answer you at all. People follow faith because it works for them...because they have used the vocabulary of faith to talk about things that are important to them. I acknowledge the problem of authoritarian faiths....there is a lot of "or else" that gets said in some circles. But that is hardly a fair summation of the entirety of religious thought...it's a crass proof by anecdote.

No. No. A thousand times, NO! There's just no proof for this....and I don't know where you get the idea that you can say this. It would be accurate to say that in some religions that this is prevelant. But all? Please. There is no possible way to prove this, because it isn’t true. Some of the greatest minds the world have known have been religious thinkers, making great contributions both based in and in contradiction to the traditions that they were a part of.


Again...you are making a huge, and incorrect assumption. You're promoting the dualist view, that states that whatever is God is not human, and whatever is human is not God. this is certainly not the main view of many religions, especially the Eastern faiths, which often stress the human climb to perfection. Nor does worship of God preclude thinking, rationality, or human free will. Being humble before God does not mean taking orders from anyone who claims to be holy.

Your logic is really thin at this point. You claim that religion ALWAYS claims it is right to the COMPLETE EXCLUSION of all other truth. Then you concede that some religions accept truth from other places. Then you claim your original argument is undamaged.

It’s like bitching that someone has a favorite poem about love. He knows that other poems are out there, and that many say something very true. But he grew up with this poem perhaps, or maybe he read it at a special time in his life…and it will always be a part of how he reflects on love. As many others as he reads, he does not have to give up the truth he finds in that poem…there is no monopoly on truth when it comes to love. I have a favorite poem about the meaning of life. You really want to complain about that?

Really? It doesn’t help me and billions of others reflect on the meaning of life, the realty of human achievement and shortfall, the nature of forgiveness, the value of justice, and the mysteries of consciousness? It doesn’t do these things? If you said fundamentalism is bad for you, or listening to Jerry Falwell, or being a Whabbist Muslim, or a hyper-Zionist Jew, or hardline Calvinist…yeah, these things are damaging in many ways. But it’s like saying all politics are evil because there have been bad politicians. Religion is a human enterprise in which there will be both truth and fiction, good and evil. Seeing just one side is the real problem…

It’s the 21st century, and religion is still progressing, just as science is. The point is that science is really quite ill equipped to answer questions of ethics, interpersonal relations, and things of that nature. I don’t ask God to explain why the sun shines. I don’t ask science to explain why I should forgive someone.

bermuDa

an old quote but i felt a need to respond to it.

Who is wasting whose time here? Atheists didn't start this thread or many others like it. Personally, I don't care how you delude yourselves. I also don't care how cemented in your beliefs you are. I've got some friends who are christian... we just don't discuss it so it's not an issue.

When religious people bring the argument to my door and try to tell me how wrong I am, it doesn't make me like them or their religion any more, or CONVINCE me of anything other than their spiritual hubris. Live and let live, if faith is so personal what makes you think you can infect other people with your religious fervor?

__________________
I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

Marburg

If something completely supernatural happened to me (say, a god figure appearing and speaking with me) and I was sure it wasn't a hoax I would make it a top priority to find out which god it was!

A lot of the responses to this imply that most people just to the conclusion that it was the christian god. (I know, I do it too. I'm too used to using Christianity as the example religion in my debates. A bad habit I'm trying to break)

I would hope that it was Eris. The funnest god in religion!

<fnord>

__________________
Ask a simple question... get pain.

Dragonlich

Actually, secular humanism also played a big part in such things. Religion isn't the only thing that has good sides, and I never said that religion was *all* bad. You claim that religion is good (in this instance) because it led to the end of slavery. Now, isn't it interesting that the same religions that supported the cessation of slave trade were also used to *support* that slave trade previously? Or is *that* suddenly mankind being evil, as opposed to religion?

Sorry, but this is just bullshit. There is ample proof that Hitler, his government and his nazi movement were NOT atheists, but were actually following pre-christian cults. There is ample proof that Hitler (and Stalin) formed a cult of personality, in which they were seen as perfect, and unaware of the bad things being done in their name. I never said that religion is like Hitler. I said that religion, like extreme nationalism (Hitler) are authoritarian in nature. Godwin's law has nothing to do with it.

Yes, I think they have no evidence. There CANNOT be evidence for religion, because that would make it fact. Feeling is NOT evidence. "I think this must be God's work" is NOT evidence. Freaky experiences are NOT evindence. Comparing the abstract concept of "Freedom" with the abstract concept of "God" in this instance is wrong, period. Freedom cannot be touched, but it's certainly real. Because it's an abstract concept, we cannot see it. God is simply not the same. Therefore, by *my* logic, freedom can be good, but believing in god is irrational.

You did not "prove" anything. You claimed there were some religions that were non-authoritarian. Great. Okay, how's about this: The world's major religions, as in "organized religions", are authoritarian.

Ah yes... some of the greatest minds on earth were send to prison for saying things that their religious leaders didn't like. Others were lucky enough to live in a time where organized religion lost most of it's political power.

It may not *mean* it, but for the extremists, it's certainly the case. And that is exactly my point: religion *can* be abused; it allows itself to be abused, and it's very design facilitates abuse.

Anyway... I could go on and on about this, but I actually have a life to attend to.

Conclusion: organized religion is bad, extremist religions are bad. (nationalism is bad, any social system that says it's right and everything else is bad, is bad.)

Well, that's it for now anyway.... (gotta go to work, ya know)

chavos

People used to think that the earth was the center of the universe. Is that mankind suddenly being stupid and being against science? No...it's part of the progess that human systems make. I don't expect science to have all the answers from day one...and the tradition of belief in progressive revelation makes it clear that religions don't expect that of themselves either. Pretty fair if you ask me.

You still can't make the claim that religion is authoritarian. It's proof by anecdote. I could "prove" that all governments are authoritarian by your means...its not logically sound in the least.

Exactly...you assert religion is authoritarian, then mention that Nazi's are authoritarian. Wtf? There is no reason that this needs to get dragged in...nor can you prove that religion is by definition authoritarian. Even ONE non-authoritarian church would blow that statement right out of the water, and the relvenance of nazism to this debate right along with.

Intresting how your rebuttal of my arguemnt consisted of no facts, but simply unproven assumptions and personal feelings. I'm not trying to be a dick, but i don't think you make a coherant case for why they are different at all. Many people would say they are much the same...and i think you will have a hard time proving them wrong.

Its called counter example...i did prove something. But furthermore, i would say your revised assertion still suffers overbreath. Many churchs are authoritarian...i've suffered under a few such institutions...one of the reasons i went on church hiatus for so many years. But in striking contrast are many of the protestant churches, where there is no power structure beyond the individual community, and large numbers of church alternatives mean that there is little way for clergy to pressure their congregations with out them leaving for another church. Some cater to extremism, but many cater to progressives, and thinkers...and renouce the dangerous self rightiousness that you also decry. I've had much the same experience in visiting Reform synagagues...where community interaction is the core of religious understanding, not a top down decree from an all knowing source...i profess to have no experience visiting mosques, so i'll refrain from comment there. But point of the matter, personally i know your statement to be false....and i think you'd encounter much the same if you paid attention to the less visible liberal wings of the major monotheisms. The conservatives get the press...but they don't define the movement.

Ditto if you replace "religion" with "governments". I won't tell you all politics is evil...or anti-intellectual.

All power can be abused...any power can be abused. Why blame religion for a shortfalling that extends WAY past the boundaries of religious life?

Brdd99boy

Soren Keirkegaard pretty much covered this. At some point you have to stop looking for proof and make the "leap of faith"

Dragonlich

Indeed, it's quite hard to do^*); You're right. However, there *is* a difference.

^*) unless you're a philosopher specialized in language; then it would be a piece of cake.

1) Freedom. Abstract concept. I have freedom, other people may have more or less freedom. It's something I cannot grasp, yet I know it when I have it. I have freedom of speech, and pretty much the freedom to do as I want. There's nothing supernatural or vague about freedom, it just is. I can prove that I am free by showing that I am allowed to do certain things that non-free people cannot. After all, that's what freedom is all about: the "right" to do certain things.

2) God. Abstract concept, meaning either a very powerful being, or an all-powerful being. I cannot prove the existence or non-existence of a God. It is entirely supernatural, and (probably) cannot ever be proven because of it.

See the difference? "Freedom", like "the weather", "love", "emotion", and such things, is an abstract concept that has a direct link to the real world. "God" has no such link, unless one were to be able to prove the existence of said creature, which seems to be pretty much impossible.

...which brings us right back to the original question.

chavos

*sigh...

God. Abstract concept. I have connection with God, other people may have more or less such connection. It's something I cannot grasp, yet I know it when I have it. I have connection through church, and connection trough my own mind. There's nothing supernatural or vague about God, it just is. I can prove that I am in connection with God by showing that I am in possession of certain insights or relationships that non-connected people do not posess. After all, that's what God is all about : the "right" relation with the world around us.

Philosophers and religious figures around the world have debated this one....and to many, God is no less real than freedom. After all, how would you describe freedom to someone who never understood it? How could you make them realize that such a thing really existed? Could you produce physical proof of love, of freedom, of emotion?

My point is: you're all asking for signs and miracles...restricting the type of God you would beleive in. Maybe God isn't about divine fireworks, or holy cameo appearances...and you've defined away that possibility before even giving it a chance. Would you only beleive in freedom because of the 4th of july? Would you only believe in love if you could touch it?

Looften

I'd have to see it for myself. If I had the chance to buy god a coffee, and sit and talk with him for hours, then I'd beleive.

Unfortuently, everybody that claims they are god is more likely to take shots from the dairey creamers and get removed from the cafe due to complaints about the smell.

nietzsche

Geez everyone has such long replies!

Mine is simple, two words, for me to believe I want empirical evidence.

__________________
Man is condemned to be free

Dragonlich

sorry, but this is just vague philosophical dribble. "The right relation with the world". Bullocks. God is a creature, all-powerful, all-knowing; he created us all. God is all about this creature. Worship of said god, following it's holy books: *religion* would be about the "right relationship".

I've been thinking about this, and I'd say we should expand the sentence a bit: "I believe in God" versus "I believe in freedom".

1) I believe in God: you're saying that you think there *is* a super-natural being, god (even if there's no evidence, by the way). You're not saying that god would be a good idea, because such a statement would be silly.
2) I believe in Freedom: you're saying that you think freedom *is a good idea*. Saying "I think there is freedom" would be a silly statement. You like the effects of freedom (you can do what you want), and belief it should be expanded, or that everyone should be free.

In essence, the "belief" part of the sentence is not the same for both concepts. Hence the "I believe in love" - you're not saying that you think love exists... hell, you can see it exists, you can even prove it exists. You're saying that, for example, you believe two people will eventually fall in love with each other.

Just because *I* cannot say it properly doesn't mean there's no difference. If you really want to understand the difference, go look up some mid-1960's English philosophers - they loved wordgames like this. As happens so often, *words* are the cause of the question here, not the logical problem behind it.

chavos

God being a creature, or physical manifestation directly responsible for creation is only ONE view of God. I personally don't find it particularly compelling.

Perhaps i should have been more clear, since your refutation of my assertion that God is an abstract concept based in reality, rested on the idea that God is a supernatural being. Indeed, some of the most recent Christian theology, and some of the oldest conceptions of God don't include a Big Guy in the Sky formula, but rather focus on natural law, and the inherient goodness of being. I think it's quite fair to accept that latter formulation as an abstract idea, along the lines of love or freedom.

Moreover, when a person says "I believe in freedom" they are making more of a claim than "it's a good idea." They claim that it exists...that there is such a thing, and that it is possible in the realm of human affairs. Perhaps "love" is a better example...i've heard love be cynically dismissed more times than i can remember. But i still "believe in love" because of my personal experience. You can tell me it's all a chemical reaction, you can tell me that it's all a game...but i'll still believe in love. When i say i believe...i make the claim that it is possible, that humans can reach a state worthy of the title "love." Belief in any such abstraction is tested only by experience...does your life lead you to believe that freedom can really exist, that people can be free in spirit, and not just in theory? Has your life shown you that love can really be true, and that it is more than the physical parts that make us percieve it? And for some, God is such a concept...their experiences bring them to find deep meaning in this abstract which to them describes a reality about life.

I don't mean to impose a semantic debate on you just for the purpose of playing word games...i personally find it to be important to how i perceive God. But if it's not of intrest...i'd gladly call it a draw. I'd just ask that you be somewhat more careful in your assertions of what religion is and isn't...

Dragonlich

chavos, what *is* love anyway? You seem see it as more than just physical attraction. I agree to an extend, in that it also involves chemicals, the need to procreate, the need for a "soul-mate" (whatever that means), and the need for someone to share your life with. In short, it involves emotions (brain patterns and chemicals). However, love isn't supernatural, nor is it mysterious.

The reason I pointed at those 1960's era British guys, is that they had a very simple system to "solve" philosophical questions. They simply asked "What do you mean by ..." when confronted by a question.

In this case: what do you mean by "I belief in love". Do you belief it exists? Do you belief you too can love? Do you mean two people you know will end up together? Do you mean people worldwide can life in peace?

If you can sort out that question, most of the mystery surrounding statements like "I belief in love" (or god, or freedom, or anything else) evaporates.

Moonduck

I'm sorry friends. I've been too busy with work to keep up with this thread the past few days, and I was righteously enjoying it (is it proper for a non-believer to feel righteously about something?).

I'll try and play catch-up later in the week. Bloody work...

skinbag

If God entered reality and did or said something useful to make itself relevant I would give it a fair shake like any other being. As for me -I've never seen any reason for God other than humans reassuring themselves that something is in control. I have to reject the idea of a controller being; call me freedom-loving, but if I had to hand my life over to some super-being, I would cease to exist by any practical measure.( Being a part of someone/thing is not the same as being a volitional entity in my book.) In short: Life would be meaningless. I gotta say I LIKE being a human being !

snicka

The worst part of this question is that if you are a true skeptic and atheist/agnostic. I am not sure that there IS enough proof to validate a claim that is so extraordinary. Occams razor should ALWAYS find a more plausable explanation for anything that may be considered proof of god.