Yes alb, it won't end well.. especially when matty rocks up!
Despite the fact there are some very intelligent religious zealots on dakka, there have been numerous studies done on this topic and it is universally accepted that the higher your level of education the less likely you are to be religious.
I forget the exact figures, but in a nutshell, if you dropped out of high school its likely your a believer, and of you have a doctorate your unlikely to be.
Makes sense to me.
Oh yeah, your also less likely to end up in prison.
I gots me 8/10. Cocked up on Indonesia and another one.
Thing is, not sure this test proves much beyond Atheists having generally learnt more about world religions than say a Christian might, as we have less dogma to worry about.
As a religious person myself, this stuff drives me crazy. A man in my parish actually said the other day, "Oh, I'm not Christian, I'm Catholic." That would actually be hilarious satire if he wasn't being so earnest.
However, in my experience even atheists are seriously lacking in the department of religious knowledge to the point where it's very difficult to engage my atheist friends in honest conversations when they decide to start trolling me.
Edit: First sentence changed to avoid the word "gak."
jwoolf wrote:However, in my experience even atheists are seriously lacking in the department of religious knowledge to the point where it's very difficult to engage my atheist friends in honest conversations when they decide to start trolling me.
That is odd because studies like the one above have been pretty consistent for the last several years that the opposite is true.
9/10 here. I find most people don't know that much about faith. I've asked Christians if they've read the Bible cover to cover. They haven't or say they don't need to, they 'feel' their faith. Some have thought themselves clever by asking how do I know I'm right. I just am, after all it's my choice to not have it and they can't prove me wrong so
Ugh, that reminds of the insurance story. "Isn't it better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it?"
...
No? There's too many assumptions that I don't know where to start.
wouldn't be surprised.
As already stated there are other factors that play as big a part in knowledge of other relgions.
Depends also on the type of questions asked.
The ones in this case are general knowledge.
Ask me which chapter and verse the Sermon on the Mount is in and I am struggling. Even which gospel (Matthew? been a while since I checked)
A barely literate Bible basher might be able to quote the whole sermon and provide all the verse numbers, but not have a clue where Mecca is or why it is important in world religion.
For a Christian the Golden Rule is one sentence long. Everything else is just filler for Trivial Pursuit. The atheists I've met in real life were always angry and bitter and full of useless information they would foam at the mouth about. They were real buzzkills at parties.
Frazzled wrote:The atheists I've met in real life were always angry and bitter and full of useless information they would foam at the mouth about. They were real buzzkills at parties.
Thats why i don't like alot of the stuff Dawkins does, being an agnostic is better, alot less buzzkilling.
Alot of it depends on age of the person and the school they went to, i have worked with people who have near zero knowledge of any religion and at uni i've met christians who know very little about their faith .
9/10 and Christian. I have a few friends that are agnostic and they are some of the best people to have debates with on this stuff. Any atheist I have met tends to be a bit stand offish, but I have known some that are more opened minded than hostile to religion.
Ahtman wrote:
That is odd because studies like the one above have been pretty consistent for the last several years that the opposite is true.
Granted. My response was purely anecdotal, so I'm not trying to present it as any kind of real evidence, I'm just trying to puzzle out why the overwhelming majority of my religious discussions with atheists don't seem to line up with years of studies. Nowadays I mainly try to avoid any kind of religious discussion with atheists and Christians alike which is a bummer because it's one of my biggest areas of interest (more so the esoterica; I'm not really into arguing who's view of Scripture is better). I specifically say atheists and Christians because I can generally have a really interesting, intellectually honest conversation with my Jewish friends and family but I suspect this has to do with Jewish tradition being more academic. I don't know a ton of practicing Hindus and my few Muslim friends don't talk about this sort of stuff.
Christian, 8 out of 10. I said Nazareth for Jesus's birthplace(Jesus of Nazareth! Simple Mistake), and Saturday for the Jewish Sabbath even though I know that they start on Friday. Gah.
The fact that so many "Christians" can't get more than half of these right is a bit depressing.
Monster Rain wrote:8 out of 10. I said Nazareth for Jesus's birthplace(Jesus of Nazareth! Simple Mistake), and Saturday for the Jewish Sabbath even though I know that they start on Friday. Gah.
The fact that so many "Christians" can't get more than half of these right is a bit depressing.
O little town of [fill in the blank]. Shame on you Missed the Sabbath one and couldn't care less about Indonesia so 8/10.
mrwhoop wrote:Ugh, that reminds of the insurance story. "Isn't it better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it?"
...
No? There's too many assumptions that I don't know where to start.
I hate this! It's so #$#@(*$@*$!!! I usually follow it up with "You're going to be abducted by aliens tomorrow" which they seem puzzled by. I then go on to tell them that the only way for them to avoid being abducted by aliens and being taken away and having horrible experiments performed on them is to give me 20 bucks so I can bribe the aliens not to on their behalf, after all, it's better safe than sorry. Amazingly I've yet to receive $20 from even one person yet
100%. Granted, I guessed the Sabbath question. I knew it wasn't the first day that popped into my mind though so at least I widdled it down to 50%
This honestly doesn't surprise me at all. I'm Christian and level of competence I see the typical Christian display is rather... low. I don't think their stupid, its just that so many things Christians do are based on traditions rather than actual Biblical word, and it kind of creates a chaotic environment of inconsistency. Most just take what they hear from some random person as law and never bother actually reading the darn book
9/10 and Christian. Even though I missed one, that was a pretty fraggin' simple quiz. The one I missed was the Sabbath one. In fairness, I knew that the actual day time of the Sabbath falls on Saturday, but I wasn't sure if it actually began right on Saturday or right before Saturday (i.e., Friday night). I almost picked Friday, but didn't want to second-guess myself. I guess what I'm trying to say is, I got the question wrong but I'm not completely clueless on the subject either. I learned something new though, that I won't be forgetting anytime soon....getting it wrong pissed me off.
In my experience, while I've certainly known plenty of other Christians who were absolutely clueless when it came to other religions (and even their own, sometimes), I haven't met many atheists (and I've known a lot) that had a particularly good understanding of Christianity. That said, I don't find it hard to believe that atheists in general would statistically know more about religion, especially if tests like these are the measuring stick being used for religious knowledge.
Many of the atheists who I've had religious conversations with or heard talk about religion in a normal discussion setting knew lots of little "facts" about religions (which would allow them to score well on a test like this), but their actual understanding tended to be rather shallow. Kind of a mile wide and an inch deep, to the point where it was difficult to have a enjoyable, enriching, challenging conversation on the subject because I felt like I was stuck explaining what to me were relatively basic theological concepts - I would hear things like "You aren't a real Christian because the Bible says you have to stone disobedient children and you don't do that, you hypocrite!" It made the whole conversation cumbersome because it was assumed that I (and anyone else who claimed to have valid Christian beliefs) was starting from a perspective of reading every single word in the Bible completely literally, which was of course completely incorrect and not anywhere close to where I was coming from.
In a similar vein, I heard a lot of "Christians believe this and that" and most of the time I felt it was hugely simplified and horribly misrepresented. Of course, I also hear many other Christians say "Muslims believe this and that" or "Buddhists believe this and that" and so on, and it infuriates me because it's the exact same kind of misrepresentation, and most of the time they have no idea what they're talking about.
Having said all that, some of my most favorite people in the world to talk to about anything at all, including religion, are atheist or agnostic, but their knowledge of the subject tended to outpace the average persons of both religious or non-religious persuasions.
Clearly the answer is Jabez. He had his own trendy prayer and everything!
Now how you write an entire book about this:
I Chronicles 4:10 NKJV wrote:And Jabez called on the God of Israel saying, "Oh, that You would bless me indeed, and enlarge my territory, that Your hand would be with me, and that You would keep me from evil, that I may not cause pain." So God granted him what he requested.
That's not the fault of atheism Hordini, that is the fault of ignorance Pretty much my earlier point about general knowledge.
Another factor is that a lot of people in the UK who only see a church at Christenings, weddings and funerals pop CofE on forms. They may say they are Church of England and believe in God but little religious knowledge.
No sarky coments about Anglicans and belief in God please, too easy a target
Kilkrazy wrote:I got 9/10, failed on Q10 but in my favour that is a political/legal issue not religious.
I honestly think that question is a bit unfair. It's pretty clear it's present to trip up a Christian, a group that has become accustomed (at leas the Protestant side of it) to the idea that the government is oppressing them. An educated Christian is libel to know the correct answer to that question. One with a high school degree in their forties living in the back country of North Carolina isn't.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:That's not the fault of atheism Hordini, that is the fault of ignorance Pretty much my earlier point about general knowledge.
Oh, absolutely. I wasn't blaming the shallow understanding of religion that some people displayed on atheism itself, just as I wouldn't blame a shallow knowledge of or total lack of knowledge of other religions on Christianity itself. In both cases the root of the problem is that the people are simply clueless.
9/10. the question about the supreme court and the bible surprised me, since the courts tend to be pretty hostile towards religion in the public sector.
I didn't realize we were supposed to post our scores earlier. 10/10
Statistically that says I'm an atheist now or something, right? And I just bought a new stack of anointed prayer cloths that are supposed to bring me financial wealth.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:9/10. the question about the supreme court and the bible surprised me, since the courts tend to be pretty hostile towards religion in the public sector.
Teaching Bible as literature or as part of a comparative religions course can be ok.
Well, I think most Muslims and Mormons know more about their faith than Chrisitians do.
I don't think Atheists know much about the Bible except select verses from the Old Testament that they use to bash it. And ones from the New Testament that they take out of context of course.
Amaya wrote:Well, I think most Muslims and Mormons know more about their faith than Chrisitians do.
why do you think that?
Amaya wrote:
I don't think Atheists know much about the Bible except select verses from the Old Testament that they use to bash it. And ones from the New Testament that they take out of context of course.
Amaya wrote:I don't think Atheists know much about the Bible except select verses from the Old Testament that they use to bash it. And ones from the New Testament that they take out of context of course.
While the numbers are growing, most Atheists aren't necessarily born that way. You can be a Jew/Christian/et. al. and end up being an atheist; conversion is still the highest percentage of atheists. I know more Atheists that have read the Bible cover to cover than Christians. Even so most of either group don't read it cover to cover. It is a very dull book. It is like an album with a few good songs but the rest are B-Sides.
I've read the koran cover to cover. god that was a mistake. what a boring book. yeah the bible has its good parts but alot of it is of little more than historical interest...
What, your Bible doesn't have the Book of Bob? Infidel.
Gozer's weakness was shoes and strangely, dog bones. The Egyptian God Anubis tricked him into leaning over to look at some shoe shaped doggie treats, and Anubis gave him a god sized wedgie.
Christian (LDS) 8/10. I had a brain fart on the sabbath one. I knew the jewish day begins at dark hence the sabbath started on friday...
Hordini wrote:
In a similar vein, I heard a lot of "Christians believe this and that" and most of the time I felt it was hugely simplified and horribly misrepresented. Of course, I also hear many other Christians say "Muslims believe this and that" or "Buddhists believe this and that" and so on, and it infuriates me because it's the exact same kind of misrepresentation, and most of the time they have no idea what they're talking about.
Yeah I love it when people tell me what I believe. That's my favorite. And belonging to one of the most misrepresented religions out there it's happened far too often.
Having had many religious discussions, I find that often people find out enough about a religion to bash because they are insecure in their own religion (or lack thereof) and will use out of context passages, quotes, what their preachers/professor tells them,etc. as a shield against having an intelligent conversation which they fear will cause them to doubt their current beliefs. I'm not pointing fingers at any one group- there are plenty of people in any group that fit this bill.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:That's not the fault of atheism Hordini, that is the fault of ignorance Pretty much my earlier point about general knowledge.
Another factor is that a lot of people in the UK who only see a church at Christenings, weddings and funerals pop CofE on forms. They may say they are Church of England and believe in God but little religious knowledge.
No sarky coments about Anglicans and belief in God please, too easy a target
Budda budda budda!
I always list myself as CofE because it saves a lot of time.
I don't believe in God, or at best I am an agnostic. I have quite a lot of religious knowledge, having gone to Sunday School, Divinity class, preparation for confirmation and also taking an interest in other religions.
14/15. Missed the Great Awakening one. The sabbath one is easy, I simply remembered watching Hebrew Hammer and the Jews all shutting down and going to sleep at 7 PM on Friday.
30/32 on the actual thing. Automatically took the Great Awakening one off since I missed it the first time. I missed the Maimonides one, sounded middle eastern so I guessed Hindu. I don't know why really.
10/10 for this atheist. Thank you Comparative Religion 101.
Most people -- regardless of whether they are religious, agnostic, or atheist -- don't base their beliefs on any sort of informed study, knowledge or reason. Most people base their belief on purely emotional reasoning.
For every atheist I know who rejects religion for logical reasons, I know a half dozen who reject religion because they are shocked, embarrassed, disgusted and offended by the behavior of religious people -- which is fairly understandable, I think, given how fruitcake insane a lot of evangelicals are. Not to mention the rampant hypocrisy of religious leaders, etc.
By the same measure though, for every Christian I know who is Christian because they believe Christianity makes the most sense, I know thirty who are Christian because their parents were Christian. These people tend to know nothing at all about Christianity.
Most Christians I know fall into two camps: hate-filled, judgmental bigots who latch onto some parts of the bible in order to justify hating someone else (usually gays), and generally nice, caring, decent people who think Jesus is a giant fluffy bunny that grants wishes and makes sure good things happen to good people. Neither group is particularly interested in knowing anything about religion.
Many Christians I know, possibly because I move in very liberal circles, are actually humanists based on their beliefs, and only believe in a God that is undefined, indefinable, inactive, distant and essentially absent. In fact, I would argue that someone claiming to be Christian is such a meaningless statement that it contains no information value at all. You can literally believe anything and still believe you are a Christian. Which is why I'm skeptical of studies that find that 80% of Americans are Christian.
As for agnostic, almost every single agnostic I've ever met (I actually can't think of a single one I've met who this isn't true of) are not agnostic because that is actually rational, but because they've been intimidated into an agnostic positions by haters of atheism who insist that all atheists are arrogant fundamentalists. But the reality is that most agnostic are just being intellectually dishonest. They give God a special pass, an exemption from normal logic that allows them to sit on the fence, but can't really be justified -- and isn't extended to anything else.
What I mean is that I never encounter agnostics who think it can't be known if Thor, leprechauns, unicorns, magic, the Easter Bunny, or any other supernatural entity exists and thus we must sit on the fence. For all these entities that complete lack of evidence of their existence is sufficient for them to agree that such things do not exist. But apply the same reasoning to God, and suddenly they aren't so sure.
Which is funny to me. Because I have been called arrogant, presumptive, and a fundamentalists for saying that god doesn't exist, but I've never been called that for saying unicorns don't exist. Even though there is exactly the same amount of evidence for the existence of unicorns as for God, and the evidence against unicorns is exactly the same.
You saying the mighty Thor, God of Thunder and wielder of the Wyrm slayer, Mjollnir, doesn't exist?
He who topples mountains with a single swing and drinks mead from the skulls of his enemies is superstitious hokey?
The protector of Midgard, champion of Asgard, the Son of one-eyed Odin is nothing but fairy tale told to children?!? Sir you are only fit to have your skull caved in by greater men on their path to Valhalla.
avantgarde wrote:You saying the mighty Thor, God of Thunder and wielder of the Wyrm slayer, Mjollnir, doesn't exist?
He who topples mountains with a single swing and drinks mead from the skulls of his enemies is superstitious hokey?
The protector of Midgard, champion of Asgard, the Son of one-eyed Odin is nothing but fairy tale told to children?!? Sir you are only fit to have your skull caved in by greater men on their path to Valhalla.
I'm saying it is as likely that Thor exists as it is that fellow Marvel comic star Spider-man exists.
Thor may not exist as a anthropomorphic mighty ale swigging, trough guzzling god.
He does represent a relationship between humans and nature, whereas Spidey is someone who swings in his jim-jams. But hey, whatever. I'm broadminded.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Which is funny to me. Because I have been called arrogant, presumptive, and a fundamentalists for saying that god doesn't exist, but I've never been called that for saying unicorns don't exist. Even though there is exactly the same amount of evidence for the existence of unicorns as for God, and the evidence against unicorns is exactly the same.
I dont think those insults have anything to do with your religious affiliation, per se....
4/10. I remembered Bethlehem from those Christmas songs in elementary school, the other three I got were lucky guesses. never read a bible, or been to a church. The closest thing I came was when I washed dishes at a bible camp one summer.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Thor may not exist as a anthropomorphic mighty ale swigging, trough guzzling god.
He does represent a relationship between humans and nature, whereas Spidey is someone who swings in his jim-jams. But hey, whatever. I'm broadminded.
How about we compromise, and agree that Thor is an archetypal character used to convey concepts about a culture and its values through a story-telling medium, and so is Spider-man.
avantgarde wrote:You saying the mighty Thor, God of Thunder and wielder of the Wyrm slayer, Mjollnir, doesn't exist?
He who topples mountains with a single swing and drinks mead from the skulls of his enemies is superstitious hokey?
The protector of Midgard, champion of Asgard, the Son of one-eyed Odin is nothing but fairy tale told to children?!? Sir you are only fit to have your skull caved in by greater men on their path to Valhalla.
I'm saying it is as likely that Thor exists as it is that fellow Marvel comic star Spider-man exists.
Wouldn't it be easier to disprove spider man since you could just google all the peter parkers, kidnap them and subject them to genetic testing to determine if they have super powers?
Just as I thought predictions for this thread were not going to come to pass...
If we can just steer clear of the prosleytising please chaps it may keep ticking along nicely a while longer
Automatically Appended Next Post: lol Is that even legal Brock?
It might be fun, well, maybe not for all the peter Parkers
re Spidey
Yeah it's a tricky one as I am not well versed enough in such studies Gailbraithe
Gut feeling is that the impetus for Mythological beings such as Thor come from a wholly different level of thought than that of literary figures.
Am sure that it can be well argued that both are constructs of the imagination in response to external stimuli and internal impusles.
Which they are but in a way it is the distinction between Myth and Folktale?
BrockRitcey wrote:Wouldn't it be easier to disprove spider man since you could just google all the peter parkers, kidnap them and subject them to genetic testing to determine if they have super powers?
That assumes a literal reading of the comic book. If one can't reasonably expect believers in God to believe every little thing in the bible is true, and no one has challenged Hordini or Wraithlordmechanic on that point, then one can't reasonably expect Amazing Spider-Fans to believe every single thing in every single issue is canon. I mean true. Amazing Spider-Fan's totally get to pick and choose what they want to believe, that way you can never, ever pin them down on anything. That way one can believe that the comic book claims that no one knows Spider-man's identity, yet almost everyone clearly knows that Peter Parker is Spider-man, so clearly Peter Parker cannot be Spider-man's secret ID, and be not at all bothered by the torturous logic of that argument.
Much like one could believe Thor exists in some sense, despite the fact that the aurora borealis is not a rainbow bridge to asgard. You totally get to pick and choose what is true. That's the great thing about religion.
BrockRitcey wrote: ...google all the peter parkers, kidnap them and subject them to genetic testing to determine if they have super powers?
What do you think the US govenment has been doing all these years to unsuspecting citizens? Kidnapping them in those "grey alien" suits and shoving probes into their rectal cavities to test their DNA.
Gailbraithe
I'm tempted to respond to your ideas from a theist perspective..... your carefully reasoned and insightful views on politics lead me to believe such a conversation would be deeply profitable for all involved......
AbaddonFidelis wrote:Gailbraithe
I'm tempted to respond to your ideas from a theist perspective..... your carefully reasoned and insightful views on politics lead me to believe such a conversation would be deeply profitable for all involved......
Nah, I'll just annoy you, because I'm constitutionally incapable of taking a theist perspective seriously, and I'll piss you off by mocking the whole enterprise by referencing otherkin, the flying spaghetti monster, Eris and the aneristic principle, and, of course, the ever-present, invisible, intangible unicorns that are the basis of my faith.
Theists can't do the one thing that would make me take the proposition of theism seriously -- provide a definition of god that is relevant to living and empirically testable -- and consequently I don't take theist perspectives seriously.
Gailbraithe wrote:That way one can believe that the comic book claims that no one knows Spider-man's identity, yet almost everyone clearly knows that Peter Parker is Spider-man, so clearly Peter Parker cannot be Spider-man's secret ID, and be not at all bothered by the torturous logic of that argument.
Why is that torturous logic? If you're presuming that Spider-man is real, and that at least some of the comics represent an account of his life and deeds, then it can very easily follow that Peter Parker is nothing more than a false name conjured up by the author to protect the identity of the real Spider-Man. Now, that doesn't actually mean that there is a real Spider-man, or even that Peter Parker cannot be Spider-man's real name (perhaps he hides in plain sight), but it does mean that the way in which one regards source material is critical to determining what that source material means. Given the premise that the Spider-man comics are not exact representations of the life and deeds of Spider-man, the argument is perfectly reasonable.
Similarly, if one regards the Bible as a human interpretation of the Word, then they will regard it differently than someone who sees it as a direct representation of the Word. People in the former camp are allowed to pick and choose, because its really up to them to determine what they consider to be valid. People in the latter camp do not have that option, unless they believe that God can err, or something akin to the idea that the Bible was inerrant when created, but has now been mutilated by the hand of man.
As with any conventionally unobservable phenomenon, the ultimate barometer with respect to believability is a combination of utility. If someone finds something useful, then they are almost always going to be willing to put more effort into supporting their position. Unfortunately, many people make the mistake of presuming that the proofs they have concocted are predicated on premises which allow their deductions to be applied to others; confusing belief in something with evidence of that thing.
Gailbraithe wrote:
You totally get to pick and choose what is true. That's the great thing about religion.
You get to pick and choose what you believe is true. Just like everything else in the wrold. The difference is in regard to what you accept as evidence in the course of supporting that claim to truth.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:Gailbraithe
I'm tempted to respond to your ideas from a theist perspective..... your carefully reasoned and insightful views on politics lead me to believe such a conversation would be deeply profitable for all involved......
Nah, I'll just annoy you, because I'm constitutionally incapable of taking a theist perspective seriously, and I'll piss you off by mocking the whole enterprise by referencing otherkin, the flying spaghetti monster, Eris and the aneristic principle, and, of course, the ever-present, invisible, intangible unicorns that are the basis of my faith.
Theists can't do the one thing that would make me take the proposition of theism seriously -- provide a definition of god that is relevant to living and empirically testable -- and consequently I don't take theist perspectives seriously.
As I would no doubt annoy you by pointing to the undoubted existence of many things for which we have no empirical proof or firm definition.... no doubt my utter contempt for atheism as a presumptuous and psychologically untenable system of thought (your obvious emotional stability excepted of course) would enrage you and provoke all kinds of lengthy and non-sensical replies, as would my insistence that rationality is not the only or even the best means of arriving at true (read: adaptive) conclusions.
Gailbraithe wrote:That way one can believe that the comic book claims that no one knows Spider-man's identity, yet almost everyone clearly knows that Peter Parker is Spider-man, so clearly Peter Parker cannot be Spider-man's secret ID, and be not at all bothered by the torturous logic of that argument.
Why is that torturous logic?
Because the everyone referred to in the statement actually refers to two separate groups. In the first instance it refers to the general public in the comic book and in the second instance it refers to the general public in real life. Surprised you missed that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:As I would no doubt annoy you by pointing to the undoubted existence of many things for which we have no empirical proof or firm definition....
Such as?
no doubt my utter contempt for atheism as a presumptuous and psychologically untenable system of thought (your obvious emotional stability excepted of course) would enrage you and provoke all kinds of lengthy and non-sensical replies, as would my insistence that rationality is not the only or even the best means of arriving at true (read: adaptive) conclusions.
Atheism isn't a system of thought. I don't care if you're bigoted against atheists. I take solace in the fact that any argument boils down to you engaging in special pleading as to why you should be exempted from ever having to prove that your case has a single leg to stand on. I mean seriously, oh noes, the fantasist thinks I've got an untenable system of thought. Whatever shall I do?
It's worth pointing out from reading the article that the questions asked in their poll appear much harder than the ones in the little quiz on the site.
In other news, the hostility towards atheists in this thread is kind of sad. I'm normally kind of bemused by atheists coming out and declaring their atheism, and complaining about how it makes them ostracized, because as an atheist I've never experienced anything of the sort. Typically when I've seen some antagonism there's been plenty given by the atheists, but this thread is demonstrating a base level of hostility that exists towards atheists, without one even coming in to provoke it. Well, there was hostility before anyone came to provoke anything.
mattyrm wrote:Despite the fact there are some very intelligent religious zealots on dakka, there have been numerous studies done on this topic and it is universally accepted that the higher your level of education the less likely you are to be religious.
It generally depends on the faith. The dating site OKCupid does some really interesting data mining of their profile users* and a recent one looked at the language used in their searches, and looked at how that language was affected by gender and ethnicity. They measured writing proficiency and compared it with faith, while atheism came in top and protestantism came in bottom, it's interesting to note that buddhism and judaism scored almost exactly the same as atheism, and both scored higher than agnosticism.
The other point is that the difference overall is pretty marginal, one school grade from top to bottom.
*Alright, you have to accept the huge selection bias in the population, but it's interesting anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:I've read the koran cover to cover. god that was a mistake. what a boring book. yeah the bible has its good parts but alot of it is of little more than historical interest...
The Koran is superior in that it's much, much shorter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:As I would no doubt annoy you by pointing to the undoubted existence of many things for which we have no empirical proof or firm definition.... no doubt my utter contempt for atheism as a presumptuous and psychologically untenable system of thought (your obvious emotional stability excepted of course) would enrage you and provoke all kinds of lengthy and non-sensical replies, as would my insistence that rationality is not the only or even the best means of arriving at true (read: adaptive) conclusions.
Happily though we won't be going there
You're assuming that atheism has to be dependant on the atheist assuming there's is a more rational POV. I do not believe in God, but I do not posit this is a more rational belief. It is simply the belief that makes sense to me given the world I see around me. I accept this is no more and no less rational than a person who comes to believe in a higher power, or a person who decides they don't know.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:As I would no doubt annoy you by pointing to the undoubted existence of many things for which we have no empirical proof or firm definition....
Such as?
you're a smart guy figure it out.
no doubt my utter contempt for atheism as a presumptuous and psychologically untenable system of thought (your obvious emotional stability excepted of course) would enrage you and provoke all kinds of lengthy and non-sensical replies, as would my insistence that rationality is not the only or even the best means of arriving at true (read: adaptive) conclusions.
Atheism isn't a system of thought.
nonsense. atheists display wide conformity of thought across a whole gamut of philisophical issues, and for pretty much the same reasons. you guys just dont like to think of yourselves that way. you're "free thinkers" whatever the hell that means.
I don't care if you're bigoted against atheists. I take solace in the fact that any argument boils down to you engaging in special pleading as to why you should be exempted from ever having to prove that your case has a single leg to stand on. I mean seriously, oh noes, the fantasist thinks I've got an untenable system of thought. Whatever shall I do?
get religion?
.... I'm doing what I promised myself I would not do - giving you an opportunity to wig out on what is obviously an emotionally charged topic for you. I'm going to stop. please, have the last word. AF
AbaddonFidelis wrote:As I would no doubt annoy you by pointing to the undoubted existence of many things for which we have no empirical proof or firm definition.... no doubt my utter contempt for atheism as a presumptuous and psychologically untenable system of thought (your obvious emotional stability excepted of course) would enrage you and provoke all kinds of lengthy and non-sensical replies, as would my insistence that rationality is not the only or even the best means of arriving at true (read: adaptive) conclusions.
Happily though we won't be going there
You're assuming that atheism has to be dependant on the atheist assuming there's is a more rational POV. I do not believe in God, but I do not posit this is a more rational belief. It is simply the belief that makes sense to me given the world I see around me. I accept this is no more and no less rational than a person who comes to believe in a higher power, or a person who decides they don't know.
well the comment was specifically directed at galbraithe, who I am sure does believe that atheism is more rational than theism. My own belief is that atheism is indeed more rational but that rationality is not the final test of truth - adaptability is. historically secular societies tend to be short-lived compared to religious ones, from which I conclude that atheism is a less adaptive system of thought and so less likely to be true. I can respect your neutrality on the topic of whether atheism is more or less rational than theism. AF
Snikkyd wrote:How can you be bigoted againsts athiests? Its not really a religion.
Any time a person sees a trait or belief in another and becomes hostile to that person it's bigotry.
Also, why are you being so flamy against religion, its kind of uncalled for.
As is always the case, both sides give as good as they get, and both complain they're being picked on. The race to claim persecution is very lame.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:well the comment was specifically directed at galbraithe, who I am sure does believe that atheism is more rational than theism. My own belief is that atheism is indeed more rational but that rationality is not the final test of truth - adaptability is. historically secular societies tend to be short-lived compared to religious ones, from which I conclude that atheism is a less adaptive system of thought and so less likely to be true. I can respect your neutrality on the topic of whether atheism is more or less rational than theism. AF
You really think it's more rational? I honestly can't see how it could be. The question is, basically by definition, beyond rationality.
I also can't see how adapatability demonstrates truth. Ignoring the very loose historical concept of secular societies and religious ones (and ignoring that the former is a very modern development)... there are all kinds of nonsense that promote a healtheir, more robust society without being true in the slightest. Right now one the most powerful, unifying ideas in the US is that it is the land of opportunity, where regardless of your background hard work and talent will help you climb the ladder. It's complete bunk, the US scores very poorly compared to other developed nations in terms of social mobility - but it remains a very important myth in unifying and stabilising the country.
Meh, religion only exists so that those with low self esteem can feel good about themselves.
I do beleive in God, I just don't beleive in any religions. Almost everyone I know who is religious are just a bunch of hipocrits anyway.
Especially this girl I asked for a date from. She refused because I wasn't catholic, calling me unchurchly and daemonic, and when in church she doesn't shake my hand. Your supposed to be forgiving in Church! Nor does she kneel all the way >.> Hurts me feelins, that.
I think religion came around to answer questions we simply didn't have answers for like "Where do I go when I die" "Why does the sun rise each day and set each night".
AbaddonFidelis wrote:well the comment was specifically directed at galbraithe, who I am sure does believe that atheism is more rational than theism. My own belief is that atheism is indeed more rational but that rationality is not the final test of truth - adaptability is. historically secular societies tend to be short-lived compared to religious ones, from which I conclude that atheism is a less adaptive system of thought and so less likely to be true. I can respect your neutrality on the topic of whether atheism is more or less rational than theism. AF
You really think it's more rational? I honestly can't see how it could be. The question is, basically by definition, beyond rationality.
well I think its more rational if you accept rationality as the only test of truth. If theres no rational reason to believe in something, then why believe it? But you've heard this argument a million times from other atheists I guess so I dont need to repeat it..... Its not capable of permanent settlement by rational means thats true, but I think the absence of proof goes along way if, to you, positive proof is required to believe anything. IMO thats silly. almost everyone on dakka believes there's a south pole, but how many people have been there? Know someone who has? We take the existance of such a place for granted on no better authority than someone else told us that such a place exists. If thats good enough for the south pole why not for God? So to me its obvious that positive proof is not the only way that a reasonable person gets his information about the world. ie you dont have to see it yourself. Thats why I think its a little silly for (some) atheists to say "I've never seen God theres no proof therefore he doesnt exist."
sebster wrote:
I also can't see how adapatability demonstrates truth.
really? If I act on a set of beliefs that permit me to live, and my friend acts on a set of beliefs that get him killed, whose beliefs are more likely to conform to reality? to be true? It's not 100% but nothing ever is....
sebster wrote:
Ignoring the very loose historical concept of secular societies and religious ones (and ignoring that the former is a very modern development)...
alot of people think that past societies were uniformly religious, but they were not. Greece Rome China and (northern) India all went through stages where their educated classes were secular in the same way that our educated class is. People dont realize this because those stages were fairly brief (which is incidentally my point) but they really did happen.
sebster wrote:
there are all kinds of nonsense that promote a healtheir, more robust society without being true in the slightest. Right now one the most powerful, unifying ideas in the US is that it is the land of opportunity, where regardless of your background hard work and talent will help you climb the ladder. It's complete bunk, the US scores very poorly compared to other developed nations in terms of social mobility - but it remains a very important myth in unifying and stabilising the country.
ummm... a couple things....
sometimes a belief is true in a way thats different than the holder of that belief realizes. for instance its true that exercise makes you healthier. if someone believes that UFOs will abduct him and perform horrible experiments on him if he doesnt exercise, then thats probably not true in the sense that the person means it - but it is true that by exercising he's promoting his health - by burning calories rather than by avoiding alien abduction, true, but the end result is the same, so what does it matter? Thats an extreme example - the guy is obviously a lunatic - but I think that its useful to look at beliefs as potentially true or false in senses other than just the factual content of those beliefs. The outcome, not the theory, is what really matters. So whatever motivates a desirable outcome is, in a sense, true.
also when people believe things about life generally - if I work hard I can get ahead, for instance - they can sometimes make it true. If
peoples beliefs stop matching up to reality - no matter how hard they work they never get ahead - then they'll abandone them as useless (non-adaptive) beliefs and start believing something else. change in the psyche of a large group of people takes time but it does happen, and those changes do tend to reflect the new reality, whatever it may be.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Because the everyone referred to in the statement actually refers to two separate groups. In the first instance it refers to the general public in the comic book and in the second instance it refers to the general public in real life. Surprised you missed that.
If the comic is supposed to be descriptive of reality, which it would have to be in order for anyone to believe that Spider-man is real, then the public discussed in the comic would be a portrayal of the public in real life. As such, if no one knows who Spider-man is, and the comic describes reality, then the comic can't very well give us all Spider-man's real name. Unless, as I said before, its a case of hiding in plain sight, or the person telling us all about Spider-man made a grievous error.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
also when people believe things about life generally - if I work hard I can get ahead, for instance - they can sometimes make it true.
I think you're confusing truth with utility. The belief that hard work leads to advancement may be a useful one, but it isn't necessarily true. Hard work can certainly contribute to advancement, but it definitely doesn't cause it all on its own.
sebster
I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself very well about adaptability being an indicator of truth. what I'm trying to say is that the specific content of a belief isnt always important. Its the basic elements, and the kinds of actions that follow from them, that really matter. On that basis I conclude that a benevolent, caring God probably does exist, because that belief helps me to live a better life.
I dont look into the specifics of the question a whole lot because they're A unknowable and B not particularly relevant. AF
Automatically Appended Next Post: Dogma.
I'm saying that the one is a pretty good guide to the other. Does hard work lead to success? I don't know. Work hard and let's judge the results. I'll draw conclusions from that. That's a pretty good guide to truth, no? A machine built on true principles works. A machine built on false principles doesnt. So observing how the machine works says alot about the trustworthiness of the principles its designed on, no?
Whether I'm confusing them or not depends I guess on whether you agree with the above.
AF
If these findings are true then it wouldn't surprise me at all. Atheist are nearly always intelligent and well educated people who are able to see religion for the poorly formulated lie that it is. People with less education and people of low intelligence are much more likely to be suckered-in by religion, since every corner of society is saturated with it.
I've always found it quite ironic that Christianity is itself a product of Social Darwinism, I.e... an Idea that has evolved to survive and spread. Vary similar the living organisms which creationists are so adamant to argue God made.
Early religions were probably very easy to discredit. If you insult 'Joojoo up the mountain' and then you aren't suddenly struck down by lightning (as promised). Or you pray to him and he doesn't come through... Then it starts to appear as though Joojoo was just a load of made up nonsense.
But people aren't happy with that, so the idea is expanded to explain why you weren't struck down by lightning. After many possible explanations are proposed and refuted, eventually they settle on an explanation that can't be disproved...
"Joojoo didn't punish you, because he is going to punish you in the next life after you are dead"
Since the only people who can refute this idea are already dead, the idea can no longer be disproven. Thus the idea has evolved to be more survivable.
Eventually after many more adaptations we get a highly evolved idea like Christianity. Christianity is riddled with defense mechanisms designed specially to prevent the idea from being discredited.
"God works in mysterious ways"
"It was part of god's divine plan"
"Proof would undermine faith"
"Who are you to question God? Blasphemy!!"
"God would never lower himself to proving his power because you challenged him to"
"You only go to heaven and meet god after you die"
The list is goes on, but these are all good examples of clever little answers that Christianity uses to sidestep awkward questions about god.
Now in the modern age of reason, the questions are becoming increasingly more awkward. And the answers are becoming increasingly more ridiculous. Staunch believers seem to be mainly just rednecks who don't know any better. I hope that in a few more generations religion will play less and less of a role in world politics, as more and more people stop taking it seriously, and start thinking about real issues and solutions instead.
what is the real solution to alienation? to the occasional work place massacre? to a culture of amoral aggression? to the breakdown of the family? to the increasing incidence of mental illness?
if not God....... what? these are real issues. what are the real solutions?
AF
Here's a question: must something exist, or even be possible, for it to be useful? I'm no mathematician, but my understanding is that they often use numbers that cannot actually exist to derive answers to practical questions. Perhaps the concept of God is equivalent to these in some way?
Orkeosaurus wrote:Here's a question: must something exist, or even be possible, for it to be useful? I'm no mathematician, but my understanding is that they often use numbers that cannot actually exist to derive answers to practical questions. Perhaps the concept of God is equivalent to these in some way?
Additionally, does God exist merely because people believe he does?
For example, if someone prays for something, and it happens, they will attribute that to God; Does that make God real?
In my mind it does for that individual. Hence God has whatever power is given to him by believers.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
nonsense. atheists display wide conformity of thought across a whole gamut of philisophical issues, and for pretty much the same reasons. you guys just dont like to think of yourselves that way. you're "free thinkers" whatever the hell that means.
I don't know about that. Atheists absolutely agree about not believing in God (though not necessarily believing in the absence of God), but that's it.
Remember, Atheism isn't a religion like Christianity. Its a category of belief regarding God diametrically opposed to Theism, which is also not a system of thought.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Dogma.
I'm saying that the one is a pretty good guide to the other. Does hard work lead to success? I don't know. Work hard and let's judge the results. I'll draw conclusions from that. That's a pretty good guide to truth, no? A machine built on true principles works. A machine built on false principles doesnt. So observing how the machine works says alot about the trustworthiness of the principles its designed on, no?
Well, obviously you can stumble upon the truth by chance. In fact, its arguable that the majority of scientific discoveries occurred because of fortuitous occurrences, Hubble's Law is a good example. However, when Hubble noticed that everything in the Universe was moving away from the Earth it wasn't his observation that made it true. By the same token, if hard work leads causes success, then it wasn't belief that made it so.
Now, there is some difference in that the motion of stellar objects isn't something under human control, why social conditions are. The belief that hard work leads to success requires, at least to some extent, that society hold as an axiom that hard work should lead to success. That held axiom is thus a truth of the society, and belief would determine almost exclusively. However, this is a different sort of thing than determining the existence of God by simply believing in him.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Here's a question: must something exist, or even be possible, for it to be useful? I'm no mathematician, but my understanding is that they often use numbers that cannot actually exist to derive answers to practical questions. Perhaps the concept of God is equivalent to these in some way?
well if you imagine it then it does exist.... in your mind. I mean hey thats real. not as real as say a locomotive coming towards you but it's real if you think it and communicate it and act on it. its a real thought. yes mathematics is a good example. square root of negative 1 for instance is a number that does not exist but which it is occasionally useful to have around anyway. I think the existence of God goes beyond the physical. I dont know exactly how or in what sense God exists - to me this is the deep stuff of the universe - way above my pay grade or anyone else's. That's whats good about faith. You dont have to know all the details. You just have to know what benefits you. If it makes you feel good to believe in God and doesnt have any obviously harmful effects, if it in fact makes your life better because it makes you happier, then why not believe? AF
Orkeosaurus wrote:Here's a question: must something exist, or even be possible, for it to be useful? I'm no mathematician, but my understanding is that they often use numbers that cannot actually exist to derive answers to practical questions. Perhaps the concept of God is equivalent to these in some way?
Additionally, does God exist merely because people believe he does?
For example, if someone prays for something, and it happens, they will attribute that to God; Does that make God real?
No, because then the opposite would also be true.
You pray and pray for something, and unfortunately, God says no. Which is also a pretty good album by Monster Magnet, IIRC. I had a brief(15 years is brief, right?) crisis of faith, but I feel myself becoming more and more firmly back in the fold lately.
I was, for quite some time, a full blown nihilist. I completely rejected any kind of belief system, and that includes the dogmatic douchebaggery of militant atheists. Frankly, it was depressing. I'd never make a good humanist, because frankly, I don't have a whole lot of respect for humanity.
When removed from the bad behavior of earthbound Christians who completely miss the point, the teachings of Jesus really do make a lot of sense.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
nonsense. atheists display wide conformity of thought across a whole gamut of philisophical issues, and for pretty much the same reasons. you guys just dont like to think of yourselves that way. you're "free thinkers" whatever the hell that means.
I don't know about that. Atheists absolutely agree about not believing in God (though not necessarily believing in the absence of God), but that's it.
Remember, Atheism isn't a religion like Christianity. Its a category of belief regarding God diametrically opposed to Theism, which is also not a system of thought.
as a group they dont believe in an afterlife or souls or prophecy or miracles. none of these things necessarily require the existence of God. we're just used to thinking of them as bundled up with the concept of God, so people who chuck that tend to chuck the rest. They do tend to be materialists with a strong bias towards rationality over irrationality. Again these are not things that have any necessary connection to the idea of God. To me this evinces a common thought process among a wide group of people and suggests a similarity of motivations and/or explanations for those beliefs. ie a system of thought. Atheistic thought is in truth so uniform that its absurd for them to persist in thinking of themselves as some kind of community of renegade intellectuals, as "free thinkers" living in a world of religious zombies. Religious people disagree with each other more than atheists do. Which group is really the zombies here?
AF
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Dogma.
I'm saying that the one is a pretty good guide to the other. Does hard work lead to success? I don't know. Work hard and let's judge the results. I'll draw conclusions from that. That's a pretty good guide to truth, no? A machine built on true principles works. A machine built on false principles doesnt. So observing how the machine works says alot about the trustworthiness of the principles its designed on, no?
Well, obviously you can stumble upon the truth by chance. In fact, its arguable that the majority of scientific discoveries occurred because of fortuitous occurrences, Hubble's Law is a good example. However, when Hubble noticed that everything in the Universe was moving away from the Earth it wasn't his observation that made it true. By the same token, if hard work leads causes success, then it wasn't belief that made it so.
sure. he discovered a truth his thought did not create it.
Now, there is some difference in that the motion of stellar objects isn't something under human control, why social conditions are. The belief that hard work leads to success requires, at least to some extent, that society hold as an axiom that hard work should lead to success. That held axiom is thus a truth of the society, and belief would determine almost exclusively. However, this is a different sort of thing than determining the existence of God by simply believing in him.
I determine whether or not my belief in God is likely to be true based on the effect it has on my life. I perceive the effect to be beneficial so I conclude that it is more likely to be true than false. that's all.
AF
Orkeosaurus wrote:Here's a question: must something exist, or even be possible, for it to be useful? I'm no mathematician, but my understanding is that they often use numbers that cannot actually exist to derive answers to practical questions. Perhaps the concept of God is equivalent to these in some way?
Additionally, does God exist merely because people believe he does?
For example, if someone prays for something, and it happens, they will attribute that to God; Does that make God real?
No, because then the opposite would also be true.
You pray and pray for something, and unfortunately, God says no. Which is also a pretty good album by Monster Magnet, IIRC. I had a brief(15 years is brief, right?) crisis of faith, but I feel myself becoming more and more firmly back in the fold lately.
I was, for quite some time, a full blown nihilist. I completely rejected any kind of belief system, and that includes the dogmatic douchebaggery of militant atheists. Frankly, it was depressing. I'd never make a good humanist, because frankly, I don't have a whole lot of respect for humanity.
When removed from the bad behavior of earthbound Christians who completely miss the point, the teachings of Jesus really do make a lot of sense.
I don't agree the opposite would also be true; If you pray for something and it doesn't happen, you don't tend to suddenly stop believing in God (and you probably believed in God to begin with, otherwise why were you praying?), you just think that God said no (which still denotes belief)
I'm an agnostic Christian - to qualify, I try and live by what I understand to be Christian values (see: be a generally nice person when it counts), but am unsure if there is actually a God, as I have experienced nothing to "prove" the existence or lack thereof. I also have problems with organised religion, but thats neither here nor there for purposes of this discussion.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Here's a question: must something exist, or even be possible, for it to be useful? I'm no mathematician, but my understanding is that they often use numbers that cannot actually exist to derive answers to practical questions. Perhaps the concept of God is equivalent to these in some way?
AbaddonFidelis wrote:well I think its more rational if you accept rationality as the only test of truth. If theres no rational reason to believe in something, then why believe it?
Thing is, we're talking about belief in a supernatural entity. By definition that entity is beyond natural, rational consideration.
But you've heard this argument a million times from other atheists I guess so I dont need to repeat it..... Its not capable of permanent settlement by rational means thats true, but I think the absence of proof goes along way if, to you, positive proof is required to believe anything.
I think in most cases that's a pretty sound assumption. The complete lack of evidence of a cat in the room is reasonable evidence that it is likely there is no cat in the room. Thing is, though, we have knowledge about cats so that we know what evidence to look for... we know what cats generally look like, what they sound like, we know they'll tend to leave hair on cushions. We don't know those things about God, we have no frame of reference to begin considering God.
The complete lack of evidence of God is equally strong evidence of no God and of a God that chooses to leave no evidence.
IMO thats silly. almost everyone on dakka believes there's a south pole, but how many people have been there? Know someone who has? We take the existance of such a place for granted on no better authority than someone else told us that such a place exists.
Except we have the capability to consider what people tell us and take it on good judgement. There is a qualitative difference between 'scientists have determined there is a magnetic core to the Earth with a north and south poles on either ends of the Earth, and this has been used for many years in all kinds of technical devices' and 'there is a God'.
really? If I act on a set of beliefs that permit me to live, and my friend acts on a set of beliefs that get him killed, whose beliefs are more likely to conform to reality? to be true? It's not 100% but nothing ever is....
That makes it useful, not true.
alot of people think that past societies were uniformly religious, but they were not. Greece Rome China and (northern) India all went through stages where their educated classes were secular in the same way that our educated class is. People dont realize this because those stages were fairly brief (which is incidentally my point) but they really did happen.
Diversity of religion is not really the same thing as secularism. And I'd argue what was witnessed was the instability caused by rival power blocs, in a society lacking the tools for mutual respect.
Homogenity will by it's nature be more stable, if a society lacks other outlets for instability, such as those developed in liberal democracy.
ummm... a couple things....
sometimes a belief is true in a way thats different than the holder of that belief realizes. for instance its true that exercise makes you healthier. if someone believes that UFOs will abduct him and perform horrible experiments on him if he doesnt exercise, then thats probably not true in the sense that the person means it - but it is true that by exercising he's promoting his health - by burning calories rather than by avoiding alien abduction, true, but the end result is the same, so what does it matter? Thats an extreme example - the guy is obviously a lunatic - but I think that its useful to look at beliefs as potentially true or false in senses other than just the factual content of those beliefs. The outcome, not the theory, is what really matters. So whatever motivates a desirable outcome is, in a sense, true.
There's a whole lot of philosophy dedicated towards that debate. Some of it says that truth is all that matters, utility be damned, some of it says truth is nice and all, but if a belief is useful it is good. But none of it concludes that a thing is true because it is useful.
also when people believe things about life generally - if I work hard I can get ahead, for instance - they can sometimes make it true. If peoples beliefs stop matching up to reality - no matter how hard they work they never get ahead - then they'll abandone them as useless (non-adaptive) beliefs and start believing something else. change in the psyche of a large group of people takes time but it does happen, and those changes do tend to reflect the new reality, whatever it may be.
Sometimes. Sometimes a belief can make a thing true, other times it can stop people taking action to actually make it true (such as the social mobility example I gave).
And I don't think people are so quick to challenge our beliefs. We are actually quite capable of believing something despite all evidence to the contrary, if we choose. We are capable of believing things which are entirely contradictory, if we so desire.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:sebster
I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself very well about adaptability being an indicator of truth. what I'm trying to say is that the specific content of a belief isnt always important. Its the basic elements, and the kinds of actions that follow from them, that really matter. On that basis I conclude that a benevolent, caring God probably does exist, because that belief helps me to live a better life.
Which is an indicator of a useful belief, but not necessarily a true.
Now there's a strong case to be made that a belief can be good, whether it is true or not, simply because it is useful, and I hold that view to a large extent myself. But it doesn't make it true.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
as a group they dont believe in an afterlife or souls or prophecy or miracles. none of these things necessarily require the existence of God. we're just used to thinking of them as bundled up with the concept of God, so people who chuck that tend to chuck the rest. They do tend to be materialists with a strong bias towards rationality over irrationality. Again these are not things that have any necessary connection to the idea of God. To me this evinces a common thought process among a wide group of people and suggests a similarity of motivations and/or explanations for those beliefs. ie a system of thought. Atheistic thought is in truth so uniform that its absurd for them to persist in thinking of themselves as some kind of community of renegade intellectuals, as "free thinkers" living in a world of religious zombies. Religious people disagree with each other more than atheists do. Which group is really the zombies here?
I think we're talking about different things here. There's definitely a vocal group of people that advocates a certain brand of Atheism, but they don't define the belief category any more than Christians define Theism. Its pretty easy to just call them Atheists and be done with it, but I think that's needlessly confusing. Atheism, as a whole, includes many different people with many different belief sets; including plenty of non-materialists who believe in souls and an afterlife (I'm thinking of members of the New Age movement). Now, I'm not sure I can suggest a better term for the guys you're discussing (well, besides the obvious list of technical qualifiers), but I think its worthwhile to at least recall that you really are talking about a subset of a very diverse group.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I determine whether or not my belief in God is likely to be true based on the effect it has on my life. I perceive the effect to be beneficial so I conclude that it is more likely to be true than false. that's all.
AF
How do you reconcile that with the many people who find the opposite belief beneficial to their lives?
SmackCakes wrote:If these findings are true then it wouldn't surprise me at all. Atheist are nearly always intelligent and well educated people who are able to see religion for the poorly formulated lie that it is.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Here's a question: must something exist, or even be possible, for it to be useful? I'm no mathematician, but my understanding is that they often use numbers that cannot actually exist to derive answers to practical questions. Perhaps the concept of God is equivalent to these in some way?
I think you are correct. Unfortunately the practical use for god is mainly to offer some justification for inciting hatred and violence towards any group of people who you disapprove of. Currently it is used to incite hatred towards gays, but at other times in history many groups of people have fallen victim to it.
The argument that religion helps people and doesn't hurt anyone is such a disdainful bastardization of the truth that I feel a stabbing pain behind my eyes whenever I read it. Being delusional is not a healthy coping strategy. And religion is far from harmless, it's a dangerous weapon used to control what people think and believe by saying ideas come from "a higher power" rather than just made up by people with an agenda.
People need to be taught how to think, not what to think. Otherwise they can be made to think anything and that is dangerous.
God says: thou shalt not kill.
I don't believe in god, but I believe killing is wrong because I can rationalize it out for myself. I don't want to be killed, I don't want to live in a world where people are killed all the time. I've seen the damage and heartbreak that killing can do... I am firmly against killing.
But for a religious person the only reason not to kill seems to be "because god said so". However religious people always seem to find the whole not killing rule 'negotiable'
God says: fly a passenger plane full of innocent people into a sky scraper and kill the infidels!
I don't believe in god, and I've already reasoned out that killing is wrong. So I'm not going to do this.
But for a religious person their only moral beacon seems to be what god says... we all know how dangerous and stupid this can turn out to be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
SmackCakes wrote:If these findings are true then it wouldn't surprise me at all. Atheist are nearly always intelligent and well educated people who are able to see religion for the poorly formulated lie that it is.
Mwahahahahaha!
Self satisfied much?
I'm almost certain I could support that claim with hard facts and evidence. But then religious people aren't interested in little things like evidence and facts or 'the truth' now are they?
SmackCakes wrote:
But for a religious person the only reason not to kill seems to be "because god said so". However religious people always seem to find the whole not killing rule 'negotiable'
Perhaps you mean 'Christian' people, and not 'religious' people.
Assuming that's the case, the rule as formulated in the Bible isn't really a prohibition against killing, its a prohibition against murder; basically unjustifiable killing.
SmackCakes wrote:
God says: fly a passenger plane full of innocent people into a sky scraper and kill the infidels!
I don't believe in god, and I've already reasoned out that killing is wrong. So I'm not going to do this.
But for a religious person their only moral beacon seems to be what god says... we all know how dangerous and stupid this can turn out to be.
I'm fairly certain that you're not going to find a holy text that tells people to do what you describe.
SmackCakes wrote:But for a religious person the only reason not to kill seems to be "because god said so". However religious people always seem to find the whole not killing rule 'negotiable'
You're assuming religion requires a dogmatic acceptance of statements that have come from religious authority. While this can happen, it is not universal within faith, nor is only religion prone to such.
Your argument about killing is basically nonsense, as well. You posit that if a person accepts morality through authority alone, they are vulnerable if an authority tells them to do something bad. You conclude that a person is much less likely to do something bad if , but you're ignoring the idea that if a person can reason himself into believing a good thing, he can just as easily reason himself into believing a bad thing.
The whole thing is really nonsense because the authority/reason thing just doesn't describe how people actually form their morals. Both authority (religious and non-religious), and reason, and life experience all combine to form our moral views.
I'm almost certain I could support that claim with hard facts and evidence. But then religious people aren't interested in little things like evidence and facts or 'the truth' now are they?
I'm not a religious guy, but I've got a pretty healthy suspicion of any world view that places a person and those like him in an elite few.
Now, studies show pretty consistantly that atheists tend to perform better in studies, but that doesn't mean any individual atheist is actually all that much more likely to be intelligent. For one, it is typically a few specific faiths that drag down the others (in the Pew survey that started this the Latino Catholics tanked the scores).
AbaddonFidelis wrote:well the comment was specifically directed at galbraithe, who I am sure does believe that atheism is more rational than theism.
I don't think atheism is more rational, because there are many ways to arrive at an atheist conclusion. Buddhism teaches that all of existence is an illusion, including the perception of God. That's a very different sort of atheism than the atheist who arrives at atheism via rational materialism.
I do think its irrational to dismiss unicorns, faeries, daemons, loa, ghosts, foo dragons, and all other creatures of superstition and not apply the same logic to god. In other words, if god then unicorns. Since I feel silly believing in unicorns, I don't believe in god.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:almost everyone on dakka believes there's a south pole, but how many people have been there? Know someone who has? We take the existance of such a place for granted on no better authority than someone else told us that such a place exists. If thats good enough for the south pole why not for God? So to me its obvious that positive proof is not the only way that a reasonable person gets his information about the world. ie you dont have to see it yourself. Thats why I think its a little silly for (some) atheists to say "I've never seen God theres no proof therefore he doesnt exist."
Are you for real?
I have never been to the south pole. I do believe it exists. I believe it exists because numerous people have claimed to have gone there, they have taken photographs of it, including from space, and -- perhaps most importantly -- because the south pole is necessary. You can't have a globe spinning on an axis without having a south pole. The need for a south pole is fairly obvious.
It's possible that the south pole doesn't exist, but its existence is falsifiable -- you can go there an check if you really need to -- so if it is a hoax, then it's a really impressive hoax, involving millions of people going back centuries. Because if there is no south pole, then the world isn't round and spinning on an axis. And yet we've all been successfully deluded into thinking it does.
You got any photographs of God? A set of GPS coordinates I can travel to where I will find God? No? Then stop making such ridiculous comparisons. Believing in the south pole is nothing at all like believing in God.
Gailbraithe wrote:I don't think atheism is more rational, because there are many ways to arrive at an atheist conclusion. Buddhism teaches that all of existence is an illusion, including the perception of God. That's a very different sort of atheism than the atheist who arrives at atheism via rational materialism.
I do think its irrational to dismiss unicorns, faeries, daemons, loa, ghosts, foo dragons, and all other creatures of superstition and not apply the same logic to god. In other words, if god then unicorns. Since I feel silly believing in unicorns, I don't believe in god.
No, because while fantastical a unicorn would still exist in the natural world. God, by the nature of being God, is supernatural - beyond the natural world. The requirement that a supernatural being would leave material evidence of his existance in the material world is nonsensical.
Gailbraithe wrote:
I do think its irrational to dismiss unicorns, faeries, daemons, loa, ghosts, foo dragons, and all other creatures of superstition and not apply the same logic to god. In other words, if god then unicorns. Since I feel silly believing in unicorns, I don't believe in god.
I don't think there is just as much evidence to beleive in unicorns as there is in God. I don't know how many eyewitness accounts or factual written records of unicorns exist. I'm not saying that evidence for God is reliable, but it's ludicrous to suggest that the evidence simply doesn't exist.
It's possible that the south pole doesn't exist, but its existence is falsifiable -- you can go there an check if you really need to -- so if it is a hoax, then it's a really impressive hoax, involving millions of people going back centuries. Because if there is no south pole, then the world isn't round and spinning on an axis. And yet we've all been successfully deluded into thinking it does.
Liektehbibel?
You got any photographs of God?
Yes we do!
Comparing God to Unicorns, then saying that it's stupid to use the South Pole as an example does not reflect well on you.
sebster wrote:No, because while fantastical a unicorn would still exist in the natural world. God, by the nature of being God, is supernatural - beyond the natural world. The requirement that a supernatural being would leave material evidence of his existance in the material world is nonsensical.
Unicorns are supernatural. In their natural state they are invisible, intangible and fart rainbows that make all good things happen.
Plus, believing in them makes little girls happy, so following AF's argument, they are real.
They are also the preferred mount of messiahs. Check the codex.
Gailbraithe wrote:Unicorns are supernatural. In their natural state they are invisible, intangible and fart rainbows that make all good things happen.
Their claimed tendency to fart rainbows gives them a presence in the material world, so we can test for that presence or not. No such test is possible for God.
Gailbraithe wrote:
I do think its irrational to dismiss unicorns, faeries, daemons, loa, ghosts, foo dragons, and all other creatures of superstition and not apply the same logic to god. In other words, if god then unicorns. Since I feel silly believing in unicorns, I don't believe in god.
It would be if you dismiss them all because they're creatures of superstition, and also classify God as a creature of superstition. However, if you don't classify God as a creature of superstition, or if you dismiss the other creatures of superstition for reasons that are not related to their superstitious nature, then its not irrational to refuse to dismiss God.
Gailbraithe wrote:Unicorns are supernatural. In their natural state they are invisible, intangible and fart rainbows that make all good things happen.
Their claimed tendency to fart rainbows gives them a presence in the material world, so we can test for that presence or not. No such test is possible for God.
No, they are supernatural rainbows, and they manifest as miracles. So they are, sadly, every bit as untestable as the miracles God does or does not work in the world, depending on how silly the theist you are talking to is.
By the way, did you know that God's name is ERIS, and that He is a girl?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Gailbraithe wrote:
I do think its irrational to dismiss unicorns, faeries, daemons, loa, ghosts, foo dragons, and all other creatures of superstition and not apply the same logic to god. In other words, if god then unicorns. Since I feel silly believing in unicorns, I don't believe in god.
It would be if you dismiss them all because they're creatures of superstition, and also classify God as a creature of superstition. However, if you don't classify God as a creature of superstition, or if you dismiss the other creatures of superstition for reasons that are not related to their superstitious nature, then its not irrational to refuse to dismiss God.
God certainly appears to be a creature of superstition. At least the God of the bible, the one that leaves burning footprints, talks through flaming bushes, rain mana from the heavens, sends angels to visit people, lays cities to waste, parts seas, etc.
I know some people define God as this indeterminate thing of an indeterminate nature with indeterminate goals and desires that must be taken entirely on faith, but that's so fething vague I can't say it exists or not, because I'll be damned if I can wrap my mind around something that's impossible to wrap my mind around. So I dismiss it as headache inducing word games.
SmackCakes wrote:But for a religious person the only reason not to kill seems to be "because god said so". However religious people always seem to find the whole not killing rule 'negotiable'
You're assuming religion requires a dogmatic acceptance of statements that have come from religious authority. While this can happen, it is not universal within faith, nor is only religion prone to such.
Yes I am assuming that. As I had Judeo-Christian religions (including Islam) in mind when I wrote it.
I'm almost certain I could support that claim with hard facts and evidence. But then religious people aren't interested in little things like evidence and facts or 'the truth' now are they?
I'm not a religious guy, but I've got a pretty healthy suspicion of any world view that places a person and those like him in an elite few.
Now, studies show pretty consistantly that atheists tend to perform better in studies, but that doesn't mean any individual atheist is actually all that much more likely to be intelligent. For one, it is typically a few specific faiths that drag down the others (in the Pew survey that started this the Latino Catholics tanked the scores).
I don't think saying the atheists tend to be intelligent and well educated has to be interpreted as meaning they are all rocket scientists. Just people who are smart enough and knowledgeable enough to consider the facts for themselves and draw their own conclusion. I don't think atheists are intelligent because they are atheists. Rather I believe that atheism is a place people arrive to when they ask sensible questions and draw sensible conclusions. Thus anyone who gets there probably has quite good reasoning skills.
I think I also recall reading atheists are dramatically under represented in prison populations... And I'm sure it is no coincidence that poverty, lack of education, and ending up in prison are all somehow linked.
If Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Then why do they call him Jesus of Nazerth?!
Yeah
I wondered that too. Bethlehem was an insane assylum in London so that makes Jesus a Cockney.
(Assuming Bedlam was within the bells and all that stuff)
More probably that Bethlehem is a little town in an area known as Nazareth?
The thread has gone the way predicted by the old prophets.
Time to move on
Ta-ta cockers!* have fun
*that is not rude btw as our northern chums will testify
I like having imaginary friends who I can neither prove are real or prove are imaginary. It lets me justify my behavior, and I'm pretty sure Nyarlathotep is happy when I stick gerbils in places they don't belong in his name, too. If religious 'knowledge' is reduced to knowing the 'facts' about the bible, then hey I want a literacy test about what happened on page 7 of the cat-in-the-hat too.
Why are the only documented miracles and supernatural happenings in the name of God just coincidentally happened in a time when people also thought the earth was flat, or an eclipse was a wolf swallowing the sun? (actually a wolf did swallow the sun, I was there... prove me wrong otherwise I am right)
Gailbraithe wrote:
God certainly appears to be a creature of superstition. At least the God of the bible, the one that leaves burning footprints, talks through flaming bushes, rain mana from the heavens, sends angels to visit people, lays cities to waste, parts seas, etc.
Sure, but you're an atheist, which means that you're pretty likely to classify any belief in God as superstitious. Superstition isn't the same thing as immaterial or supernatural, its basically a catch-all category for things that the classifier believes to be credulous. My point is that, if you, for whatever reason, don't place your particular brand of God (or God as a general idea) into that category, then refusing to reject God on the basis that someone else does isn't irrational. In fact, it would be irrational to reject God on the basis that someone else believes it is a superstitious idea if you disagreed with that person's assessment.
Now, you can probably make a good case for why the Biblical God is predicated on superstition, but it isn't going to be nearly as strong as the one for, say, placing dream-catchers in that category. After all, we can test the effect of dream-catchers on people tomorrow if we want to, and we'll likely find that there isn't one. We can't test the veracity of miraculous events that supposedly occurred a couple thousand years ago.
Gailbraithe wrote:
I know some people define God as this indeterminate thing of an indeterminate nature with indeterminate goals and desires that must be taken entirely on faith, but that's so fething vague I can't say it exists or not, because I'll be damned if I can wrap my mind around something that's impossible to wrap my mind around. So I dismiss it as headache inducing word games.
That type of God have a lot of affect on the world anyway. Its basically just a way for people to impart a personalized sort of order on the Universe.
Gailbraithe wrote:
God certainly appears to be a creature of superstition. At least the God of the bible, the one that leaves burning footprints, talks through flaming bushes, rain mana from the heavens, sends angels to visit people, lays cities to waste, parts seas, etc.
Sure, but you're an atheist, which means that you're pretty likely to classify any belief in God as superstitious. Superstition isn't the same thing as immaterial or supernatural, its basically a catch-all category for things that the classifier believes to be credulous. My point is that, if you, for whatever reason, don't place your particular brand of God (or God as a general idea) into that category, then refusing to reject God on the basis that someone else does isn't irrational. In fact, it would be irrational to reject God on the basis that someone else believes it is a superstitious idea if you disagreed with that person's assessment.
I don't know if that is fair, why should one thing that there is no reliable evidence for... be any more probable than another thing that there is no reliable evidence for?
SmackCakes wrote:
Yes I am assuming that. As I had Judeo-Christian religions (including Islam) in mind when I wrote it.
Islam doesn't require the dogmatic acceptance of pronouncements from religious authorities. Its actually quite libertarian in the sense that there is no real hierarchy built into it. Protestant Christianity basically exists because its adherents don't accept that they must accept dogma in the course of their worship. Judaism, the most dogmatically rigid when it comes to authority, is defined by the fact that its adherents tend towards high levels of education and earning.
SmackCakes wrote:Just people who are smart enough and knowledgeable enough to consider the facts for themselves and draw their own conclusion.
People that come to a Theist conclusion couldn't possibly have looked at the facts and come to their own conclusion?
SmackCakes wrote:
I don't know if that is fair, why should one thing that there is no reliable evidence for... be any more probable than another thing that there is no reliable evidence for?
There's a difference between the absence of evidence, and the evidence of absence. Take my example of the dream-catcher. We have, or could produce, reliable evidence that it doesn't work. Its much more difficult, arguably impossible, to produce reliable evidence for the absence of God.
But in any case, its not a matter of probability. I'm not claiming that God is any more probably than unicorns, fairies, or leprechauns. I'm simply saying that it is possible to classify God as something that isn't superstitious, and therefore an argument that posits the rejection of superstitious things should be grounds for the rejection of God does not have as much force as it first seems to.
For example, many Christians will cite their personal relationship with God as evidence of his existence. Since we can't, yet, get inside their heads and see what's going on we can't really confirm or deny what they're saying. They may indeed have a sort of empirical evidence to which non-believers are, for some reason, not privy to. After all, Sam Harris has published research regarding the fact that religious thought and experience appears to activate a different part of the brain than ostensibly similar mental occurrences. Now, he's unlikely to suppose that this is evidence of God (it is Sam Harris, after all), but it does support the idea that there is something inherently different about religious experience that we cannot fully explain as of yet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SmackCakes wrote:
The facts don't support Theism.
They don't support strong atheism, what I assume is your position, either.
One of the first things you learn studying philosophy is that there are multiple means on interpreting any non-testable set of facts. Since there are no testable facts regarding the existence of God, the whole question comes down to the mixture of personal utility and desire that underpins most beliefs. At least to the extent that you consider the question a relevant one. Personally, I think whether or not we believe in God has no bearing on his/her/its actual existence.
SmackCakes wrote:Yes I am assuming that. As I had Judeo-Christian religions (including Islam) in mind when I wrote it.
But it isn't true of all followers of Judeo-Christian faiths.
I don't think saying the atheists tend to be intelligent and well educated has to be interpreted as meaning they are all rocket scientists. Just people who are smart enough and knowledgeable enough to consider the facts for themselves and draw their own conclusion. I don't think atheists are intelligent because they are atheists. Rather I believe that atheism is a place people arrive to when they ask sensible questions and draw sensible conclusions. Thus anyone who gets there probably has quite good reasoning skills.
No, it really doesn't. It's just a correlation, people from certain backgrounds (affluent, well educated) have a tendency to be atheist and tend to do well in tests. It is a mistake to assume that they are atheist because of a greater level of reasoning.
Afterall, when society begins to struggle in times of war or recession religion increases - this isn't because formerly smart people are losing their reasoning capacity, it's because people who aren't comfortable are more likely to turn to God. Wealthier, more affluent people tend to do be more comfortable and therefore less in need of God, and also able to do better in tests.
There is correlation, but causation is a whole other thing. Also, the difference in scores is three fifths of fuckall.
I think I also recall reading atheists are dramatically under represented in prison populations... And I'm sure it is no coincidence that poverty, lack of education, and ending up in prison are all somehow linked.
Yes, they are. People who's lives a crap have more of a reason to believe in God.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gailbraithe wrote:No, they are supernatural rainbows, and they manifest as miracles. So they are, sadly, every bit as untestable as the miracles God does or does not work in the world, depending on how silly the theist you are talking to is.
An invisible, intangible thing that does nothing that can be reasonably tested for... sure it is just as rational to believe or disbelieve.
I know some people define God as this indeterminate thing of an indeterminate nature with indeterminate goals and desires that must be taken entirely on faith, but that's so fething vague I can't say it exists or not, because I'll be damned if I can wrap my mind around something that's impossible to wrap my mind around. So I dismiss it as headache inducing word games.
If you reject things because they're tricky to wrap your head around then you must really hate high level physics.
Yes, they are. People who's lives a crap have more of a reason to believe in God.
Which I find to be the saddest thing about god believers. In times of need they turn to the one thing that is almost certain to not make the slightest bit of difference to their situation.
Maybe if they let go of god they might actually be able to start facing up to their problems like a grown up. Rather than counting on some big bearded parent in the sky to come bail them out.
SmackCakes wrote:If these findings are true then it wouldn't surprise me at all. Atheist are nearly always intelligent and well educated people who are able to see religion for the poorly formulated lie that it is.
Comments like this step over the line with regards to what is tolerable "debate" on the forum. If you are incapable of arguing your case without making sweeping and rude statements like this, then don't "contribute" to the thread.
You may now return to yelling your predetermined and unchangeable positions at each other, until we, inevitably, lock the thread as it spirals out of control as previous grudges are brought up and old scores settled. HIP HIP HOORAY FOR INTERNET 111
Love and kisses, the fascist Dakka Moderation team.
SmackCakes wrote:If these findings are true then it wouldn't surprise me at all. Atheist are nearly always intelligent and well educated people who are able to see religion for the poorly formulated lie that it is.
Comments like this step over the line with regards to what is tolerable "debate" on the forum. If you are incapable of arguing your case without making sweeping and rude statements like this, then don't "contribute" to the thread.
How very dare you (no really!). If I said mysticism was a lie or even democracy is a lie, you wouldn't take a blind bit of notice. But just because I say some old bronze age texts and superstitions which endlessly contradict themselves and are contradicted also by modern science, regarding the nature of the earth and planets, the origin of animals, the 3 billion missing yeas of history... Suddenly I'm not entitled to call it what it is?
It is a lie, a poorly formulated one. A fair comment.
And if you'd merely said "I think religion is a lie" that would be fine as well.
What does cross over the line is the implied criticism that all people who aren't atheists are unintelligent and uneducated and therefore inferior in some manner.
It's the difference between presenting your case or view in a polite and intelligent manner, which might encourage some debate, and yelling and calling people who don't agree with you names.
If you genuinely cannot see the difference there then it is best you bow out indeed.
SmackCakes wrote:
Maybe if they let go of god they might actually be able to start facing up to their problems like a grown up. Rather than counting on some big bearded parent in the sky to come bail them out.
That's almost never how faith actually works. Religious people tend to lean on their faith in God to get them through periods in which their actions aren't seeing strong results, despite being the only available, or seemingly best, course. Sometimes their wrong, of course, but that's true of any faith driven position. Even something like the faith in one's abilities that guides people through difficult tasks, like writing dissertations, or raising a child.
Yes, they are. People who's lives a crap have more of a reason to believe in God.
Which I find to be the saddest thing about god believers. In times of need they turn to the one thing that is almost certain to not make the slightest bit of difference to their situation.
Maybe if they let go of god they might actually be able to start facing up to their problems like a grown up. Rather than counting on some big bearded parent in the sky to come bail them out.
To be honest, poor fishermen and farmers in rural Africa probably work much harder than people in developed nations.
How about the people who who've had this argument a million times before bow out of the thread and just leave the newer people to argue amongst themselves as if the points raised haven't already been raised countless times on THIS VERY FORUM.
Long story short: You can't debate god INTO existence, nor can you debate he/she/it OUT of it.
Well if your so concerned with "evidence" and "proof", then prove to me that God DOEsn't exist. Prove your point that all religion is a lie. You can't do it can you. If you believe that your belief is somehow automatically the truth, and that everyone who doesn't agree is an idiot, how are you any better than the religious fanatics you put down. Think about it.
Snikkyd wrote:Well if your so concerned with "evidence" and "proof", then prove to me that God DOEsn't exist. Prove your point that all religion is a lie. You can't do it can you. If you believe that your belief is somehow automatically the truth, and that everyone who doesn't agree is an idiot, how are you any better than the religious fanatics you put down. Think about it.
Snikkyd wrote:Well if your so concerned with "evidence" and "proof", then prove to me that God DOEsn't exist. Prove your point that all religion is a lie. You can't do it can you. If you believe that your belief is somehow automatically the truth, and that everyone who doesn't agree is an idiot, how are you any better than the religious fanatics you put down. Think about it.
Are you replying to me?
No, what you said wasn't relevant to mine at all. Sorry for confusion.
SmackCakes wrote:If these findings are true then it wouldn't surprise me at all. Atheist are nearly always intelligent and well educated people who are able to see religion for the poorly formulated lie that it is.
How very dare you (no really!). If I said mysticism was a lie or even democracy is a lie, you wouldn't take a blind bit of notice. But just because I say some old bronze age texts and superstitions which endlessly contradict themselves and are contradicted also by modern science, regarding the nature of the earth and planets, the origin of animals, the 3 billion missing yeas of history... Suddenly I'm not entitled to call it what it is?
It is a lie, a poorly formulated one. A fair comment.
And on that note, I shall bow out of this thread.
I like this guy!
Hey... where did he go?!
Red scared him off..
Yes, you can spout hate about Israelis, politicians or peoples taste in music or fashion, but you just cant say anything bad about Religion. Typical.
I like to take solace in the fact that the Religious are so easy to wind up because they know that a common sense argument looks bad for them. If i believed in magic, virgin births and talking snakes, i think i would be pretty easily offended as well.
Taking offence and not answering criticism is all they have left, and in 50 years the desert God will have went the way of the dodo as long as people keep getting smarter and better educated.
Well, except the ones who get brainwashed as children.. they are just going to keep on trying to force their views onto everyone else, but we wont let them.
Keep up the good work Mr Obama! Planned Parenthood is a fine orginisation!
Snikkyd wrote:Well if your so concerned with "evidence" and "proof", then prove to me that God DOEsn't exist. Prove your point that all religion is a lie. You can't do it can you.
As a side note, it is impossible to prove a lack of existance, thus the burden of proof lies on the person claiming an existance.
Yes im aware of that red, but you guys arent anywhere near as good at "modding" those type of things are you?
Anyway, im not going to go into one, its your trainset, if i want a real argument i just go and talk about this stuff to a local taxi driver or a guy waving a bible on the high street.
Snikkyd wrote:Well if your so concerned with "evidence" and "proof", then prove to me that God DOEsn't exist. Prove your point that all religion is a lie. You can't do it can you.
As a side note, it is impossible to prove a lack of existance, thus the burden of proof lies on the person claiming an existance.
Yeah, thats my point. Athiests always say there's no proof of god, which is true, but there's also no proof he doesn't exist, so claiming that either side must be true is stupid.
Also, why are you guys convinced that the world would be some kind of utopia without religion? Your acting like your somehow better/smarter than everyone else, which can easily be taken as offensive, and is the reason why I don't think you can complain about religious bashing getting modded.
mattyrm wrote:Yes im aware of that red, but you guys arent anywhere near as good at "modding" those type of things are you?
..well, you are still here so I can't really argue there eh ...
Anyway, im not going to go into one, its your trainset, if i want a real argument i just go and talk about this stuff to a local taxi driver or a guy waving a bible on the high street.
We'll send flowers to the hospital/ a cake with a file in it as appropriate.
It's not impossible to prove something doesn't exist, it's just that the supernatural (gods, soul, the afterlife) prove difficult as their very state of being exists outside existence. I can point to a pile of dead gods/beliefs. At some point current religions will join them. Or be recycled as new ones...
Like a number of old gods that were 'discarded' this 'one True God' and son have a running archetype
Sun/the Light, foretold birth, heavenly/otherworldly messengers, walked on water, had 12 disciples, healed the sick, died and resurrected, and born in December no less.
Themes in tall tales are repeatedly used to recreate the familiar. If it sounds unlikely, and looks unlikely, it's probably a duck.
Ok, perhaps saying 'converted' works better than discarded. It still follows that when a person's beliefs change, they 'discarded' or got rid of the now useless or unwanted ones. That is how Christians got Easter. Took the pagan spring holiday that celebrated new life (chicks and multiplying rabbits) with the resurrection of their savior. Hence the mallow peeps and chocolate rabbits
All I was saying is that there are still followers of the 'old' gods around now. Perhaps in greater numbers than before? (Given population growth...There weren't all that many in the olden times with the generally lower population levels. Per capita levels are lower now though.)
How about the people who who've had this argument a million times before bow out of the thread and just leave the newer people to argue amongst themselves as if the points raised haven't already been raised countless times on THIS VERY FORUM.
Long story short: You can't debate god INTO existence, nor can you debate he/she/it OUT of it.
Sure, I think it's a mistake to come into a thread trying to prove anything and trying to force anyone else to concede, but sometimes there's more potentially beneficial outcomes than just swaying someone to your side. While a person might not reconsider, they might accept that your point of view is more reasonable than they had previously assumed. They may not end up agreeing with you, but they might be a lot less antagonistic to that viewpoint in future.
Read some history books, almost every civilization has had their own patheon or belief system (though some were borrowed/renamed). Even the Bible has some listed:
11 Kings 18:33 Hath any of the gods of the nations delivered at all his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria?
Where are the gods of Hamath, and of Arpad? where are the gods of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivah? Have they delivered Samaria out of mine hand?
I admit there may be followers of old gods but it still stands that I can point to dozens more that are no longer worshiped or even remembered now. It is a pile, a very large pile, of dead old and forgotten gods.
And I guess I'll address the comment someone made about the utopian world without religion. It's because we wouldn't be taking direction from any books with little relevance to today. The ethics can't keep up with the abilities of the modern society (communication, deadlier ways to wage war, a global economy etc). There are some good analogies that can be taken but by and large holy writings are for keeping people in line. Controlling what people said or did and more importantly what they can't do or say. I don't need to be told killing is wrong by some power beyond my understanding, I know what pain feels like and don't wish it on others. Killing should be avoided but sometimes the situation is escalated by those who don't feel the same. I feel that if someone is enforcing their will on me for their benefit and my detriment that I should use force to prevent that. I came to this conclusion by my life experiences and while the opinions of others (whose religion may have influenced their lives) were an influence I am still the deciding factor. Not a God or system thereof.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:Gailbraithe
I'm tempted to respond to your ideas from a theist perspective..... your carefully reasoned and insightful views on politics lead me to believe such a conversation would be deeply profitable for all involved......
Nah, I'll just annoy you, because I'm constitutionally incapable of taking a theist perspective seriously, and I'll piss you off by mocking the whole enterprise by referencing otherkin, the flying spaghetti monster, Eris and the aneristic principle, and, of course, the ever-present, invisible, intangible unicorns that are the basis of my faith.
Theists can't do the one thing that would make me take the proposition of theism seriously -- provide a definition of god that is relevant to living and empirically testable -- and consequently I don't take theist perspectives seriously.
You know, not all religions or beliefs subscribe to the traditional theistic notion of god. Just throwin' that out there.
And I guess I'll address the comment someone made about the utopian world without religion. It's because we wouldn't be taking direction from any books with little relevance to today. The ethics can't keep up with the abilities of the modern society (communication, deadlier ways to wage war, a global economy etc). There are some good analogies that can be taken but by and large holy writings are for keeping people in line. Controlling what people said or did and more importantly what they can't do or say. I don't need to be told killing is wrong by some power beyond my understanding, I know what pain feels like and don't wish it on others. Killing should be avoided but sometimes the situation is escalated by those who don't feel the same. I feel that if someone is enforcing their will on me for their benefit and my detriment that I should use force to prevent that. I came to this conclusion by my life experiences and while the opinions of others (whose religion may have influenced their lives) were an influence I am still the deciding factor. Not a God or system thereof.
Yes, but people kill anyway. So its not like violence would go away or anything. My point is, if it isn't someone messing things up, its another.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:well I think its more rational if you accept rationality as the only test of truth. If theres no rational reason to believe in something, then why believe it?
Thing is, we're talking about belief in a supernatural entity. By definition that entity is beyond natural, rational consideration.
yes I guess thats so.
But you've heard this argument a million times from other atheists I guess so I dont need to repeat it..... Its not capable of permanent settlement by rational means thats true, but I think the absence of proof goes along way if, to you, positive proof is required to believe anything.
I think in most cases that's a pretty sound assumption. The complete lack of evidence of a cat in the room is reasonable evidence that it is likely there is no cat in the room. Thing is, though, we have knowledge about cats so that we know what evidence to look for... we know what cats generally look like, what they sound like, we know they'll tend to leave hair on cushions. We don't know those things about God, we have no frame of reference to begin considering God.
I think that many rationalists would take issue with the idea that any kind of phenomena whatever is beyond rational observation; if it cant be rationally measured, it probably doesnt exist. thats more or less where gailbraithe is coming from. ("show me god on a gps," "define it," "give me proof") etc. I think that the idea that rationality is the only means of perceiving truth is absurd so ofcourse I'm not interested in trying to prove the existence of God on rational grounds. That doesnt seem to be your position though so I guess I dont really disagree with you here.
The complete lack of evidence of God is equally strong evidence of no God and of a God that chooses to leave no evidence.
which is equally applicable to invisible cannibal bunnies flying spaghetti monsters etc. what those illustrations show to me is not that the idea of God is absurd, but that the idea of rationality as a sole means of proof is absurd. Rationally those things are equally likely and equally unlikely to exist, as you say of God. So if rationality leads you to that place, then what does it tell you about rationality? Obviously its not the sole means of arriving at truth - that belief is a reductionist absurdity. I firmly believe that flying spaghetti monsters dont exist - not on the basis of rationality, since there is no rational basis for believing those things do not anywhere exist - but on the basis of my plain old every day common sense. Its not an infallible guide to truth but it doesnt have to be, and no such guide exists in any case. So I guess my issue here is more with rationalism than with atheism per se.
IMO thats silly. almost everyone on dakka believes there's a south pole, but how many people have been there? Know someone who has? We take the existance of such a place for granted on no better authority than someone else told us that such a place exists.
Except we have the capability to consider what people tell us and take it on good judgement. There is a qualitative difference between 'scientists have determined there is a magnetic core to the Earth with a north and south poles on either ends of the Earth, and this has been used for many years in all kinds of technical devices' and 'there is a God'.
There's a difference in the sense that you more readily belive the scientist than the prophet mystic shaman whatever. Such belief has been used from our earliest history to order the lives of individuals and of states with good results. If an atheist hasnt personally experienced the benefits of those beliefs, or has experienced them as a negative, that doesnt necessarily invalidate them. the poor people at hiroshima and nagasaki undoubtedly experienced scientific progress as a negative, not a positive - but we dont ditch science as a result, do we? The effects of religion on peoples lives are real and largely beneficial - on that basis I'm willing to listen to what the people who make a specialty out of religious practice have to say. Its not as far fetched as modern prejudices may lead one to believe - I'm applying the exact same kind of reasoning to prophets that we all blithely apply to scientists, and for pretty much the same reasons.
really? If I act on a set of beliefs that permit me to live, and my friend acts on a set of beliefs that get him killed, whose beliefs are more likely to conform to reality? to be true? It's not 100% but nothing ever is....
That makes it useful, not true.
well if it didnt have some truth to it it wouldnt be useful. how useful would it be to you or anyone else to believe they had x ray vision if they didnt? that they could photosynthesize sunlight like a plant if they couldnt? Those would be useless beliefs. they're useless because they're false. Likewise beliefs that are useful are pretty likely to have elements of truth.
alot of people think that past societies were uniformly religious, but they were not. Greece Rome China and (northern) India all went through stages where their educated classes were secular in the same way that our educated class is. People dont realize this because those stages were fairly brief (which is incidentally my point) but they really did happen.
Diversity of religion is not really the same thing as secularism. And I'd argue what was witnessed was the instability caused by rival power blocs, in a society lacking the tools for mutual respect.
no I mean secular as in all the old gods are a myth we need to concentrate on this life there is no afterlife etc. Greek culture leading up to and in the two centuries (IIRC) after alexander the great was secular in the same way that our society is secular. Hellenistic civilization.
Homogenity will by it's nature be more stable, if a society lacks other outlets for instability, such as those developed in liberal democracy.
not just any kind of homogenity would lead to stability. homogenous belief that all other humans are enemies who should be killed for instance would not lead to homogenity. speciifc kinds of homogenity lead to stability.
ummm... a couple things....
sometimes a belief is true in a way thats different than the holder of that belief realizes. for instance its true that exercise makes you healthier. if someone believes that UFOs will abduct him and perform horrible experiments on him if he doesnt exercise, then thats probably not true in the sense that the person means it - but it is true that by exercising he's promoting his health - by burning calories rather than by avoiding alien abduction, true, but the end result is the same, so what does it matter? Thats an extreme example - the guy is obviously a lunatic - but I think that its useful to look at beliefs as potentially true or false in senses other than just the factual content of those beliefs. The outcome, not the theory, is what really matters. So whatever motivates a desirable outcome is, in a sense, true.
There's a whole lot of philosophy dedicated towards that debate. Some of it says that truth is all that matters, utility be damned, some of it says truth is nice and all, but if a belief is useful it is good. But none of it concludes that a thing is true because it is useful.
I dont conclude that something is absolutely factually true because it is useful. Its a good rough guide, thats all. How do we know anything is true in an ultimate sense? We dont. We guess. I would argue that utility is as good a basis as any on which to do your guess work.
also when people believe things about life generally - if I work hard I can get ahead, for instance - they can sometimes make it true. If peoples beliefs stop matching up to reality - no matter how hard they work they never get ahead - then they'll abandone them as useless (non-adaptive) beliefs and start believing something else. change in the psyche of a large group of people takes time but it does happen, and those changes do tend to reflect the new reality, whatever it may be.
Sometimes. Sometimes a belief can make a thing true, other times it can stop people taking action to actually make it true (such as the social mobility example I gave).
yes thats true.
sebster wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:sebster
I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself very well about adaptability being an indicator of truth. what I'm trying to say is that the specific content of a belief isnt always important. Its the basic elements, and the kinds of actions that follow from them, that really matter. On that basis I conclude that a benevolent, caring God probably does exist, because that belief helps me to live a better life.
Which is an indicator of a useful belief, but not necessarily a true.
well it wouldnt be useful if it didnt have an element of truth to it. its the element, not the totality, of truth that I'm arguing for.
AF
True but then people would kill for some reason and not for belief/faith. You would need to have self defense or justifiable actions. People, not their souls, would be accountable. Divine punishment is a feel good, it'll come out in the wash reasoning. If people used more of the latter in "life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you react" there might be some thought put into their actions. More of a wait three days to cool off before I go picking a fight. Faith in a divine source is intrinsically more emotion based and there are more problems from 'the gut' or 'the heart' than the mind. There can be more problem solving with discussion than a "God did it" approach.
I think there's also a more 'humanity is the favorite' mentality with having a God/religion.
Made in His image : Naming all the animals/beasts of burden : We can't save ourselves but He can : ...
I seem to really be raging on the One God here. So how about in Hinduism where if you die having lead an angry life you can be reborn as a violent god? People can be reborn? Either there's a long list in the afterlife or everyone can't move on to being with the divine (that's enlightenment where you stop being reincarnated; the goal as it were)
AbaddonFidelis wrote:I think that many rationalists would take issue with the idea that any kind of phenomena whatever is beyond rational observation; if it cant be rationally measured, it probably doesnt exist.
AF
I think that a rationalist would say that just becuase we don't know how to measure something yet means just that; we don't know how to measure it. Atoms existed before we knew they existed or how to measure them. I have no doubt there are many other things that exist that we don't know how to observe/measure yet. That doesn't mean they don't exist.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:I think that many rationalists would take issue with the idea that any kind of phenomena whatever is beyond rational observation; if it cant be rationally measured, it probably doesnt exist.
AF
I think that a rationalist would say that just becuase we don't know how to measure something yet means just that; we don't know how to measure it. Atoms existed before we knew they existed or how to measure them. I have no doubt there are many other things that exist that we don't know how to observe/measure yet. That doesn't mean they don't exist.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:I think that many rationalists would take issue with the idea that any kind of phenomena whatever is beyond rational observation; if it cant be rationally measured, it probably doesnt exist.
AF
I think that a rationalist would say that just becuase we don't know how to measure something yet means just that; we don't know how to measure it. Atoms existed before we knew they existed or how to measure them. I have no doubt there are many other things that exist that we don't know how to observe/measure yet. That doesn't mean they don't exist.
does God?
I would argue only as any literary device or character can exist. An intangible idea that carries a plot.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:I think that many rationalists would take issue with the idea that any kind of phenomena whatever is beyond rational observation; if it cant be rationally measured, it probably doesnt exist.
AF
I think that a rationalist would say that just becuase we don't know how to measure something yet means just that; we don't know how to measure it. Atoms existed before we knew they existed or how to measure them. I have no doubt there are many other things that exist that we don't know how to observe/measure yet. That doesn't mean they don't exist.
does God?
Just because we can't measure it/him/her doesn't automatically rule out that it doesn't exist. Going by your argument that if we can't measure something it doesn't exist when we know that not to be the case. The argument that a deity absolutely doesn't exist because we don't know how to measure it now is fairly weak. Again, just because for more time than not we didn't know how to measure atoms doesn't mean that they didn't exist. Things exist outside our ability (at the moment) to observe and measure them. Things don't exist at our whim. If that is the standard we would never have figured much of anything out. It is called discovery, and it is part of our better nature.
that is not my argument. that is my synopsis of the other side's argument. I believe that things that we cant define (very well) and cant measure most definitely do exist.
I think we crossed wires somewhere. I'm not talking about how many followers convert to new faith systems or abandon old ones but that there is a long list of divine beings that aren't in circulation anymore. Current faiths will be no different as societies rise and fall is what I'm getting at.
*editied found the crossed wire; yeah followers' numbers mean jack to proving or disproving a god's existence.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
as a group they dont believe in an afterlife or souls or prophecy or miracles. none of these things necessarily require the existence of God. we're just used to thinking of them as bundled up with the concept of God, so people who chuck that tend to chuck the rest. They do tend to be materialists with a strong bias towards rationality over irrationality. Again these are not things that have any necessary connection to the idea of God. To me this evinces a common thought process among a wide group of people and suggests a similarity of motivations and/or explanations for those beliefs. ie a system of thought. Atheistic thought is in truth so uniform that its absurd for them to persist in thinking of themselves as some kind of community of renegade intellectuals, as "free thinkers" living in a world of religious zombies. Religious people disagree with each other more than atheists do. Which group is really the zombies here?
I think we're talking about different things here. There's definitely a vocal group of people that advocates a certain brand of Atheism, but they don't define the belief category any more than Christians define Theism. Its pretty easy to just call them Atheists and be done with it, but I think that's needlessly confusing. Atheism, as a whole, includes many different people with many different belief sets; including plenty of non-materialists who believe in souls and an afterlife (I'm thinking of members of the New Age movement). Now, I'm not sure I can suggest a better term for the guys you're discussing (well, besides the obvious list of technical qualifiers), but I think its worthwhile to at least recall that you really are talking about a subset of a very diverse group.
I guess I would need some more specific information to really respond here.... which groups/persons specifically are you talking about? Every atheist I can recall ever meeting was a rationalist and a materialist who denied the possibility of spirits an afterlife etc. Not saying it's impossible for them to be out there - but I cant remember ever meeting one. Can you provide some examples?
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I determine whether or not my belief in God is likely to be true based on the effect it has on my life. I perceive the effect to be beneficial so I conclude that it is more likely to be true than false. that's all.
AF
How do you reconcile that with the many people who find the opposite belief beneficial to their lives?
If someone has a religious motivation for doing something wacky that would probably end their life, then its plainly adaptive for them to abandon their religious beliefs. For them atheism would be more true than the brand of theism they ascribed to as a potential nut job. If an atheist finds himself less happy then he would be as a theist, then it makes sense for him to abandon his atheism for theism. The atheist's beliefs are more true than the suicide bomber's, the contented christian's are more true than the unfulfilled atheist's. It's not the factual, but the psychological content of the beliefs that matters in this case because, as sebster pointed out, the question is incapable of resolution by rational means. Obviously the factual content of beliefs matters alot more where that content is in some manner verifiable (ie in the case of someone who believes they can fly)
Are all atheists unfulfilled? I dont know. I found atheism a pretty dry and lonely way of looking at the world. It certainly didnt serve me to hold those beliefs. I can only speculate as to other peoples experiences, unless they decide to communicate them.... which incidentally many atheists have. I believe I could find as many quotes as I wanted from atheists attesting to a sense of loss, of loneliness, of insignificance in the face of a vast cosmos etc etc, if I chose to go looking for them. On that basis I think its fair to conclude that atheism has some psychological baggage attached to it. How debilitating that baggage is depends on the individual I guess. If an atheist could relieve himself of it by becoming a theist, when the answer isnt discoverable on a factual basis one way or another, then obviously he should do it. The only thing he has to lose is an unreasonable pretension to absolute knowledge.
AF
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
as a group they dont believe in an afterlife or souls or prophecy or miracles. none of these things necessarily require the existence of God. we're just used to thinking of them as bundled up with the concept of God, so people who chuck that tend to chuck the rest. They do tend to be materialists with a strong bias towards rationality over irrationality. Again these are not things that have any necessary connection to the idea of God. To me this evinces a common thought process among a wide group of people and suggests a similarity of motivations and/or explanations for those beliefs. ie a system of thought. Atheistic thought is in truth so uniform that its absurd for them to persist in thinking of themselves as some kind of community of renegade intellectuals, as "free thinkers" living in a world of religious zombies. Religious people disagree with each other more than atheists do. Which group is really the zombies here?
I think we're talking about different things here. There's definitely a vocal group of people that advocates a certain brand of Atheism, but they don't define the belief category any more than Christians define Theism. Its pretty easy to just call them Atheists and be done with it, but I think that's needlessly confusing. Atheism, as a whole, includes many different people with many different belief sets; including plenty of non-materialists who believe in souls and an afterlife (I'm thinking of members of the New Age movement). Now, I'm not sure I can suggest a better term for the guys you're discussing (well, besides the obvious list of technical qualifiers), but I think its worthwhile to at least recall that you really are talking about a subset of a very diverse group.
I guess I would need some more specific information to really respond here.... which groups/persons specifically are you talking about? Every atheist I can recall ever meeting was a rationalist and a materialist who denied the possibility of spirits an afterlife etc. Not saying it's impossible for them to be out there - but I cant remember ever meeting one. Can you provide some examples?
dogma wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I determine whether or not my belief in God is likely to be true based on the effect it has on my life. I perceive the effect to be beneficial so I conclude that it is more likely to be true than false. that's all.
AF
How do you reconcile that with the many people who find the opposite belief beneficial to their lives?
If someone has a religious motivation for doing something wacky that would probably end their life, then its plainly adaptive for them to abandon their religious beliefs. For them atheism would be more true than the brand of theism they ascribed to as a potential nut job. If an atheist finds himself less happy then he would be as a theist, then it makes sense for him to abandon his atheism for theism. The atheist's beliefs are more true than the suicide bomber's, the contented christian's are more true than the unfulfilled atheist's. It's not the factual, but the psychological content of the beliefs that matters in this case because, as sebster pointed out, the question is incapable of resolution by rational means. Obviously the factual content of beliefs matters alot more where that content is in some manner verifiable (ie in the case of someone who believes they can fly)
Are all atheists unfulfilled? I dont know. I found atheism a pretty dry and lonely way of looking at the world. It certainly didnt serve me to hold those beliefs. I can only speculate as to other peoples experiences, unless they decide to communicate them.... which incidentally many atheists have. I believe I could find as many quotes as I wanted from atheists attesting to a sense of loss, of loneliness, of insignificance in the face of a vast cosmos etc etc, if I chose to go looking for them. On that basis I think its fair to conclude that atheism has some psychological baggage attached to it. How debilitating that baggage is depends on the individual I guess. If an atheist could relieve himself of it by becoming a theist, when the answer isnt discoverable on a factual basis one way or another, then obviously he should do it. The only thing he has to lose is an unreasonable pretension to absolute knowledge.
AF
Well, a lot of athiests say they are happier that way. Maybe they worry too much, so worrying about such things would only make things worse. I see what you are saying, but there's different strokes for different folks.
they probably are if they held theistic beliefs that were maladaptive. In that case I'd say their atheism is more true than their previous theism..... its just an inferrence though. of course I dont know whats really going on in their heads and I dont claim to have any special access to universal truths.
AbaddonFidelis wrote: I dont claim to have any special access to universal truths.
I do, but of course I'm not allowed to talk about it. It was in the contract, so to speak. I am allowed to answer Jeopardy questions in the form of a parable though, which is kind of neat.
this philosopher argued that the fundamental action of history and human reason is the dialectic, proceeding in the form thesis, antithesis, synthesis.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:this philosopher argued that the fundamental action of history and human reason is the dialectic, proceeding in the form thesis, antithesis, synthesis.
what is (insert parable here)
Bob Denver. Or John Denver. It was a Denver.
Spoiler:
Hegel's original last name was Denver but it was thought to be to Jewish
AbaddonFidelis wrote: I firmly believe that flying spaghetti monsters dont exist - not on the basis of rationality, since there is no rational basis for believing those things do not anywhere exist - but on the basis of my plain old every day common sense.
*bows back in*
WHAT!? rational thinking and common sense are the same thing. Can you really not see the bold faced contradiction in that phrase?
Lets stop for a second seriously and take a deep breath... no one has to get angry, or defensive, we are not enemies, lets imagine we are in a calm place, just two people talking calmly... and lets just go over that slowly one more time, because I really want to understand this.
Being rational... being an ordinary rational person. A person who can look at what's around them, make fair and reasonable judgements about it, agrees 2+2 is 4, here is here, there is there. Able to listen to reason. A rational person.
And...
A person using common sense. A person who is sensible and able to make sensible decisions. Also should agree 2+2 is 4. here is here, there is there etc... etc...
Are these really different things? I mean really?
I'll tell you what I think...
We are in agreement about the flying spaghetti monster, It is an absurd idea. Any rational person, using their common sense can see that it is an absurd idea with no basis in reality. There is no evidence of it existing, there is no reason for it to exist, there is no phenomenon that goes unexplained without the flying spaghetti monster. The flying spaghetti monster does no exist.
Now lets try Father Christmas. When I was young I was told Father Christmas was real, if I was good he'd bring me presents, if I was bad I was told I'd get cinders. Of course I believed all this because kids will believe pretty much anything. There even seemed to be positive proof, I'd wake up and find presents! and my parents would tell me Father Christmas had left them (though oddly I always seemed to miss his visits). One Christmas my farther took me out to the city, and I met Father Christmas at a department store... Then we met him again outside selling chestnuts. I thought it was odd that Father Christmas could be in two places at once and look completely different. But it didn't makes sense, but then I knew Father Christmas was real so it didn't really matter.
One time a kid at my school told me that there was no Father Christmas, he said he had woken up and seen that it was just his parents. Of course I refused to believe it, I even lied to him and said that I had gone up on my roof and seen sled marks and reindeer hooves (but this wasn't true).
Eventually though I stopped believing in Father Christmas. Like the spaghetti monster it is an absurd idea. No one could deliver a billion presents in one night, and no one ever did. My parents eventually admitted that the presents were from them, I learned that the guy in the department store was just some old guy paid to dress up. It turned out there was a rational explanation for the whole thing.
I hope we are both in agreement that Father Christmas does not exist. There is no hard evidence of him existing, no confirmed sightings of his sleigh or his house in lapland. Common sense tells us that it is just a fun but entirely made up story for Children.
Moving on... So far we have both been reasonable people using our common sense, and we are in agreement that the flying spaghetti monster and Father Christmas don't really exist. They are just made up (even if one is very traditional).
But alas we come to God and suddenly we disagree. What has gone wrong? I feel that I am still being reasonable and using my common sense. There is no evidence for god, he doesn't explain anything without raising a million times more questions... Common sense to me suggests that just like Father Christmas, God is an endearing but entirely made up traditional character.
Lets move on to you... Suddenly when it comes to God you stop making any sense. You start saying that actually logic and reason and rational thinking are at fault... Not the absurd idea that doesn't fit any better than the other absurd ideas. You claim common sense and rationality are entirely different things?
This is always the problem talking to people who believe in god. They actually don't use common sense, they can't see that god is just one of a million absurd superstitions that have no basis in reality. They use common sense for everything else... just not god.
I'm not sure why this is. I think it is because people tend to be conditioned from a vary young age that god is real and he made the world. And when people start showing you that he is in all probability not real, people just don't want to hear it. It's like some kind of mental defence mechanism kicks in to protect the consciousness. And the people just stop making any sense and start talking complete nonsense, like creationists... who even in the face of overwhelming evidence refuse point blank to accept what is obvious. That is Brain Washing for you.
I don't want to tell you that you are wrong, I don't think you are unintelligent. All I just want to help you snap out of a life time of brain washing and look at things objectively... just like you looked at the spaghetti monster and father Christmas objectively. I't probably not going to hurt me if you go on believing, but do yourself a favour... Open your eyes.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:they probably are if they held theistic beliefs that were maladaptive. In that case I'd say their atheism is more true than their previous theism..... its just an inferrence though. of course I dont know whats really going on in their heads and I dont claim to have any special access to universal truths.
This is the boat I'm leaning towards. The moment I lost the fear of an afterlife the quality of my mindset improved dramatically because I had a whole lot less to worry about. Combine that with the fact that I now know the people in suits and strict teachers were wrong when making sweeping generalizations that I had to accomplish X, Y and Z or I wasn't good enough as a person and I get to do whatever I want to blow off steam now (sex, drugs, fun!) without feeling guilty, I'm really better off.
@Smack: I'd say common sense = rationality, but in different usage. 2+2=4. Duh. This can be demonstrated, I've observed it a million times and I've yet to see it not be true. This is common sense. Yet if I'm doing a "proof" for math class, they expect me to cite a principal that says why 2+2=4. That's what I would consider rationality. Yay for definition by example, the weakest form of definition :p
AbaddonFidelis wrote: I firmly believe that flying spaghetti monsters dont exist - not on the basis of rationality, since there is no rational basis for believing those things do not anywhere exist - but on the basis of my plain old every day common sense.
*bows back in*
WHAT!? rational thinking and common sense are the same thing. Can you really not see the bold faced contradiction in that phrase?
no..... I dont see it. common sense just means what seems reasonable at a glance. rationality means more than that. In this context it means a commitment to the formal rules of logic, according to which you cant prove a negative. In other words, since you can never know that there is no such thing as a flying spaghetti monster, you dont have any business declaring that no such thing exists. Does such a thing exist? I doubt it. Thats common sense. Not ratinoality. Rationally there's no way I could know one way or another. I should stay strictly neutral.
SmackCakes wrote:
Lets stop for a second seriously and take a deep breath... no one has to get angry, or defensive, we are not enemies, lets imagine we are in a calm place, just two people talking calmly... and lets just go over that slowly one more time, because I really want to understand this.
sure.
SmackCakes wrote:
Being rational... being an ordinary rational person. A person who can look at what's around them, make fair and reasonable judgements about it, agrees 2+2 is 4, here is here, there is there. Able to listen to reason. A rational person.
And...
A person using common sense. A person who is sensible and able to make sensible decisions. Also should agree 2+2 is 4. here is here, there is there etc... etc...
Are these really different things? I mean really?
I dont mean rational in the sense that you mean it. In the sense you're using it they're the same and there isnt a difference.
SmackCakes wrote:
I'll tell you what I think...
We are in agreement about the flying spaghetti monster, It is an absurd idea. Any rational person, using their common sense can see that it is an absurd idea with no basis in reality. There is no evidence of it existing, there is no reason for it to exist, there is no phenomenon that goes unexplained without the flying spaghetti monster.
yes thats true.
SmackCakes wrote:
The flying spaghetti monster does no exist.
that doesnt follow. just because you've seen no evidence of such a thing doesnt mean it doesnt exist. If you had never been to a museum or watched the discovery channel (etc etc) and I told you that hundreds of millions of years ago gigantic carnivorous lizards used to roam the earth and devour each other, you might say "thats absurd. never happened." thats common sense. Or you might say "I have no way of knowing it didnt happen so maybe it did and maybe it didnt. cant tell." thats rationality. In this case rationality would have served you better than common sense. In the spaghetti monster case probably common sense is what serves you better. But strictly speaking we do not and cannot know that such a thing doesnt exist.
SmackCakes wrote:
Now lets try Father Christmas. When I was young I was told Father Christmas was real, if I was good he'd bring me presents, if I was bad I was told I'd get cinders. Of course I believed all this because kids will believe pretty much anything. There even seemed to be positive proof, I'd wake up and find presents! and my parents would tell me Father Christmas had left them (though oddly I always seemed to miss his visits). One Christmas my farther took me out to the city, and I met Father Christmas at a department store... Then we met him again outside selling chestnuts. I thought it was odd that Father Christmas could be in two places at once and look completely different. But it didn't makes sense, but then I knew Father Christmas was real so it didn't really matter.
One time a kid at my school told me that there was no Father Christmas, he said he had woken up and seen that it was just his parents. Of course I refused to believe it, I even lied to him and said that I had gone up on my roof and seen sled marks and reindeer hooves (but this wasn't true).
Eventually though I stopped believing in Father Christmas. Like the spaghetti monster it is an absurd idea. No one could deliver a billion presents in one night, and no one ever did. My parents eventually admitted that the presents were from them, I learned that the guy in the department store was just some old guy paid to dress up. It turned out there was a rational explanation for the whole thing.
Its not rationally impossible that santa clause exists. Its just damn unlikely. In the presence of overwhelming evidence that its parents, not santa clause, that delivers toys, you probably shouldnt believe in his existance. thats common sense. not rationality.
SmackCakes wrote:
I hope we are both in agreement that Father Christmas does not exist. There is no hard evidence of him existing, no confirmed sightings of his sleigh or his house in lapland. Common sense tells us that it is just a fun but entirely made up story for Children.
yeah we agree about that.
smackcakes wrote:
Moving on... So far we have both been reasonable people using our common sense, and we are in agreement that the flying spaghetti monster and Father Christmas don't really exist. They are just made up (even if one is very traditional).
But alas we come to God and suddenly we disagree. What has gone wrong? I feel that I am still being reasonable and using my common sense. There is no evidence for god, he doesn't explain anything without raising a million times more questions... Common sense to me suggests that just like Father Christmas, God is an endearing but entirely made up traditional character.
I dont think thats a non-sensical position. plenty of highly reasonable people believe that god doesnt exist. what I'm arguing is that its not rationality, but something else, that tells you God doesnt exist. In this case you draw an analogy with a fairy tail and say "they're basically the same thing, I dont believe the one or the other." if you find that convincing then thats as far as it goes - you find it convincing. I think there's more to the question than that.
SmackCakes wrote:
Lets move on to you... Suddenly when it comes to God you stop making any sense. You start saying that actually logic and reason and rational thinking are at fault... Not the absurd idea that doesn't fit any better than the other absurd ideas. You claim common sense and rationality are entirely different things?
rationality is valid as far as it goes. like anything else its reliable in some circumstances and not reliable in others. A rational, self-interested young woman would have no interest in having children. its inconvenient, its expensive, it takes alot of time and energy, it can ruin your figure, etc. but women keep having children. why? not for any rational reason. its plainly irrational to do it. they do it for irrational reasons - because they desire to nurture a young life, because they have a maternal instinct, because it feels good, whatever. these are irrational not rational motivations, and they're completely valid.
SmackCakes wrote:
This is always the problem talking to people who believe in god. They actually don't use common sense, they can't see that god is just one of a million absurd superstitions that have no basis in reality. They use common sense for everything else... just not god.
well whats evident to you might not be so evident to other people. alot of people think its self evident that an ordered, intelligible universe requires conscious design on the part of some all-mighty creator. does it? I dont know. I just dont think that whats obvious to you is much of a guide to the rationality of other people. Some people can just look at a math equation and solve it without doing much of anything. I cant. I have to work it out. What's obvious to him isnt obvious to me.
SmackCakes wrote:
I'm not sure why this is. I think it is because people tend to be conditioned from a vary young age that god is real and he made the world. And when people start showing you that he is in all probability not real, people just don't want to hear it. It's like some kind of mental defence mechanism kicks in to protect the consciousness. And the people just stop making any sense and start talking complete nonsense, like creationists... who even in the face of overwhelming evidence refuse point blank to accept what is obvious. That is Brain Washing for you.
I don't want to tell you that you are wrong, I don't think you are unintelligent. All I just want to help you snap out of a life time of brain washing and look at things objectively... just like you looked at the spaghetti monster and father Christmas objectively. I't probably not going to hurt me if you go on believing, but do yourself a favour... Open your eyes.
I thought we were going to keep things calm and rational.......? I think you're a smart guy too. Don't be so quick to dismiss other peoples experiences. On the basis of rationality alone we can no more say that God doesnt exist than we can that the spaghetti monster doesn't. On the basis of common sense it seems more convincing to me to suppose that he does than that he doesnt. after all the universe has to come from somewhere. To me what really matters in a case like this, where empirical evidence is impossible to gather, is adaptability. If people who believe X are better adapted as a rule than people who believe Y, then belief X is more probably true than belief Y. On that basis I think that belief in God makes alot of sense. From my own experience (and I can dig up supporting quotes from others if you want) atheism is a lonely, hollow, ultimately self-defeating way of looking at the world while Christianity and theism more generally is a life-affirming, consoling, deeply meaningful way of looking at life. If thats true and you cant know the facts one way or another, then why would anyone choose to believe something that hinders his life rather than helps it?AF
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:they probably are if they held theistic beliefs that were maladaptive. In that case I'd say their atheism is more true than their previous theism..... its just an inferrence though. of course I dont know whats really going on in their heads and I dont claim to have any special access to universal truths.
This is the boat I'm leaning towards. The moment I lost the fear of an afterlife the quality of my mindset improved dramatically because I had a whole lot less to worry about. Combine that with the fact that I now know the people in suits and strict teachers were wrong when making sweeping generalizations that I had to accomplish X, Y and Z or I wasn't good enough as a person and I get to do whatever I want to blow off steam now (sex, drugs, fun!) without feeling guilty, I'm really better off.
sure. if atheism frees you from self-defeating patterns of thought and doesnt create new ones then you've moved closer to the truth. I support that.... It's the psychological not the factual content thats really important since you cant know the facts about God 1 way or the other. AF
I' m not even necessarily fully atheist, I'm just not religious by any defined standards. There well could be super natural stuff, but I am very convinced that if there is, nobody has it 100% right here.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:If I'm using words that are too big for you, albatross, just say so.
Well firstly, if you want to take snide jabs at me learn to type like a fully literate adult.
Also, claiming that it's irrational not to believe in (cringe, hate this illustrative device!) The Flying Spaghetti Monster is just risible in the extreme.
Albatross wrote:If AF's arguments get any more ridiculous I might have to get involved after all...
who'se making snide jabs?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:
Also, claiming that it's irrational not to believe in (cringe, hate this illustrative device!) The Flying Spaghetti Monster is just risible in the extreme.
Albatross wrote:If AF's arguments get any more ridiculous I might have to get involved after all...
who'se making snide jabs?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:
Also, claiming that it's irrational not to believe in (cringe, hate this illustrative device!) The Flying Spaghetti Monster is just risible in the extreme.
read a book.
I'll make a deal with you - I'll read any book you like as soon as you LEARN TO USE CAPITAL LETTERS.
Gailbraithe wrote:I know some people define God as this indeterminate thing of an indeterminate nature with indeterminate goals and desires that must be taken entirely on faith, but that's so fething vague I can't say it exists or not, because I'll be damned if I can wrap my mind around something that's impossible to wrap my mind around. So I dismiss it as headache inducing word games.
If you reject things because they're tricky to wrap your head around then you must really hate high level physics.
I actually find high level physics far easier to grasp than modern theistic arguments. Even string theory, which I will admit I frankly don't understand, seems more graspable than the modern concept of God.
Modern theists are forced to define God in ways that are untestable, because otherwise we would test them -- and since all previous attempts to define God in a testable manner have left egg on theist's face, one can understand why they would be loathe to do so. But when you define God as a thing that can never be tested, as a thing that can defy logic and sense, then you are defining god as a thing which -- by its nature -- cannot be understood. So then what does it mean to say you believe in God? It means you believe in something which, by definition, you can know nothing about and cannot comprehend.
And here's the real problem: The argument for the existence of the god of modern theism relies entirely on retreating to a position of absurdity -- and I don't mean that as an insult. The Christian philosopher Kirkegaard (inventor of angst) actually describes a person who makes the leap of faith as a Knight of the Absurd. It is a retreat to something beyond rationality, but once one makes that retreat, one has lost the grounds to be reasonable. One is forced to make the sort of argument that AF is making, that one should believe in god because it makes one happy.
To which I think the best response is "Did you know that God's name is Eris and the He is a girl?" Because seriously, if we're going to embrace God because it makes us happy, why should we embrace a stuffy, judgmental and arrogant god like Yahweh, when we could embrace the Goddess of Chaos, a smoking hot bitch goddess who knows how to have a good time and laugh at a joke? Her rules sure are a lot easier to follow and there's half as many of them -- 1 there is no Goddess but the Goddess, 2 always use the official discordian numbering system, 3 partake of a hot dog on fridays, 4 hot dog buns are strictly prohibited, 5 you may not believe anything you read -- and, unlike most religions, one is actively encouraged to not follow the rules unless you want to.
Seriously why this...
When you could make the equally absurd leap to this?
We know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was created by a human source as an illustrative device, therefore it is not rational to believe that it actually exists. If we DID believe that, we would also have to believe that everything that has ever been imagined, spoken about or written down also exists.
I have wings. Actually I made that up.
In light of my admission, is it rational to believe I have wings? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I guess I would need some more specific information to really respond here.... which groups/persons specifically are you talking about? Every atheist I can recall ever meeting was a rationalist and a materialist who denied the possibility of spirits an afterlife etc. Not saying it's impossible for them to be out there - but I cant remember ever meeting one. Can you provide some examples?
The majority of them don't call themselves atheists because atheism simply isn't a defining component of their belief set. As I said before, the New Age movement is a prime example. I'd also argue that most Buddhists are as well.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
If someone has a religious motivation for doing something wacky that would probably end their life, then its plainly adaptive for them to abandon their religious beliefs. For them atheism would be more true than the brand of theism they ascribed to as a potential nut job. If an atheist finds himself less happy then he would be as a theist, then it makes sense for him to abandon his atheism for theism. The atheist's beliefs are more true than the suicide bomber's, the contented christian's are more true than the unfulfilled atheist's. It's not the factual, but the psychological content of the beliefs that matters in this case because, as sebster pointed out, the question is incapable of resolution by rational means. Obviously the factual content of beliefs matters alot more where that content is in some manner verifiable (ie in the case of someone who believes they can fly)
As I said before, utility does make something true. It may be useful for me to believe that dream-catchers filter out bad dreams, but it doesn't actually mean that they do. Even regarding your analogy of the machine you must note that it isn't the belief in the function of the machine that makes it work, but rather the fact that the machine really does work in the real world that supports the fact that its design is predicated on true principals.
To you happiness may be nothing more than sensuality, Gailbraithe..... In that case by all means worship an elf god or whatever. It wont make you any happier or better adjusted if I had to guess, but hey, try it out. I could be wrong.
AF
dogma wrote:The majority of them don't call themselves atheists because atheism simply isn't a defining component of their belief set. As I said before, the New Age movement is a prime example.I'd also argue that most Buddhists are as well.
Buddhism teaches that all of perceived reality is maya, or illusions created by the mind, and this includes God. So Buddhist do not claim that God does not exist, only that God is an illusion. So whether Buddhists are atheists or not is dependent on whether illusions are real or not. I think its fair to count Buddhists as atheists.
Taoism is another example. Taoism teaches that god is at best a weak metaphor for something that can not be comprehended by the mind, the tao, and that any attempt to describe the tao will always fail due to the inability to express an infinity of possibility in words. So Taoists are also atheists.
As I said before, utility does not make something true. It may be useful for me to believe that dream-catchers filter out bad dreams, but it doesn't actually mean that they do. Even regarding your analogy of the machine you must note that it isn't the belief in the function of the machine that makes it work, but rather the fact that the machine really does work in the real world that supports the fact that its design is predicated on true principals.
Fixed that for you.
Also, you know what really pisses me off? People who hang dreamcatchers from their rearview mirror. Unless you sleep in your car that makes no damn sense at all, and is just pissing on native culture. New ager jerks.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I guess I would need some more specific information to really respond here.... which groups/persons specifically are you talking about? Every atheist I can recall ever meeting was a rationalist and a materialist who denied the possibility of spirits an afterlife etc. Not saying it's impossible for them to be out there - but I cant remember ever meeting one. Can you provide some examples?
The majority of them don't call themselves atheists because atheism simply isn't a defining component of their belief set. As I said before, the New Age movement is a prime example. I'd also argue that most Buddhists are as well.
certain forms of buddhism, maybe. Any thervada buddhists in the room? Mahyana buddhists are another ball of wax. I wouldnt hesitate to describe them as theists. I dont think new agers really apply here either..... on what basis are you calling them atheists? Shirly McClain and Sylvia Brown certainly believe in God.... not that there's any kind of uniformity in that group in any case. Everyone just sort of makes up their own thing. Some of them might not believe in God. I guess its possible. The exception that proves the rule if you ask me.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
If someone has a religious motivation for doing something wacky that would probably end their life, then its plainly adaptive for them to abandon their religious beliefs. For them atheism would be more true than the brand of theism they ascribed to as a potential nut job. If an atheist finds himself less happy then he would be as a theist, then it makes sense for him to abandon his atheism for theism. The atheist's beliefs are more true than the suicide bomber's, the contented christian's are more true than the unfulfilled atheist's. It's not the factual, but the psychological content of the beliefs that matters in this case because, as sebster pointed out, the question is incapable of resolution by rational means. Obviously the factual content of beliefs matters alot more where that content is in some manner verifiable (ie in the case of someone who believes they can fly)
As I said before, utility does make something true. It may be useful for me to believe that dream-catchers filter out bad dreams, but it doesn't actually mean that they do. Even regarding your analogy of the machine you must note that it isn't the belief in the function of the machine that makes it work, but rather the fact that the machine really does work in the real world that supports the fact that its design is predicated on true principals.
what would be the practical effect of your belief that dream catchers filter out bad dreams? that you'll be happier if you have one around. If you have one around and you're happier then the core of your belief was true, just not in the way you intended. No, its not the belief of the observer that makes its true, its the belief of the designer that does. But even if I never met the designer, I could infer that he knew what he was doing (or didnt) by observing the operations of the machine that he built. I dont want to go round and round on this topic though bc it seems to me that we understand each other pretty well, we just dont assign the same significance to utility.
Albatross wrote:
We know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was created by a human source as an illustrative device, therefore it is not rational to believe that it actually exists. If we DID believe that, we would also have to believe that everything that has ever been imagined, spoken about or written down also exists.
I have wings. Actually I made that up.
In light of my admission, is it rational to believe I have wings? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.
Woah. Did...did Albatross just use logic to disprove the Spaghetti Monster?
AbaddonFidelis wrote:To you happiness may be nothing more than sensuality, Gailbraithe..... In that case by all means worship an elf god or whatever. It wont make you any happier or better adjusted if I had to guess, but hey, try it out. I could be wrong.
Why don't you stay away from the personal attacks, Abby, or I might just have to point out that in poorly arguing for the theist position you have essentially said "Being an atheist made me unhappy, so I decided to give up on intellectual integrity and just start lying to myself."
Which, if you think about it, is kinda pathetic.
EDIT: Did you just call Eris an elf god?
She's Greek, buster, and you better not forget it, or you'll suffer her wrath. And considering she invented war in revenge for being snubbed at a party, you should try and avoid that wrath. We don't call her a bitch goddess for nothing.
Albatross wrote:
We know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was created by a human source as an illustrative device, therefore it is not rational to believe that it actually exists. If we DID believe that, we would also have to believe that everything that has ever been imagined, spoken about or written down also exists.
I have wings. Actually I made that up.
In light of my admission, is it rational to believe I have wings? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.
Woah. Did...did Albatross just use logic to disprove the Spaghetti Monster?
Das right!
OT: Do you think my new avatar makes me look like the jackbooted fascist thug Gailbraithe probably thinks I am? Hitler was an Atheist, you know...
AbaddonFidelis wrote:To you happiness may be nothing more than sensuality, Gailbraithe..... In that case by all means worship an elf god or whatever. It wont make you any happier or better adjusted if I had to guess, but hey, try it out. I could be wrong.
Why don't you stay away from the personal attacks, Abby,
ooooh hit a little close to home did I?
Nevermind. Once again I am letting you bait me....... you desperately want to go bonkers while all of us watch. I'm not going to contribute to that any more than I already have. Please, have the last word. Again.
AF
AbaddonFidelis wrote:To you happiness may be nothing more than sensuality, Gailbraithe..... In that case by all means worship an elf god or whatever. It wont make you any happier or better adjusted if I had to guess, but hey, try it out. I could be wrong.
Why don't you stay away from the personal attacks, Abby,
ooooh hit a little close to home did I?
No, I just don't find your strategy of defending theism by making personal attacks on atheists to be particularly valid or useful.
So far this conversation has been fairly fun, don't spoil that just because you're losing. That's just poor sportsmanship.
Taoism is another example. Taoism teaches that god is at best a weak metaphor for something that can not be comprehended by the mind, the tao, and that any attempt to describe the tao will always fail due to the inability to express an infinity of possibility in words. So Taoists are also atheists.
I agree with you on the Buddhism score, but how does this description make Taoists atheists? At best it makes them agnostics, they believe that God is simply beyond comprehension or description. They don't claim that it doesn't exist, just that any attempt to describe or classify it doesn't do the being justice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:
OT: Do you think my new avatar makes me look like the jackbooted fascist thug Gailbraithe probably thinks I am? Hitler was an Atheist, you know...
It's less angry than your previous one, but slightly more menacing. And I don't think Gailbraithe needs a picture or anything to throw at the label 'fascist' at will.
I can somewhat respect your point of view AbaddonFidelis if you are talking about the universe having an intelligent designer. The universe is very mysterious, and if it did turn out to be some kind of simulation or creation then that probably wouldn't be any stranger than any other reason.
In fact that would be a perfectly rational and satisfying answer to why the universe exists... Though of course that would still leave the question of where the designer come from, which leads us back round in a circle.
But an intelligent designer is not the same as the god of the bible. I think the evidence supporting the bible being a man mad book is quite compelling. And it does bother me deeply that there are people standing in the way of medical research, and telling people in Africa not to use condoms in the midst of an AIDS epidemic. Because of a book that written thousands of years ago and is really quite brutal and patchy when compared to a modern view of what is ethical.
If there is an intelligent designer. I see nothing that makes me believe that he hears our prayers, guides us, cares about us at all, or even knows we exist.
yes.... the universe is very mysterious. reason has its limits. the only resolution to the first cause paradox is to assume that the premise every effect has a cause is mistaken. in the light of recent developments in quantum physics that seems increasingly likely. AF
Automatically Appended Next Post: like newtonian physics causality may be true to within a very high degree of accuracy for our daily lives but not in a universal sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:lol. you're so cute.
I know.
Anyhow,
We know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was created by a human source as an illustrative device, therefore it is not rational to believe that it actually exists. If we DID believe that, we would also have to believe that everything that has ever been imagined, spoken about or written down also exists.
there are no rational grounds for believing or disbelieving in the existence of such a thing, since there is no evidence in the affirmative and it is impossible to prove a negative. I'm not saying there's a flying spaghetti monster. I'm saying that rationality has its limits.
albatross wrote:
I have wings. Actually I made that up.
In light of my admission, is it rational to believe I have wings? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.
what is rational is to withold judgement. I can't see if you have wings so I can't say you do. I can't see that you don't, so I can't say you don't. No I don't believe you have wings. Not because I'm rational. Because I employ common sense.
AF
You keep attacking theism and saying how ridiculous and preposterous it is, but there are different types of theism, depending on the varying definitions of god that are out there.
You seem to be criticizing monotheism and polytheism, especially the Judeo-Christian concept of a monotheistic creator god.
By using the word theism, which can be thrown around pretty loosely, you are lumping all forms of theism together. Not sure if this is intentional or not, as you seem to be concentrating on the monotheism and polytheism.
Gailbraithe wrote:Taoism is another example. Taoism teaches that god is at best a weak metaphor for something that can not be comprehended by the mind, the tao, and that any attempt to describe the tao will always fail due to the inability to express an infinity of possibility in words. So Taoists are also atheists.
I agree with you on the Buddhism score, but how does this description make Taoists atheists? At best it makes them agnostics, they believe that God is simply beyond comprehension or description. They don't claim that it doesn't exist, just that any attempt to describe or classify it doesn't do the being justice.
The Tao is not God by another name. If you believe that the Tao is God by another name, then you have not understood the Tao.
Either that, or you are using a definition of God that has nothing to do with theism. Because the object of theism is not the Tao.
Gailbraithe wrote:Taoism is another example. Taoism teaches that god is at best a weak metaphor for something that can not be comprehended by the mind, the tao, and that any attempt to describe the tao will always fail due to the inability to express an infinity of possibility in words. So Taoists are also atheists.
I agree with you on the Buddhism score, but how does this description make Taoists atheists? At best it makes them agnostics, they believe that God is simply beyond comprehension or description. They don't claim that it doesn't exist, just that any attempt to describe or classify it doesn't do the being justice.
The Tao is not God by another name. If you believe that the Tao is God by another name, then you have not understood the Tao.
Either that, or you are using a definition of God that has nothing to do with theism. Because the object of theism is not the Tao.
I wasn't saying that Tao are theists, or that they call God by another name. But by your very own definition they are not athesists as they have not discredited the possibilty of a supernatural being's existance.
rubiksnoob wrote:You keep attacking theism and saying how ridiculous and preposterous it is, but there are different types of theism, depending on the varying definitions of god that are out there.
Well aware of that fact.
You seem to be criticizing monotheism and polytheism, especially the Judeo-Christian concept of a monotheistic creator god.
I've been criticizing every possible form of theism, and if you go back and read what I've written, I think you'll find my criticism is mostly directed at modern theism and the modern concept of God -- a concept of God that is vague, indeterminate, and ultimately rather pointless. But mostly I simply take issue with the ridiculous arguments used by theists.
There isn't a single argument that AF, for example, has presented in favor of God that challenges my contention that God is a girl named Eris. Which I think raises a real question as to what the heck theists are getting at, and what it means to say that "God exists."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:I wasn't saying that Tao are theists, or that they call God by another name. But by your very own definition they are not athesists as they have not discredited the possibilty of a supernatural being's existance.
If Taoists are not theists, then they are atheists. Atheism is the default, not theism.
Emperors Faithful wrote:I wasn't saying that Tao are theists, or that they call God by another name. But by your very own definition they are not athesists as they have not discredited the possibilty of a supernatural being's existance.
If Taoists are not theists, then they are atheists. Atheism is the default, not theism.
Doesn't that make them Agnostic? How is Atheism the defualt? Atheism means you have to decide that there is NO God, which is not really what Taoism does.
Emperors Faithful wrote:I wasn't saying that Tao are theists, or that they call God by another name. But by your very own definition they are not athesists as they have not discredited the possibilty of a supernatural being's existance.
If Taoists are not theists, then they are atheists. Atheism is the default, not theism.
Doesn't that make them Agnostic? How is Atheism the defualt? Atheism means you have to decide that there is NO God, which is not really what Taoism does.
No, that is not what atheism means. Atheism means you do not believe in god. Agnosticism is the belief that the answer to the question of God's existence is unknowable. One can be both agnostic and atheistic, that is one can not believe in God and that the question of God's existence is unanswerable.
Strong atheism, or antitheism, is the proposition that God does not exist. Since one cannot prove a negative, strong atheism hinges on the argument that the complete absence of any compelling reason to believe in god is sufficient reason to assert god's non-existence.
As I have noted already in this thread, no one seriously argues this point when you replace God with Spider-Man, which indicates that God is subject to special pleading.
The complete absence of any compelling reason to believe in the literal existence of God is sufficient reason to assert God's non-existence.
The complete absence of any compelling reason to believe in the literal existence of Spider-Man is sufficient reason to assert Spider-Man's non-existence.
The form the special pleading takes is always this: God has special properties that give sufficient reason to assume God's existence despite the lack of any compelling evidence for the literal existence of God.
The argument tends to become circular because the only special property that God appears to have is that God is God.
Monster Rain wrote:It's always amusing to realize what book someone just finished reading when they rush to the internetz to spout off about it.
Who are you talking about, and what is the book?
Or was this just one of those seemingly intelligent but actually entirely vapid statements that pseudointellectuals spout off to try to pass themselves off as thinking people?
Taoism is not a religion! Its a way of life! Ying and Yang is a way of life! Atheism is not the freaking default button! You just believe in other things sometimes. Some people just believe in weird crap. Like the devil O.o
Taoism and Confucianism are not religions. It is a common misinterpretation I understand that. Because it seems so similar. BUT! It has no god or belief in a higher being!
Religion must have faith in order to be a religion. Look it up. Faith = Religion
Agnosticism and Atheism are not mutually exclusive.
Generally speaking Agnosticism is really just the view that the truth is unknown. Atheism is rejection of the belief that there is a god.
I would subscribe to the view that the truth is unknown. There might be a god or there might not.
But at the same time, I firmly believe that there is not a god, because I find the notion mind bogglingly improbable. I also do not believe that the world will end before you have time to finish reading this post, because that is also mind bogglingly improbable. But believing is not the same as knowing.
I would consider myself both Agnostic and Atheist. And if you've got this far then I guess I was right about the world not ending. I would bet my immortal soul that I'm right about god too.
Asherian Command wrote:Atheism is not the freaking default button!
All babies are atheists.
They are born into this world they are not believers in anything. As they have no thought or knowledge. In order to be considered a member you have to have knowledge and faith. Babies are not atheists. They believe they are god. Thats just my experience. Plus why did you ignore all what I said when i had a legitimate Reason That Taoism = NOT A RELIGION!
Asherian Command wrote:Atheism is not the freaking default button!
All babies are atheists.
Prove it
I disagree anyway, babies likely do not have any beliefs whatsoever, so while they do not believe God/s exists, they also do not believe s/he/they don't exist.
I thought they were born into Independent parties? What has the world come to? *glances at Justin bieber, Looks in complete terror. Pulls out a shotgun. Fires it at Justin biebers poster.* "That will teach that damn wipper snapper."
Consider
Babies come into the world screaming to suck pap and mewl and puke
Now consider Monster Rain's statement.
not sure what any of this has to do with the quiz
Babies can't be Christians until they have been baptised and so must ipso facto be atheists. and therefore better at answering religious quizzes than their Christian parents.
Is that the point?
Gailbraithe wrote:
No, that is not what atheism means. Atheism means you do not believe in god. Agnosticism is the belief that the answer to the question of God's existence is unknowable. One can be both agnostic and atheistic, that is one can not believe in God and that the question of God's existence is unanswerable.
Strong atheism, or antitheism, is the proposition that God does not exist. Since one cannot prove a negative, strong atheism hinges on the argument that the complete absence of any compelling reason to believe in god is sufficient reason to assert god's non-existence.
Okay, even if I was to assume that you're right, how does this make Taoists atheists?
As I have noted already in this thread, no one seriously argues this point when you replace God with Spider-Man, which indicates that God is subject to special pleading.
The complete absence of any compelling reason to believe in the literal existence of God is sufficient reason to assert God's non-existence.
The complete absence of any compelling reason to believe in the literal existence of Spider-Man is sufficient reason to assert Spider-Man's non-existence.
The form the special pleading takes is always this: God has special properties that give sufficient reason to assume God's existence despite the lack of any compelling evidence for the literal existence of God.
The argument tends to become circular because the only special property that God appears to have is that God is God.
We have means to prove the nonexistence of Spiderman. Or his actual existence. As far as I know no such method can be applied to the existence of God.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:Atheism is not the freaking default button!
All babies are atheists.
Well, according to you babies aren't people until 18 months of age so how does that work?
Asherian Command wrote:Atheism is not the freaking default button!
All babies are atheists.
They are born into this world they are not believers in anything. As they have no thought or knowledge. In order to be considered a member you have to have knowledge and faith.
Babies are not atheists. They believe they are god.
Thats just my experience.
Contradict yourself much?
Plus why did you ignore all what I said when i had a legitimate Reason That Taoism = NOT A RELIGION!
Because it wasn't relevant to anything anyone has said in this entire conversation.
Asherian Command wrote:Atheism is not the freaking default button!
All babies are atheists.
They are born into this world they are not believers in anything. As they have no thought or knowledge. In order to be considered a member you have to have knowledge and faith.
Babies are not atheists. They believe they are god.
Thats just my experience.
Contradict yourself much?
Plus why did you ignore all what I said when i had a legitimate Reason That Taoism = NOT A RELIGION!
Because it wasn't relevant to anything anyone has said in this entire conversation.
Maybe babies are religious... People who are left to their own devices always seem to end up inventing gods. I don't think anyone ever discovered a lost tribe who said "gods? dang we never thought of having those"
Atheism is probably something that comes later after you've gone a long time without witnessing anything supernatural.
I think it is possible that religion is instinctive... or at least a side effect of something instinctive... or maybe just a really unoriginal idea. Maybe that is why so many people cling to religion so fervently.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Okay, even if I was to assume that you're right, how does this make Taoists atheists?
Don't assume I'm right, go look it up. There's these great things called encyclopedias, they have all kinds of useful information in them.
As Chibi noted, Taoist don't believe in god(s). Hence, they are atheists.
As I have noted already in this thread, no one seriously argues this point when you replace God with Spider-Man, which indicates that God is subject to special pleading.
The complete absence of any compelling reason to believe in the literal existence of God is sufficient reason to assert God's non-existence.
The complete absence of any compelling reason to believe in the literal existence of Spider-Man is sufficient reason to assert Spider-Man's non-existence.
The form the special pleading takes is always this: God has special properties that give sufficient reason to assume God's existence despite the lack of any compelling evidence for the literal existence of God.
The argument tends to become circular because the only special property that God appears to have is that God is God.
We have means to prove the nonexistence of Spiderman. Or his actual existence. As far as I know no such method can be applied to the existence of God.
No, we don't have means to prove the nonexistence of Spider-Man. You can't prove a negative. You cannot prove that Spider-Man does not exist. The only proof for the non-existence of Spider-Man is the complete lack of evidence for his existence.
SmackCakes wrote:Maybe babies are religious... People who are left to their own devices always seem to end up inventing gods. I don't think anyone ever discovered a lost tribe who said "gods? dang we never thought of having those"
Atheism is probably something that comes later after you've gone a long time without witnessing anything supernatural.
I think it is possible that religion is instinctive... or at least a side effect of something instinctive... or maybe just a really unoriginal idea. Maybe that is why so many people cling to religion so fervently.
I've always found it interesting that every civilization (that I'm aware of) has at some point created (or discovered) religion, many without any known outside human influence.
Moreso that several religions share very similar deities/stories.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
how does this make Taoists atheists?
Taoists don't believe in god(s)
But they do believe in a higher power do they not?
Actually... It was claimed that Taoists are agnostics
He stated that Taoism is not a religion to counter that argument.
Despite the contradiction, Ash has actually made an intriguing observation. They demand of their mothers sacrifice and the holy pap But it is nearly Half past the four of clock here in Blighty and I'll be fethed if I can think hard on the issue.
del'Vhar wrote:But [Taoist] do believe in a higher power do they not?
No, they do not. They believe in a lower power, an underlying way of being of the universe, against which resistance is futile, and the sage simply goes along with.
It has been a while since I read the Tao te Ching, but there is no mention of higher powers.
The Way is not a higher power.
The problem, to be fair del'Vhar, is that there are several aspect to Taoism, which have divine like beings, that are worshipped in a more religious way than other forms afaik But despite the more superstitious and popular aspects there are no gods as such,
They are merely manifestations of The Way.
It would possibly or even probably be fair to say that some Taoists practice a religion, but as Ash said, Taoism is more of a philosophy.
Gailbraithe wrote:The only proof for the non-existence of Spider-Man is the complete lack of evidence for his existence.
There is also the lack of 'need' which could be seen as evidence against something existing. There are lots of things that people can't prove or disprove the existence of. Certain theoretical particles for example... However these particles are thought to exist because they are needed to explain certain phenomenon. Over time there has become less and less need for God to exist. Supernovas and gravity helped to explain the formation of the Earth, evolution explained the existence of complex life, charges particles explained thunder storms. And it looks as though a singularity might explain the beginning of the universe. God could himself be described as a singularity... albeit an infinitely more complex one than is needed for the universe to come into being. As such there is really no 'need' to assume there is a god in order to explain anything. This does not bode well for his chances of existing.
del'Vhar wrote:Fair enough, I know very little about Taoism beyond the name.
So is it something similar to Fate/Destiny?
Taoism is not an atheistic system..... according to the tao te ching there is a mysterious, feminine source of all reality. one might fairly describe that as god, though it is not, as is typical in chinese thought, a strictly personal god. in addition taoism has a big "folk religion" element to it that has alot to do with gods spirits etc. Describing it as atheistic is a gross misrepresentation. AF
Gailbraithe wrote:The only proof for the non-existence of Spider-Man is the complete lack of evidence for his existence.
There is also the lack of 'need' which could be seen as evidence against something existing. There are lots of things that people can't prove or disprove the existence of. Certain theoretical particles for example... However these particles are thought to exist because they are needed to explain certain phenomenon. Over time there has become less and less need for God to exist. Supernovas and gravity helped to explain the formation of the Earth, evolution explained the existence of complex life, charges particles explained thunder storms. And it looks as though a singularity might explain the beginning of the universe. God could himself be described as a singularity... albeit an infinitely more complex one than is needed for the universe to come into being. As such there is really no 'need' to assume there is a god in order to explain anything. This does not bode well for his chances of existing.
A counter point to this that I personally enjoy:
Is it not possible that science has merely shown *how* God/s did things?
For example, creating man may have been an iterative process that was gradually refined = Evolution.
If you consider the creation stories(and many others) in the Bible to be largely metaphorical, then I consider this conclusion to be reached fairly naturally.
If God exists, theres no reason to assume he just magic-ed everything from thin air.
The Tao is the way
it is not really fate or destiny.
The Tao Te Ching iirc is a sort of negative philosophy in that it cannot be described (not negative as bad)
Neti neti as I think it says in the Upanishads. ie Not this, not this.
He who knows knows not
All I know is I haven't a fethin' clue
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feminine source of all reality. one might fairly describe that as god
because a source is described as feminine it is a mistake to equate it with divinity.
This is why there is the negative philosophy, because of the way the mind works and it gets caught out by semantics.
The problem ironically is pretty much the same as that of religion.
We use concrete images to enable us to talk about the undescribable.
As I pointed out earlier however, there are forms of popular or Folk belief that tend to worship as you say
del'Vhar wrote:Fair enough, I know very little about Taoism beyond the name.
So is it something similar to Fate/Destiny?
If the world is a lazy river, then the Tao is the current of the river. You can swim against it, but you will find your experience of the river more pleasant if you just float and let the current take you with it. It is not fate, destiny, god, or any other thing. It is the tao, the flow of existence, and it you can resist the flow or go with the flow, but no matter what you do, the flow will continue to flow.
It doesn't flow for a reason, it doesn't have a goal, it isn't going anywhere. It just flows because it flows.
Or maybe the feminine energy's flow was....nevermind, thats a joke that I dont need to finish.
@ Gailbraithe: It sounds vaguely similar to the Wheel of Time/The Pattern from the Wheel of Time series, I guess.
Although even that has some alliteration to destiny/purpose.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:I think that many rationalists would take issue with the idea that any kind of phenomena whatever is beyond rational observation; if it cant be rationally measured, it probably doesnt exist. thats more or less where gailbraithe is coming from. ("show me god on a gps," "define it," "give me proof") etc. I think that the idea that rationality is the only means of perceiving truth is absurd so ofcourse I'm not interested in trying to prove the existence of God on rational grounds. That doesnt seem to be your position though so I guess I dont really disagree with you here.
Yeah, and as I've tried to explain to Galbraithe that line of approach doesn't work. Demanding material evidence of a thing that by definition exists outside the material world doesn't work. I think we agree on this.
which is equally applicable to invisible cannibal bunnies flying spaghetti monsters etc. what those illustrations show to me is not that the idea of God is absurd, but that the idea of rationality as a sole means of proof is absurd. Rationally those things are equally likely and equally unlikely to exist, as you say of God. So if rationality leads you to that place, then what does it tell you about rationality? Obviously its not the sole means of arriving at truth - that belief is a reductionist absurdity.
Yeah, that's pretty sound reasoning, I think. I'd stop before you go on to claim that your thinking beyond rationality is 'common sense' - I don't think that's the word for it. I don't know what's better, but I don't think that's the right term.
There's a difference in the sense that you more readily belive the scientist than the prophet mystic shaman whatever.
No, there is a qualititative difference in the methodologies of the scientist and the prophet/mystic/shaman. Science is established through the scientific process - you form a hypothesis, test that through experiment, comment on the results, refine or discard the hypothesis, and the publish this for other scientists to assess the methodology and aim to replicate.
Religion does not have any such methodology. This is no criticism of religion, as it is dealing with questions that are entirely unsuited to solving with scientific methods. But it means that trying to compare the acceptance of a statement from a scientist and a statement from prophet/mystic/shaman is nonsense.
Such belief has been used from our earliest history to order the lives of individuals and of states with good results. If an atheist hasnt personally experienced the benefits of those beliefs, or has experienced them as a negative, that doesnt necessarily invalidate them. the poor people at hiroshima and nagasaki undoubtedly experienced scientific progress as a negative, not a positive - but we dont ditch science as a result, do we?
The truth of a piece of science doesn't depend on it's usefulness. Not at all. Whether nuclear science is used to blow up a city or to have power plant run supply a city, the science remains true. Even if a point os science is completely useless and has no real world application, it would still be true.
The effects of religion on peoples lives are real and largely beneficial - on that basis I'm willing to listen to what the people who make a specialty out of religious practice have to say. Its not as far fetched as modern prejudices may lead one to believe - I'm applying the exact same kind of reasoning to prophets that we all blithely apply to scientists, and for pretty much the same reasons.
There's an anecdote they tell in leadership courses about a Swiss Army reserve unit out in the Alps. Poor weather comes in quickly and the team tries to return to camp but becomes lost, and panic sets in, they're arguing about what to do. Fortunately the leader finds a map and says he can get the team out, they stop panicking, build a camp and wait out the storm. In the morning, in the clear weather they see they're not too far from base camp. They march home, explain the story and the leader shows everyone the map - at which point they realise the map was for a completely different mountain range.
The point of the anecdote is to show how simply producing a plan can get everyone working, building the camp to wait out the storm, which had a beneficial result even though the plan itself is rubbish.
Now consider that I never saw any source for that anecdote, it could have been made up by some leadership guru, and told and retold by hundreds of people. Whether it ever actually happened or not, it is still useful because it demonstrates a point.
Do you see how it can also apply to spiritual truth?
I dont conclude that something is absolutely factually true because it is useful. Its a good rough guide, thats all.
And I'm saying that it's an incredibly rough guide, at best.
Gailbraithe wrote:Modern theists are forced to define God in ways that are untestable, because otherwise we would test them -- and since all previous attempts to define God in a testable manner have left egg on theist's face, one can understand why they would be loathe to do so. But when you define God as a thing that can never be tested, as a thing that can defy logic and sense, then you are defining god as a thing which -- by its nature -- cannot be understood. So then what does it mean to say you believe in God? It means you believe in something which, by definition, you can know nothing about and cannot comprehend.
Yes, of course it does. It's God, the cause of all creation. How would you or anyone else be able to understand Him?
Instead you take it as a spiritual, instinctive truth. Or you don't, if you have no such instinct. I don't have that instinct but I accept others do.
To which I think the best response is "Did you know that God's name is Eris and the He is a girl?" Because seriously, if we're going to embrace God because it makes us happy, why should we embrace a stuffy, judgmental and arrogant god like Yahweh, when we could embrace the Goddess of Chaos, a smoking hot bitch goddess who knows how to have a good time and laugh at a joke?
If that's the God you instinctively feel to be true, then it's the one you should follow.
Seriously why this...
When you could make the equally absurd leap to this?
Because one doesn't choose what God one believes in.
sebster
well ok I'm glad we agree about a couple things.... just a nice feeling. whatever.
There's a difference in the sense that you more readily belive the scientist than the prophet mystic shaman whatever.
No, there is a qualititative difference in the methodologies of the scientist and the prophet/mystic/shaman. Science is established through the scientific process - you form a hypothesis, test that through experiment, comment on the results, refine or discard the hypothesis, and the publish this for other scientists to assess the methodology and aim to replicate.
yes, and that process is pretty good for discovering physical truths. in the absence of any similarly effective methodology for discovering metaphysical truths, I think its fair to look at the likely outcomes of beliefs as a guide to their trustworthiness. I'd argue that in the case of (world-spanning) religions those outcomes are on the whole favorable, both for individuals and for societies, so on that basis I'd say there's probably somthing to them, just like I'd say there's probably something to newtonian physics if it accurately predicts the trajectories of moving objects.
here's another way to look at it. If your A/C in your home needs to be replaced, do you replace it yourself or call in an expert? You call in an expert right? Well what if you find out that you have cancer? You don't try to administer chemo yourself - you go find an expert. Now lets say you have a metaphysical problem - an ethical dilemna, an emotional hang up, whatever. Is there anything wrong with seeking out some expert advice in that field? I dont think there is. Well who has the training? A large number of people with specialty in metaphysical problems are people whose lives are devoted to the study of religion. I dont think there's anything wrong with going to those people for advice rather than trying to do it yourself, for the same reason you wouldnt try to install an A/C unit yourself or administer chemo yourself - they're specialized fields that require training to master, if you try to do it yourself you're likely to screw it up.
Religion does not have any such methodology. This is no criticism of religion, as it is dealing with questions that are entirely unsuited to solving with scientific methods. But it means that trying to compare the acceptance of a statement from a scientist and a statement from prophet/mystic/shaman is nonsense.
well its not systematized like science is. The proof is whether it works or not. Science does. thats why we've embraced it. Does religion? For alot of people it does. If I believe in science because it works, why not religion too?
The effects of religion on peoples lives are real and largely beneficial - on that basis I'm willing to listen to what the people who make a specialty out of religious practice have to say. Its not as far fetched as modern prejudices may lead one to believe - I'm applying the exact same kind of reasoning to prophets that we all blithely apply to scientists, and for pretty much the same reasons.
There's an anecdote they tell in leadership courses about a Swiss Army reserve unit out in the Alps. Poor weather comes in quickly and the team tries to return to camp but becomes lost, and panic sets in, they're arguing about what to do. Fortunately the leader finds a map and says he can get the team out, they stop panicking, build a camp and wait out the storm. In the morning, in the clear weather they see they're not too far from base camp. They march home, explain the story and the leader shows everyone the map - at which point they realise the map was for a completely different mountain range.
The point of the anecdote is to show how simply producing a plan can get everyone working, building the camp to wait out the storm, which had a beneficial result even though the plan itself is rubbish.
Now consider that I never saw any source for that anecdote, it could have been made up by some leadership guru, and told and retold by hundreds of people. Whether it ever actually happened or not, it is still useful because it demonstrates a point.
Do you see how it can also apply to spiritual truth?
sure. The factual content of the map wasnt what mattered - the psychological content, that it got people to stop panicking, was what mattered. The map was a lie, but the deeper truth - that if we stop panicking we'll probably get through this - was not. I'm not claiming that how something makes you feel is necessarily a good guide to the factual accuracy of a statement. obviously it isnt alot of the time. What I'm saying is that belief in God can communicate some higher truths. Even if God didnt exist, those truths would be worth having on their own right.
Making a factual error about the existence of God is a small price to pay for access to some deeper, life affirming truths, if thats the only way you can get them. The human mind works through symbols that it often conflates with facts. The most compact and intimate form of communication is, in fact, symbols. Does God factually exist? I think so, although not in a way that I can explain. I accept it as beyond the power of my mind to fathom the deep mysteries of the universe. I just accept that its beyond my understanding. In a way the arrogance of some rationalists just astounds me. I mean they're people who would have a hard time passing a biological chemistry course at university, or learning to speak ancient greek, but here they come to explain all the mysteries of the universe in 500 words or less? It's pretty absurd.
Anyway.... that there's something beneficial about believing in God seems pretty evident to me, so I believe. Leap of faith. Whatever. So just like the reservists were factually wrong about the map but metaphysically right about the need to stop panicking, I may be factually wrong about the existence of God, but metaphysically right. that's a risk I'm willing to take, although like I said I think that God does in fact exist, albiet in some way I dont entirely understand.
I dont conclude that something is absolutely factually true because it is useful. Its a good rough guide, thats all.
And I'm saying that it's an incredibly rough guide, at best.
I can accept that. asking whether god exists or not is after all a big question. Its the best approach to the problem I can think of.
AF
sebster wrote:Yeah, and as I've tried to explain to Galbraithe that line of approach doesn't work. Demanding material evidence of a thing that by definition exists outside the material world doesn't work. I think we agree on this.
I think you haven't understood my position. It is certainly possible to define God in such a way that God is unfalsifiable, in a way that God cannot be proven to exist or not exist. But does an unfalsifiable definition of God matter?
An unfalsifiable definition of God is not an argument in favor of any belief system. It doesn't compel any kind of action. Maybe this unfalsifiable God exists, maybe he doesn't. Without something else to add to that, it's trivial.
But what if God says we have to stone homosexuals to death? I don't want to stone homosexuals to death. It seems sick, cruel and barbaric. But who am I to deny God? If God says I must kill homosexuals, then I must kill homosexuals. Right? If God is real, then homosexuals have to die. But that's a pretty big leap, right? It would seem insane to kill homosexuals based on the fact that someone was able to craft a definition of God that is unfalsifiable. Killing homosexuals in the name of God would seem to demand a greater proof of God's existence than "You can't prove God doesn't exist if I define God in this completely unfalsifiable way!"
And that's my point. Let's say I accept this argument that Unfalsifiable God exists. Now what? What happens next? What does it mean that this unfalsifiable God exists?
::crickets::
The truth of a piece of science doesn't depend on it's usefulness. Not at all. Whether nuclear science is used to blow up a city or to have power plant run supply a city, the science remains true. Even if a point os science is completely useless and has no real world application, it would still be true.
That's completely wrong. The truth of a scientific theory is entirely based on it's utility (usefulness) -- specifically its usefulness in making predictions about the world. A theory that an be used to make accurate predictions is true until such time as evidence comes forth that contradicts the predictions of the theory.
What you mean is that the truth of science is not dependent on the purposes that technological applications of the theory are put to. Nuclear theory is true because it predicts a tremendous amount of energy bound in matter, and all evidence points to that prediction being true. Nuclear theory is true because it predicts that a bomb or power plant built a certain way will unleash that energy, and these technological applications work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:Now lets say you have a metaphysical problem - an ethical dilemna, an emotional hang up, whatever.
Neither of those examples are metaphysical problems.
del'Vhar wrote:Is it not possible that science has merely shown *how* God/s did things?
Anything is 'possible' but that has not mean it is probable or even needed. Evolution is a real proven phenomenon that stands up on its own without the need for God. Here we start to get into Ockham's razor-
Ockham's razor states that with two competing theories, the theory which depends on the least assumptions is generally the correct one. If (for example) I go to my door and find a letter on the floor, directly under the letter box; I could theorize that during the night aliens escaped from area 51 but were shot down over my house, so came into my house down the chimney with a letter that was (blah blah intricate conspiracy) and placed it by my door. But this theory relies on an awful lot of wild assumptions that may even defy physics.
Or I could theorize that the postman put it through the door on his rounds. This is most likely correct as it offers a complete explanation while only really depending on one highly probable assumption.
Maybe god does help evolution along, or maybe the flying spaghetti monster helps evolution along, or maybe Joe Pesci helps evolution along... All these theories could be postulated as 'possible'. But since evolution works fine without help there is really no justification for adding in further redundant assumptions.
God might be possible, but he is still not required to explain anything.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:Some of them might not believe in God. I guess its possible. The exception that proves the rule if you ask me.
I'm fairly strict in my interpretation of what makes someone an atheist. If you believe in a higher power, but don't call it God, then I'm probably going to call you an atheist. In my experience New Age philosophy tends towards a sort of freely associated 'higher power' that resembles Spinoza's God, but is never consistently called God.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gailbraithe wrote:
All babies are atheists.
I've heard this argument before, and I've never really liked it. Until they can form discernible beliefs babies are atheists in essentially the same way that dogs are. That is, they don't have beliefs and so cannot believe in God.
I mean, I understand the attraction of the argument. It dovetails nicely into the supposition that the only way to conclude that there is a God is to assume that one exists, which in turn links up nicely with the belief that theist parents tend to indoctrinate their children; thus holding back all of society. (disclaimer: I don't actually believe this)
However, because I like to assume that everyone can reason to some degree, I think its more honest to at least presume that individual belief is at least partially founded on the standard of evidence that the believer is willing to accept with respect to God. Individuals accept theism because of the way they learned to engage with the world, just as considered atheists (as distinguished from technical atheists, like babies and dogs) reject theism because of the way they learned to engage with the world.
well..... the new age movement is so nebulous that its kind of hard to get a grip on just what those people believe. I can point to some prominent new age leaders who clearly do believe in god.... neale diamond walsh for instance, or sylvia browne. My experience with new agers is that they arent particularly careful about what they believe - its all pretty vague. I think they like it that way. Anyway without knowing which new agers you're talking about in particular its hard for me to discuss their beliefs.
Automatically Appended Next Post: babies are no more atheists than dogs or plankton are. they dont have the mental capacity to evaluate the claims of theists or atheists. the idea is absurd.
If atheism means not believing in god
then it is not absurd to say that babies are atheists.
Unless you are going to suggest that they do believe in god?
And we all know that dog is god backwards.
which could be why they spend so much time sniffing their jacksies. or is that a circular arguement
I'm going to suggest that atheism is not merely the lack of belief in god, as atheists of gailbraithe's stamp are constantly saying, but the positive belief that there is no such thing as god, which they are also always saying but seem reluctant to own up to. you cant positively assert that something doesnt exist if you dont have any idea what it is; therefore babies cannot be atheists.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:I'm going to suggest that atheism is not merely the lack of belief in god, as atheists of gailbraithe's stamp are constantly saying, but the positive belief that there is no such thing as god, which they are also always saying but seem reluctant to own up to. you cant positively assert that something doesnt exist if you dont have any idea what it is; therefore babies cannot be atheists.
That's just making things up to suit.
I can equally suggest that atheism is merely the lack of belief in God.
In anycase, prove that babies don't positively believe there is no such thing as God.
maybe. atheists make things up to suit as welll; if atheism is merely a lack of belief then they can demand proof from others without providing any of their own. sure is convenient. Its just a debating tactic. when someone says "God does not exist" that sounds like a positive assertion of fact to me, not merely benign ignorance.
babies dont have the mental capacity to understand what god is. they are therefor incapable of any belief about god whatever, that he exists or does not, that he lives in the sky or under the earth, or whatever. They havent even learned to talk yet give them a break!
AF
Atheism is a choice as much as religion is. You look around and say "That is a load of hooey". If you lack the capacity to choose you can not be part of something requires a choice to be made. A baby is hungry, not by choice, but by biological necessity.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:sebster
well ok I'm glad we agree about a couple things.... just a nice feeling. whatever.
I think we've been agreeing more than disagreeing, it's been an interesting chat.
yes, and that process is pretty good for discovering physical truths. in the absence of any similarly effective methodology for discovering metaphysical truths, I think its fair to look at the likely outcomes of beliefs as a guide to their trustworthiness. I'd argue that in the case of (world-spanning) religions those outcomes are on the whole favorable, both for individuals and for societies, so on that basis I'd say there's probably somthing to them, just like I'd say there's probably something to newtonian physics if it accurately predicts the trajectories of moving objects.
Yes, but we're back to where we started, it can be useful but not true.
here's another way to look at it. If your A/C in your home needs to be replaced, do you replace it yourself or call in an expert? You call in an expert right? Well what if you find out that you have cancer? You don't try to administer chemo yourself - you go find an expert. Now lets say you have a metaphysical problem - an ethical dilemna, an emotional hang up, whatever. Is there anything wrong with seeking out some expert advice in that field? I dont think there is. Well who has the training? A large number of people with specialty in metaphysical problems are people whose lives are devoted to the study of religion. I dont think there's anything wrong with going to those people for advice rather than trying to do it yourself, for the same reason you wouldnt try to install an A/C unit yourself or administer chemo yourself - they're specialized fields that require training to master, if you try to do it yourself you're likely to screw it up.
Oh, you should absolutely talk to spiritual leaders. A friend of the family is a Father and I talk to him about all kinds of stuff, and he's got tremendous insight, even for an atheist like me.
well its not systematized like science is. The proof is whether it works or not. Science does. thats why we've embraced it. Does religion? For alot of people it does. If I believe in science because it works, why not religion too?
No, because science isn't 'it works'. There is the scientific method, it is a real and very important thing, I described it in my previous post and it is a lot more rigorous than 'it works'.
It is no criticism of faith that it doesn't use this, it can't and shouldn't be expected to, but that doesn't mean you can replace it with something as vague as 'religious societies that I haven't described or listed have lasted longer than non-religious societies that I haven't described or listed'. The potential for self-confirmation bias alone is too great for that to be properly considered.
sure. The factual content of the map wasnt what mattered - the psychological content, that it got people to stop panicking, was what mattered. The map was a lie, but the deeper truth - that if we stop panicking we'll probably get through this - was not. I'm not claiming that how something makes you feel is necessarily a good guide to the factual accuracy of a statement. obviously it isnt alot of the time. What I'm saying is that belief in God can communicate some higher truths. Even if God didnt exist, those truths would be worth having on their own right.
Absolutely, and I agree, belief in God has informed some people of some very powerful truths. Even though I don't believe in God, I can agree on many of those truths.
But what I'm saying is that just because a thing helps, it doesn't necessarily make it true. The properties of a thing that make it useful can be entirely unrelated to it's truth.
Making a factual error about the existence of God is a small price to pay for access to some deeper, life affirming truths, if thats the only way you can get them.
Sure, if it helps them then let them believe. I've never argued that belief isn't useful, I believe faith is very useful. I've just said that just because it's useful, it doesn't make it true.
The most compact and intimate form of communication is, in fact, symbols. Does God factually exist? I think so, although not in a way that I can explain. I accept it as beyond the power of my mind to fathom the deep mysteries of the universe. I just accept that its beyond my understanding.
Sure, and I believe there is no God in a way that I can't fully explain. All I can do is tell people the world that makes sense to me is one that doesn't have a God.
In a way the arrogance of some rationalists just astounds me. I mean they're people who would have a hard time passing a biological chemistry course at university, or learning to speak ancient greek, but here they come to explain all the mysteries of the universe in 500 words or less? It's pretty absurd.
Oh, absolutely. But there's plenty of creationists trying to tear down the foundations of science based entirely on a Kent Hovind lecture they saw in the mid-90s. It's people that absurd, not just atheists.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gailbraithe wrote:I think you haven't understood my position. It is certainly possible to define God in such a way that God is unfalsifiable, in a way that God cannot be proven to exist or not exist. But does an unfalsifiable definition of God matter?
To the person who believes in God their faith sure does matter.
And that's my point. Let's say I accept this argument that Unfalsifiable God exists. Now what? What happens next? What does it mean that this unfalsifiable God exists?
The person finds their personal, spiritual truth, and then goes about their life finding the truths that matter to them. As do the rest of us. And we all accept than any truth on something as unknowable as God would be impossible to even begin to prove, so we all accept whatever the
And remember that acceptance doesn't mean letting them do whatever. When the guy starts going on about stoning homosexuals I explain to him that I believe very strongly that people have the right to find love however they can if it doesn't harm anyone else, and if he wants to continue his plans to stone homosexuals then I'm going to cave his head in with a star picket.
That's basically what life is.
That's completely wrong. The truth of a scientific theory is entirely based on it's utility (usefulness) -- specifically its usefulness in making predictions about the world. A theory that an be used to make accurate predictions is true until such time as evidence comes forth that contradicts the predictions of the theory.
You've put a completely ridiculous definition onto my use of the word 'useful' in order to disagree with me. That's a ridiculous thing, and I'd ask you to never do it again. It will only make you look bad and reduce your ability to have interesting conversation.
AbaddonFidelis pointed out that despite science doing harm to people at Hiroshima, we don't ditch science. I pointed out that science remained true regardless of it's positive or negative uses - and that it didn't have to be useful at all to still be true. The word 'useful' obviously meant 'useful', as in 'useful in real world applications'. For instance, forumlas were created that predicted black holes, and then we went and found them. We have no use for these black holes, they're really far away for one thing, but they are still real, and the formulas predicting them are true.
What you mean is that the truth of science is not dependent on the purposes that technological applications of the theory are put to.
What I meant is exactly what I said. The only thing that stopped you understanding it was the ridiculous interpretation you put onto the word 'useful', an interpretation you contrived seemingly just to find disagreement.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:I'm going to suggest that atheism is not merely the lack of belief in god, as atheists of gailbraithe's stamp are constantly saying, but the positive belief that there is no such thing as god, which they are also always saying but seem reluctant to own up to. you cant positively assert that something doesnt exist if you dont have any idea what it is; therefore babies cannot be atheists.
That's just making things up to suit.
I can equally suggest that atheism is merely the lack of belief in God.
In anycase, prove that babies don't positively believe there is no such thing as God.
Because they have little to no capacity for belief, they can't believe there is no god if they can't believe at all. Is a blade of grass athiest
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:If atheism means not believing in god
then it is not absurd to say that babies are atheists.
Unless you are going to suggest that they do believe in god?
No, atheism requires believing there is no God. That is, a person has decided that he personally believes there is no God.
That is entirely different to a person who hasn't decided, or never even considered the question.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:sebster
well ok I'm glad we agree about a couple things.... just a nice feeling. whatever.
I think we've been agreeing more than disagreeing, it's been an interesting chat.
yeah.
yes, and that process is pretty good for discovering physical truths. in the absence of any similarly effective methodology for discovering metaphysical truths, I think its fair to look at the likely outcomes of beliefs as a guide to their trustworthiness. I'd argue that in the case of (world-spanning) religions those outcomes are on the whole favorable, both for individuals and for societies, so on that basis I'd say there's probably somthing to them, just like I'd say there's probably something to newtonian physics if it accurately predicts the trajectories of moving objects.
Yes, but we're back to where we started, it can be useful but not true.
well ok let me ask - do you think that science is a good way of understanding the physical world? If so, on what basis?
here's another way to look at it. If your A/C in your home needs to be replaced, do you replace it yourself or call in an expert? You call in an expert right? Well what if you find out that you have cancer? You don't try to administer chemo yourself - you go find an expert. Now lets say you have a metaphysical problem - an ethical dilemna, an emotional hang up, whatever. Is there anything wrong with seeking out some expert advice in that field? I dont think there is. Well who has the training? A large number of people with specialty in metaphysical problems are people whose lives are devoted to the study of religion. I dont think there's anything wrong with going to those people for advice rather than trying to do it yourself, for the same reason you wouldnt try to install an A/C unit yourself or administer chemo yourself - they're specialized fields that require training to master, if you try to do it yourself you're likely to screw it up.
Oh, you should absolutely talk to spiritual leaders. A friend of the family is a Father and I talk to him about all kinds of stuff, and he's got tremendous insight, even for an atheist like me.
ok.... I'm surprised you answered that way.... never had anyone agree with that before... dont know what to say. Usually it comes back "you're letting other people do your thinking for me." well of course I am. the doctor the mechanic and sure the priest too. dont let them do all my thinking for me but alot of it, sure I do. just surprised me that you agreed with that. lol.
well its not systematized like science is. The proof is whether it works or not. Science does. thats why we've embraced it. Does religion? For alot of people it does. If I believe in science because it works, why not religion too?
No, because science isn't 'it works'. There is the scientific method, it is a real and very important thing, I described it in my previous post and it is a lot more rigorous than 'it works'.
well its inferrence based on experiment. the theory that yields the best predictive results tends to be accepted. that sounds like utility to me. not necessarily in the sense of building an engine or a bomb or whatever, but in the sense of consistently yielding predictive results. of saying something useful and reliable about the phenomena under examination.
It is no criticism of faith that it doesn't use this, it can't and shouldn't be expected to, but that doesn't mean you can replace it with something as vague as 'religious societies that I haven't described or listed have lasted longer than non-religious societies that I haven't described or listed'. The potential for self-confirmation bias alone is too great for that to be properly considered.
sure I can provide examples..... I'm talking about the elite and middle classes here, when I say religious or secular. the lower class is always religious.
Rome lasted as a pagan state from about 750 bc (near as anyone can tell) to about 100 bc, about 400 years as a secular state (I'd take the conversion of constantine as a convenient marker here), then 1200 as a christian one, so about 2000 years as a religious vs about 400 years as a secular state.
Athens lasted as a pagan state from about 14-1100 bc (dates are uncertain) to about 500 bc (where the transition took place is hard to pin down - the birth of euripides, who was a frank atheist, in 480 bc seems like as good a point as any), then lasted about 150 years after that until it was conquered by alexander the great and ceased to be an independent state. so about 9-600 years as a religious state and about 150 years as a secular state.
For both Rome and Athens their secular periods were periods of extreme turbulence in domestic politics and often in their foreign relations too. For Rome it's a series of civil wars lasting about 60 years, then a string of more or less corrupt and oppressive despots, then a shorter string of more or less enlightened despots, then another string of corrupt and oppressive despots. Tacitus and Juvenal both wrote in the 1st century AD and agreed that Rome was rotten right down to the core. That's a secular society they're describing. Anyway stability at the upper echelons of the roman social order isnt really restored until the 4th century, which is, incidentally, a period where secular romans are getting scarce and religious ones more abundant.
Its hard for me to be as specific with Athens but about 500-400 bc there were several coup attempts against the govt, class warfare was rampant, and Athens was constantly involved in wars having basically to do with the desire to set up a pan-hellenistic empire. This goes on until Alexander conquers them in the 4th century BC. those are the rough outlines as I understand them.
I'm not as familiar with chinese or indian history but I do know that they went through secular periods that didnt last anything like as long as their religious (in the case of china, more or less) periods. But I think those two examples demonstrate my point. I only chose states whose history is known from beginning to end. Obviously Russia has been a predominantly religious country since the very beginning, but only has about 100 years as a secular one behind it. since it hasnt reverted back to a religious state it might not be fair to discuss it under the same heading as athens or rome, where the scenario played out completely.
sure. The factual content of the map wasnt what mattered - the psychological content, that it got people to stop panicking, was what mattered. The map was a lie, but the deeper truth - that if we stop panicking we'll probably get through this - was not. I'm not claiming that how something makes you feel is necessarily a good guide to the factual accuracy of a statement. obviously it isnt alot of the time. What I'm saying is that belief in God can communicate some higher truths. Even if God didnt exist, those truths would be worth having on their own right.
Absolutely, and I agree, belief in God has informed some people of some very powerful truths. Even though I don't believe in God, I can agree on many of those truths.
But what I'm saying is that just because a thing helps, it doesn't necessarily make it true. The properties of a thing that make it useful can be entirely unrelated to it's truth.
well maybe truth isnt the best word I could have chosen. it implies factual, emperical accuracy. that's not really what I'm getting at. I mean true in a mythological sense, of conveying meanings to a person that might otherwise be overlooked. a short cut to the psyche to get them to act in adaptive ways. the factual truth isnt always what matters. the psychological truth matters too. I cant think of any thing that is plainly, profoundly, psychologically false, that is at the same time useful. Someone who persists in holding onto beliefs that do not serve, but in fact hinder their life, in the face of overwhelming factual evidence to the contrary, is unstable at best, insane at worse. That would not adaptive at all so I think it fails the utility test. Can you think of an instance where someone would believe something that is false both factually and metaphorically, that would at the same time be useful for him to believe? that might help to clarify things a bit...
I'm just kind of working this idea out as I go along. It's been in the back of my mind for a long time but I never tried to discuss it in detail, so I may be a bit sketchy here. From what Gailbraithe was saying I guess it already occurred to some pretty smart people so mb I should just look them up and see what they had to say.
The most compact and intimate form of communication is, in fact, symbols. Does God factually exist? I think so, although not in a way that I can explain. I accept it as beyond the power of my mind to fathom the deep mysteries of the universe. I just accept that its beyond my understanding.
Sure, and I believe there is no God in a way that I can't fully explain. All I can do is tell people the world that makes sense to me is one that doesn't have a God.
well no one can gainsay that.
In a way the arrogance of some rationalists just astounds me. I mean they're people who would have a hard time passing a biological chemistry course at university, or learning to speak ancient greek, but here they come to explain all the mysteries of the universe in 500 words or less? It's pretty absurd.
Oh, absolutely. But there's plenty of creationists trying to tear down the foundations of science based entirely on a Kent Hovind lecture they saw in the mid-90s. It's people that absurd, not just atheists.
yeah I agree with that. no group has a monopoly on arrogance. I guess my real gripe is against the kind of militant, fundamentalist atheism that I see play out on the internet all the time.... just as I'm sure what irks alot of atheists is the fire and brimstone bible thumping believe and be saved variety of christianity that you all get to deal with. You have a much more nuanced approach so alot of my criticisms really dont apply.
And to be frank I dont find many of the theistic arguments being advanced particularly helpful or illuminating either. I wish christians would understand their own tradition better. The whole project of trying to prove that god exists because the universe needs an intelligent designer or a first cause etc is IMO ridiculous. That's not what the founders of christian theology said - what they said was, in essence, that sometimes the heart is wiser than the mind, and that its ok to take leaps of faith based on what you feel. You cant get at the fundamental mysteries of the universe by debating - you need the help of your intuition. If your intuition is pulling you one way then recognize the limitations of the rational mind and embrace your intuition. Once you've made the leap of faith you'll start seeing changes in your own life that powerfully evince the work of God. Thats an argument that I can respect because it describes what I have personally seen happen in my life and in the lives of others. I dont posit God because I cant understand my world without him - I dont understand my world one way or another. Even science contains some whacky stuff that no one really understands. Like how a particle can be in two places at once or how particles on seperate sides of the universe can adjust their physical characteristics to conform to whats happening to its opposite members; these things are beyond my capacity to comprehend. Anyway once a theist admits rationality as the basis for his belief he's doomed - rationally he doesnt have any grounds for belief. What he ought to do is question the premise that the attack on his faith is predicated on - that rationality is the one true basis of learning the truth. I guess thats a little too involved for your hell fire and brimstone types though.
AF
Automatically Appended Next Post:
youbedead wrote:
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:I'm going to suggest that atheism is not merely the lack of belief in god, as atheists of gailbraithe's stamp are constantly saying, but the positive belief that there is no such thing as god, which they are also always saying but seem reluctant to own up to. you cant positively assert that something doesnt exist if you dont have any idea what it is; therefore babies cannot be atheists.
That's just making things up to suit.
I can equally suggest that atheism is merely the lack of belief in God.
In anycase, prove that babies don't positively believe there is no such thing as God.
Because they have little to no capacity for belief, they can't believe there is no god if they can't believe at all. Is a blade of grass athiest
AbaddonFidelis wrote:I'm going to suggest that atheism is not merely the lack of belief in god, as atheists of gailbraithe's stamp are constantly saying, but the positive belief that there is no such thing as god, which they are also always saying but seem reluctant to own up to. you cant positively assert that something doesnt exist if you dont have any idea what it is; therefore babies cannot be atheists.
In other words, you're going to commit a strawman fallacy and ignore what I've said. That's cool. From here on out I'm going to suggest that AbaddonFidelis isn't just saying god exists, he's saying god is a dude with a white beard and a golden throne who lives on Mars. Because you know, that's a lot easier claim to deal with than you're "the question of God is immune to logic" argument.
Your entire argument is such spurious nonsense. To insist that atheism is the "postive belief that there is no such thing as god" is too presume the case for theism. It's just a cheap parlor trick to avoid reality: you are making the positive claim! You are the one claiming god exists! That's the case you have to prove. No matter how much you try to insist that we're in Backwards World where denying a positive claim is a postive claim, and thus people must prove negative claims but not positive ones.
And what's so ridiculous about this is that you won't accept the same lack of logic for faeries. Or unicorns. Or the flying spaghetti monster. And why? Because in all of those cases you can clearly recognize the lack of logic, you can clearly see that such arguments mock common sense and reason, but when we turn to the question of God...blinders on!
Look dude, you can pull the wool over your own eyes to your heart's content, but don't delude yourself into thinking you can turn that choice into a persuasive argument. You've admitted that your belief in God is self-justified by the emotional utility of the belief, and I don't have to justify my choice to not follow you down the rabbit hole.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:well ok let me ask - do you think that science is a good way of understanding the physical world? If so, on what basis?
Because the requirement for repeatibility means that science says things we know to be true. It says if you release an object in a vacuum it will fall to the Earth at 9.8 m/s, and we can repeat this over and over again.
ok.... I'm surprised you answered that way.... never had anyone agree with that before... dont know what to say. Usually it comes back "you're letting other people do your thinking for me." well of course I am. the doctor the mechanic and sure the priest too. dont let them do all my thinking for me but alot of it, sure I do. just surprised me that you agreed with that. lol.
Yeah, I'd never just accept advice blindly, but it can be very illuminating to hear someone else's POV, especially if they've come at something from a very different place.
well its inferrence based on experiment. the theory that yields the best predictive results tends to be accepted. that sounds like utility to me.
It might sound like utility but it isn't.
not necessarily in the sense of building an engine or a bomb or whatever, but in the sense of consistently yielding predictive results. of saying something useful and reliable about the phenomena under examination.
A theory that says 'if A, then B' and people test it again and again, we aren't looking at a useful thing, we're looking at a true thing, because we know now that when A happens, then B will happen shortly afterwards.
This thing may or may not be useful, it could be 'if you throw a rock at Ms Gardiner's window she'll call you a prat'. That it happens everytime makes it true, but it doesn't make it very useful to know.
sure I can provide examples..... I'm talking about the elite and middle classes here, when I say religious or secular. the lower class is always religious.
Your methodology is very loose. There's no definition of secular or religious. I'm very curious on the grounds on which Russia is considered a reigious state now, there is formal seperation of church and state, and a wide range of religions are freely practiced.
That's where I'm talking about self-selection bias. You have your theory, and you've gone looking for examples to prove it. I could make the argument that a secular state is more successful, and I could point out the US formally seperating church and state - they seem to be doing pretty well. I could point out that faith is much lower in the wealthier, more stable developed nations.
But all of that would be me going out to pick examples to prove my theory, it wouldn't mean anything. There are too many things involved in the rise and fall of civilisations to isolate faith, it's an essentially unknowable point.
well maybe truth isnt the best word I could have chosen. it implies factual, emperical accuracy. that's not really what I'm getting at. I mean true in a mythological sense, of conveying meanings to a person that might otherwise be overlooked. a short cut to the psyche to get them to act in adaptive ways. the factual truth isnt always what matters. the psychological truth matters too.
Yeah, I can accept that.
I cant think of any thing that is plainly, profoundly, psychologically false, that is at the same time useful. Someone who persists in holding onto beliefs that do not serve, but in fact hinder their life, in the face of overwhelming factual evidence to the contrary, is unstable at best, insane at worse. That would not adaptive at all so I think it fails the utility test. Can you think of an instance where someone would believe something that is false both factually and metaphorically, that would at the same time be useful for him to believe? that might help to clarify things a bit...
Santa Claus?
yeah I agree with that. no group has a monopoly on arrogance. I guess my real gripe is against the kind of militant, fundamentalist atheism that I see play out on the internet all the time.... just as I'm sure what irks alot of atheists is the fire and brimstone bible thumping believe and be saved variety of christianity that you all get to deal with.
Oh yeah, there's militant jerks on both sides. Thing is, I get it to an extent, I was never raised with religion forced down my throat so I never had any reason to be hostile. But lots of people were and they're bitter, so they take the opportunity to sound off about and tell off religious people when the topic comes up. Then you get religious people who keep having these atheists yell at them over something that's very personal to them, so I can see why they build resentment towards atheists. So on that level I get what's going on.
And then of course, some people are just jerks.
And to be frank I dont find many of the theistic arguments being advanced particularly helpful or illuminating either. I wish christians would understand their own tradition better. The whole project of trying to prove that god exists because the universe needs an intelligent designer or a first cause etc is IMO ridiculous. That's not what the founders of christian theology said - what they said was, in essence, that sometimes the heart is wiser than the mind, and that its ok to take leaps of faith based on what you feel.
Good point. It always surprises how small, how narrowly defined the God of the creationists is. Your version is cool.
sebster wrote:And remember that acceptance doesn't mean letting them do whatever. When the guy starts going on about stoning homosexuals I explain to him that I believe very strongly that people have the right to find love however they can if it doesn't harm anyone else, and if he wants to continue his plans to stone homosexuals then I'm going to cave his head in with a star picket.
And now we're getting into why this crap actually matters. Because to the guy who wants to persecute the homosexuals because God hates homosexuals, it doesn't matter that you believe very strongly that people have the right to find love however they can if it doesn't harm anyone else, because all that means is that you disagree with God. God, creator of the universe and definer of good, says you're wrong. And looky here, you've gone and laid the groundwork to make it impossible to refute his claim that God exists. You've helped create a situation that must apparently end with someone getting his head caved in.
You've put a completely ridiculous definition onto my use of the word 'useful' in order to disagree with me. That's a ridiculous thing, and I'd ask you to never do it again. It will only make you look bad and reduce your ability to have interesting conversation.
AbaddonFidelis pointed out that despite science doing harm to people at Hiroshima, we don't ditch science. I pointed out that science remained true regardless of it's positive or negative uses - and that it didn't have to be useful at all to still be true. The word 'useful' obviously meant 'useful', as in 'useful in real world applications'. For instance, forumlas were created that predicted black holes, and then we went and found them. We have no use for these black holes, they're really far away for one thing, but they are still real, and the formulas predicting them are true.
It was a lot less obvious that you meant that then you think it was.
What you mean is that the truth of science is not dependent on the purposes that technological applications of the theory are put to.
What I meant is exactly what I said. The only thing that stopped you understanding it was the ridiculous interpretation you put onto the word 'useful', an interpretation you contrived seemingly just to find disagreement.
Oh yes, I totally contrived the standard definition of useful. That was all me. I did that.
Dictionary! wrote:useful –adjective
1.
being of use or service; serving some purpose; advantageous, helpful, or of good effect: a useful member of society.
Gailbraithe wrote:And now we're getting into why this crap actually matters. Because to the guy who wants to persecute the homosexuals because God hates homosexuals, it doesn't matter that you believe very strongly that people have the right to find love however they can if it doesn't harm anyone else, because all that means is that you disagree with God. God, creator of the universe and definer of good, says you're wrong. And looky here, you've gone and laid the groundwork to make it impossible to refute his claim that God exists.
We're still free to debate what God might want, whether he'd actually care if two dudes got it on. And more importantly, whether personal faith is enough to force one's beliefs onto another person.
You've helped create a situation that must apparently end with someone getting his head caved in.
Of course, because you're jumping up and down telling him there's no God he'd never try to persecute homosexuals. Come on.
It was a lot less obvious that you meant that then you think it was.
No, it was completely clear. We were talking about the practical effects of scientific concepts, and the relationship of those practical effect to the truthfulness of the science. In that concept, the word 'usefulness' can be easily intuited to refer to it's usefulness in terms of practical effects.
It's very basic stuff.
Oh yes, I totally contrived the standard definition of useful. That was all me. I did that.
Dictionary! wrote:useful –adjective
1.
being of use or service; serving some purpose; advantageous, helpful, or of good effect: a useful member of society.
Oh wait, no I didn't.
Umm, that definition perfectly matches the term as I used it. It could be expanded out to a broader definition that would include your take on my term, but why would anyone expand it out to that point?
I don't mean to be rude but most people are capable of reading a word and applying common sense context to it's meaning. Human communication relies on people being able to apply that context. Look at the sentence "a boy saw a bike in the shop window, and decided he wanted it"... by the strict rules of grammar we should assume that the boy wanted the shop window, but common sense tells us that he wanted the bike.
Common sense would equally tell us that if two people were talking about the practical uses of a technology then the word 'useful' would apply to whether or not it had practical uses.
Now, it may just be that you're here to win and so you don't care - you're going to keep on insisting your take was reasonable no matter how clearly it wasn't. But it might be that you're hear to talk, maybe share some idea, in which case I think it might be best for you to think about how you go about reading other people's posts - do you really stop to consider the context? Do you look to understand their point, or skim looking for something to prove them wrong on?
I always look at 'Religion' as the absence of a one-to-one meaningful relationship with God. I do not have a 'Religion', but as a spiritual person I have a personal relationship with the big guy upstairs. I can understand where atheists come from. But for me, their strictly material and objective view of the world ignores too much of what is, to me at least, obviously out there in our everyday lives. On the flipside of that coin, the people who follow organized religions are missing the point by following dogma, not truth. As an aside, the only 'universal truth' that exists for all of is that we all die physically. Other truths are out there. What they are, well, I guess that's 'why' we're all here.
If this has already been stated somewhere in the guts of the thread, sorry. I've jumped in a bit late I'm afraid.
Gailbraithe wrote:Most Christians I know fall into two camps: hate-filled, judgmental bigots who latch onto some parts of the bible in order to justify hating someone else (usually gays), and generally nice, caring, decent people who think Jesus is a giant fluffy bunny that grants wishes and makes sure good things happen to good people. Neither group is particularly interested in knowing anything about religion.
.
You really don't have a fething clue do you? I guess this links well with your statement that 18 month old humans don't have rights.
Gailbraithe wrote:Most Christians I know fall into two camps: hate-filled, judgmental bigots who latch onto some parts of the bible in order to justify hating someone else (usually gays), and generally nice, caring, decent people who think Jesus is a giant fluffy bunny that grants wishes and makes sure good things happen to good people. Neither group is particularly interested in knowing anything about religion.
.
You really don't have a fething clue do you? I guess this links well with your statement that 18 month old humans don't have rights.
Except that's not what he actually SAID, Captain Strawman.
Gailbraithe wrote:Most Christians I know fall into two camps: hate-filled, judgmental bigots who latch onto some parts of the bible in order to justify hating someone else (usually gays), and generally nice, caring, decent people who think Jesus is a giant fluffy bunny that grants wishes and makes sure good things happen to good people. Neither group is particularly interested in knowing anything about religion.
.
You really don't have a fething clue do you? I guess this links well with your statement that 18 month old humans don't have rights.
Except that's not what he actually SAID, Captain Strawman.
Unless he edited it it should still be in the other thread, as it was definitely said. There was an attempt to weasel out of it when he was told how crazy it was, and was likely a mistake to bring up because it will only serve to cast all other statements he makes in an unfavorable light. To even think that killing 18 month olds is a reasonable thing to say smacks of asperger's.
Also, has there been a rash of Gay Stonings that I am unaware of? Someone that would indicate that that mainstream Christianity would advocate such a thing has so little concept of what they are talking about I should think it wouldn't even be worth refuting.
rubiksnoob wrote:You keep attacking theism and saying how ridiculous and preposterous it is, but there are different types of theism, depending on the varying definitions of god that are out there.
Well aware of that fact.
You seem to be criticizing monotheism and polytheism, especially the Judeo-Christian concept of a monotheistic creator god.
I've been criticizing every possible form of theism, and if you go back and read what I've written, I think you'll find my criticism is mostly directed at modern theism and the modern concept of God -- a concept of God that is vague, indeterminate, and ultimately rather pointless. But mostly I simply take issue with the ridiculous arguments used by theists.
There isn't a single argument that AF, for example, has presented in favor of God that challenges my contention that God is a girl named Eris. Which I think raises a real question as to what the heck theists are getting at, and what it means to say that "God exists."
Well, I'm pantheist, which basically in the simplest terms is the belief that everything that exists is god.
I don't believe in a thinking, sentient being. I believe in the universe.
Would you say that this is ridiculous? That the universe doesn't exist? Because pantheism is technically a form of theism and since you are criticisng all possible forms of theism you are criticisng pantheism and other forms of theism that you may not be intentionally criticisng.
I would enjoy hearing what you have to say about pantheism, as it doesn't really fall into the same bracket as other forms of theism.
not necessarily in the sense of building an engine or a bomb or whatever, but in the sense of consistently yielding predictive results. of saying something useful and reliable about the phenomena under examination.
A theory that says 'if A, then B' and people test it again and again, we aren't looking at a useful thing, we're looking at a true thing, because we know now that when A happens, then B will happen shortly afterwards.
This thing may or may not be useful, it could be 'if you throw a rock at Ms Gardiner's window she'll call you a prat'. That it happens everytime makes it true, but it doesn't make it very useful to know.
well we're just using different words to describe the same thing.
We don't know that a scientist's theory is true by any means other than watching how his theory plays out in the physical world. Did what he said would happen actually happen? Well I would argue that we can look for results in the field of religion and make similar inferrences. If followers of XYZ religion consistently commit suicide, then for gods sake lets all avoid that religion. If followers of ABC religion live happy and prosperous lives, then let's investigate the cause of that. (protestants have a higher rate of suicide than catholics btw. did you know that? I think thats fascinating. anyway...) It's not a scientific experiment, but in both cases I'm making inferrences about the theory based on the outcome I observe. In a field where methodology and experimentation are impossible, in the rigorous sense of science, I think its fair. Unless there's a better way available.....?
sure I can provide examples..... I'm talking about the elite and middle classes here, when I say religious or secular. the lower class is always religious.
Your methodology is very loose. There's no definition of secular or religious. I'm very curious on the grounds on which Russia is considered a reigious state now, there is formal seperation of church and state, and a wide range of religions are freely practiced.
I consider russia a secular state now. But undoubtedly a religious one prior to, say, 1850.
That's where I'm talking about self-selection bias. You have your theory, and you've gone looking for examples to prove it. I could make the argument that a secular state is more successful, and I could point out the US formally seperating church and state - they seem to be doing pretty well. I could point out that faith is much lower in the wealthier, more stable developed nations.
you could..... but we dont know whether that is a permanent or a temporary condition, since the story of those states hasnt come to an end yet. I think that wealth has alot to do with creating secularism, not the other way around. Its possible that the industrial revolution will make a secular society stable and long lasting for the first time in history. I dont know. No one does.
But all of that would be me going out to pick examples to prove my theory, it wouldn't mean anything. There are too many things involved in the rise and fall of civilisations to isolate faith, it's an essentially unknowable point.
maybe. I just couldnt help but notice that societies with a secular set of values are nowhere on earth long lasting, stable societies. Nowhere at all. I think thats remarkable. It could be coincidence that none of these societies seems to last very long, but to me it suggests that there's something fundamentally unworkable about that set of values. Historical observation is the closest thing we have or can get to an experiment dealing with really large groups of people and really long time frames. Unforunately history is all argument, so the really fundamental stuff can never be resolved.
I cant think of any thing that is plainly, profoundly, psychologically false, that is at the same time useful. Someone who persists in holding onto beliefs that do not serve, but in fact hinder their life, in the face of overwhelming factual evidence to the contrary, is unstable at best, insane at worse. That would not adaptive at all so I think it fails the utility test. Can you think of an instance where someone would believe something that is false both factually and metaphorically, that would at the same time be useful for him to believe? that might help to clarify things a bit...
Santa Claus?
well lets talk about adults here. kids believe in santa clause because they dont know any better, they stop when they do. I'm not sure that its useful for them to believe in santa clause. (seems a shame to tell them some stranger did it, rather than their own mom and dad.)
yeah I agree with that. no group has a monopoly on arrogance. I guess my real gripe is against the kind of militant, fundamentalist atheism that I see play out on the internet all the time.... just as I'm sure what irks alot of atheists is the fire and brimstone bible thumping believe and be saved variety of christianity that you all get to deal with.
Oh yeah, there's militant jerks on both sides. Thing is, I get it to an extent, I was never raised with religion forced down my throat so I never had any reason to be hostile. But lots of people were and they're bitter, so they take the opportunity to sound off about and tell off religious people when the topic comes up. Then you get religious people who keep having these atheists yell at them over something that's very personal to them, so I can see why they build resentment towards atheists. So on that level I get what's going on.
And then of course, some people are just jerks.
sure. I did have religion crammed down my throat and I had a period of violent reaction to it too.... it took alot of reflection to disentangle my personal anger from my world view. whatever I understand where they're coming from. I just get tired of the aggression. And I deeply resent the assumption that theists are a bunch of idiot zombies. Alot of these guys arent anything like as smart or as well read as they think they are, and I find it difficult to resist getting into it with them.
And to be frank I dont find many of the theistic arguments being advanced particularly helpful or illuminating either. I wish christians would understand their own tradition better. The whole project of trying to prove that god exists because the universe needs an intelligent designer or a first cause etc is IMO ridiculous. That's not what the founders of christian theology said - what they said was, in essence, that sometimes the heart is wiser than the mind, and that its ok to take leaps of faith based on what you feel.
Good point. It always surprises how small, how narrowly defined the God of the creationists is. Your version is cool.
Gailbraithe wrote:Most Christians I know fall into two camps: hate-filled, judgmental bigots who latch onto some parts of the bible in order to justify hating someone else (usually gays), and generally nice, caring, decent people who think Jesus is a giant fluffy bunny that grants wishes and makes sure good things happen to good people. Neither group is particularly interested in knowing anything about religion.
.
You really don't have a fething clue do you? I guess this links well with your statement that 18 month old humans don't have rights.
Except that's not what he actually SAID, Captain Strawman.
I'm afraid it is.
from here:
Frazzled wrote:
Gailbraithe wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:So...when, in your opinion, should a baby/fetus have a right to life? Becuase by demanding a 'no questions asked' abortion policy you are going to make it available for everyone who can't be bothered to take the correct precuations or close their legs.
18 months after birth. It's when humans are capable of demonstrating self-awareness via the mirror test.
Wait did you just say it should be ok to murder children up to 18 months old? I've known kids who could talk at that point.
I am not going to say that statement is insane. I will say that that qualifies the doctor for the needle.
not necessarily in the sense of building an engine or a bomb or whatever, but in the sense of consistently yielding predictive results. of saying something useful and reliable about the phenomena under examination.
A theory that says 'if A, then B' and people test it again and again, we aren't looking at a useful thing, we're looking at a true thing, because we know now that when A happens, then B will happen shortly afterwards.
This thing may or may not be useful, it could be 'if you throw a rock at Ms Gardiner's window she'll call you a prat'. That it happens everytime makes it true, but it doesn't make it very useful to know.
well we're just using different words to describe the same thing.
We don't know that a scientist's theory is true by any means other than watching how his theory plays out in the physical world. Did what he said would happen actually happen? Well I would argue that we can look for results in the field of religion and make similar inferrences. If followers of XYZ religion consistently commit suicide, then for gods sake lets all avoid that religion. If followers of ABC religion live happy and prosperous lives, then let's investigate the cause of that. (protestants have a higher rate of suicide than catholics btw. did you know that? I think thats fascinating. anyway...) It's not a scientific experiment, but in both cases I'm making inferrences about the theory based on the outcome I observe. In a field where methodology and experimentation are impossible, in the rigorous sense of science, I think its fair. Unless there's a better way available.....?
Lets try your statement...
If it is true and a rigorous belief in Jesus live happy and prosperous lives then... We should see all prosperous Christians in this world...
turns out this isn't true...
I'll address your understanding of the scientific method when Im not super busy later... it seems you know what it is... but you're confusing the ideas of predictions and explanations a little...
frgsinwntr wrote:If it is true and a rigorous belief in Jesus live happy and prosperous lives then... We should see all prosperous Christians in this world...
Unfortunately, someone who knows a bit about Christian Theology wouldn't ever make this statement.
I would cite the Book of Job as an example. Bad things happen to everyone.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:I'm going to suggest that atheism is not merely the lack of belief in god, as atheists of gailbraithe's stamp are constantly saying, but the positive belief that there is no such thing as god, which they are also always saying but seem reluctant to own up to. you cant positively assert that something doesnt exist if you dont have any idea what it is; therefore babies cannot be atheists.
In other words, you're going to commit a strawman fallacy and ignore what I've said.
yes. I am going to ignore what you've said. you're A REALLY NICE GUY AND I ALWAYS FOLLOW DAKKA RULE 1. If other people want to waste their time poking you with a stick then god bless. I'm not interested. You will continue, however, to be my poster child for militant, fundamentalist, wack job atheism AF
I'd ask for explanation for how AF's statement was a strawman from a clear-thinking third party, if you please.
I don't see it, at all. It looked like a perfectly reasonable rebuttal from here. Or is every disagreement with a certain poster going to be called a strawman? If so I'll leave it alone.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Gailbraithe wrote:
AbaddonFidelis wrote:I'm going to suggest that atheism is not merely the lack of belief in god, as atheists of gailbraithe's stamp are constantly saying, but the positive belief that there is no such thing as god, which they are also always saying but seem reluctant to own up to. you cant positively assert that something doesnt exist if you dont have any idea what it is; therefore babies cannot be atheists.
In other words, you're going to commit a strawman fallacy and ignore what I've said.
yes. I am going to ignore what you've said. you're A REALLY NICE GUY AND I ALWAYS FOLLOW DAKKA RULE 1. If other people want to waste their time poking you with a stick then god bless. I'm not interested. You will continue, however, to be my poster child for militant, fundamentalist, wack job atheism AF
I liked the first one better, but this is probably more prudent.
If it is true and a rigorous belief in Jesus live happy and prosperous lives then... We should see all prosperous Christians in this world...
I think that what I said was a little more nuanced than that.....
I'll address your understanding of the scientific method when Im not super busy later... it seems you know what it is... but you're confusing the ideas of predictions and explanations a little...
Nobody can argue whether or not a GOD exists. It is an abstract word for some grander scheme of things that we silly humans can't fathom. Some call it 'luck'. Whatever pick a word.
As an irreligious heathen I see from the outside how silly the fairy tales can get. We, as humans, can only think in human terms. I am surprised more kids didn't get it in grade school mythology readings, that our sense of anthropomorphising GOD was something primitive cultures do. The Greek pantheon was flawed, because all humans could fathom was from their own perspective, in which all humans, even the best of them, are flawed in some way.
Jesus is LOVE, Jesus is the LORD, the power of PRAYER made my daddy better when he had his heart attack (actually it was the hospital staff) but conveniently Jesus forgot the Lukemia kid in the next berth over but that must just be because enough people weren't praying for that kid. What a load of gak.
It's nice to think that GOD gives a crap, but religion, or the lack of it, is not the same as having a hankering ache to wonder if there is a higher purpose and meaning in the things that we do and the struggles we suffer. The easy fix for that ache is to adopt some dogma or another, slaughter your goat on the temple steps, and sleep easy at night pretending you know that God is good and just and loving and all that crap.
Pasting unicorns/messiahs/miracles/etc on a fairy tale doesn't make it devout, it is a sophomoric attempt to pretend you know something you don't. QUoting bible verses makes you a great robot. On the other hand, atheists are just as dumb as members of any specific faith because they THINK they know just as ignorantly as a Catholic who thinks that the pope is the spokesman of God. Atheists take the "There is no God" idea all smug and full of their intellectual superiority as just another religious zeal. The flaw in the arguement for atheism is that it can only challenge the lack of proof in theism, it can't actually prove it's own point either, just shoot down the opposing view.
It would be great if God showed up just for a second, like a TV soundbyte, and say "yeah guys I exist, just wanted to make that clear so you can all quit fighting over me, you are all cool by me... carry on"
Until that happens I think I will wallow in the idea that God is an imperative for existance, but God evidently only shows himself to schizophrenics or people on too much acid. Does God care? who knows? Lukemia kid? Does God love? such an anthropomorphic concept. Does God answer prayers?
No. God does not answer prayers. If the idea of "his will" is to be believed, then why would he be taking requests if he already has everything planned out? Stupid stupid stupid.
When someone prays fervently for something and it actually happens, it must be the power of prayer, right? When somebody prays and does not get their requested result... it's because the Lord works in mysterious ways.
Just to add to guitardian's post, back in the day people would see lightning and couldn't explain it. Clearly Zeus was at work I will give scripture credit for one thing in that while the majority believed that the world was flat, a scripture mentions that the earth is spherical. That's one check in the "other side's" column at least
Gailbraithe wrote:
And now we're getting into why this crap actually matters. Because to the guy who wants to persecute the homosexuals because God hates homosexuals, it doesn't matter that you believe very strongly that people have the right to find love however they can if it doesn't harm anyone else, because all that means is that you disagree with God. God, creator of the universe and definer of good, says you're wrong. And looky here, you've gone and laid the groundwork to make it impossible to refute his claim that God exists. You've helped create a situation that must apparently end with someone getting his head caved in.
Two things.
1: Do you really think that a person so deeply affected by his religion as to react with strong emotion whenever his particular holy book tells him to do so is going to care about you're refutation of his position? No, he isn't, because you aren't God, and even if you claim that God doesn't exist he's still going to go on his merry way, beating homosexuals all the while.
2: A person les affected by his religion, who does not do whatever his particular holy book tells him to do, but also wants to beat homosexuals, isn't concerned so much about God's existence, so much as what God says. You can argue that God doesn't exist, and he may even come to agree, but that still leaves him with the question "Why did I believe that God wanted me to beat homosexuals?" The inevitable answer is "Because I wanted to beat homosexuals." No progress has been made, as we're still left to contend with an irrational hatred. Arguing against the existence of God misses the point in this situation, which also seems to be the most common one, given how little attention the Bible actually pays to homosexuality (speaking to ap urely American context, of course).
@mrwhoop: A quick googling reveals it's one of those "my side has this proof, it's a mistranslation!" while the other has "nuh uh! this proof says otherwise!" so n/m :p
Well, noone should really take the Bible as the word of God as it's gone though so many renditions and translations. Hebrew to Greek/Latin to Middle English to King James Version to *shudder* the newest edition which takes the poetic rhythm out. But then maybe it should be taken as the literal word as one person said to me "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me"
I hate the South so very, very much. The very marrow of my bones seethes in this Bible belt.
mrwhoop wrote:Well, noone should really take the Bible as the word of God as it's gone though so many renditions and translations. Hebrew to Greek/Latin to Middle English to King James Version to *shudder* the newest edition which takes the poetic rhythm out. But then maybe it should be taken as the literal word as one person said to me "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me"
I hate the South so very, very much. The very marrow of my bones seethes in this Bible belt.
*edited for grammar
I get the feeling that Mrwhoop is about 15 years old.
Also your notion that the "The Bible has been through so many renditions and translations" line is used over and over again, by the unstudied and uninformed. The fact of the matter is, while there are some minor transcriptions errors in the Bible(that do not effect any major orthodox doctrine), when you look at the 1,000's of manuscripts, it's quite remarkable how little was changed. Not to mention the minuscule differences(again no doctrine affected) between the dead sea scrolls and the modern Old Testament.(2,000 years between them)
When you have 300 texts say...'And he walked in the garden" and 2 say "Lo he walked in the garden" and 1 say. "He walked around in the garden". The Bible writers choose the majority text.( I.E the 300). That doesn't = "The Bible has been through so many renditions and translations". It just means that someone made a minor transcription error. Your implication is, that sweeping changes were made that make the Bible unreliable..which is patently false.
generalgrog wrote:When you have 300 texts say...'And he walked in the garden" and 2 say "Lo he walked in the garden" and 1 say. "He walked around in the garden". The Bible writers choose the majority text.( I.E the 300). That doesn't = "The Bible has been through so many renditions and translations". It just means that someone made a minor transcription error. Your implication is, that sweeping changes were made that make the Bible unreliable..which is patently false.
GG
The one to look out for is the one that says "And Lo, he wenteth to the Olvie Garden, for it was the season of the Unlimited Pasta Bowl*"
*limited time only, prices and participation may very.
General
some areas of the bible have widely different versions depending on what manuscript we're using. For instance the end of the gospel of mark. apparently in some of the oldest manuscripts Jesus doesnt rise from the dead. He just dies.
AF
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:
generalgrog wrote:When you have 300 texts say...'And he walked in the garden" and 2 say "Lo he walked in the garden" and 1 say. "He walked around in the garden". The Bible writers choose the majority text.( I.E the 300). That doesn't = "The Bible has been through so many renditions and translations". It just means that someone made a minor transcription error. Your implication is, that sweeping changes were made that make the Bible unreliable..which is patently false.
GG
The one to look out for is the one that says "And Lo, he wenteth to the Olvie Garden, for it was the season of the Unlimited Pasta Bowl*"
*limited time only, prices and participation may very.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:maybe. I just couldnt help but notice that societies with a secular set of values are nowhere on earth long lasting, stable societies. Nowhere at all. I think thats remarkable. It could be coincidence that none of these societies seems to last very long, but to me it suggests that there's something fundamentally unworkable about that set of values. Historical observation is the closest thing we have or can get to an experiment dealing with really large groups of people and really long time frames.
There are plenty of religious civilizations that were wiped out as well. Typically by other religious societies (See also, Aztecs, Mayans, Celts, etc) More than secular societies I would say. That certain attempts at secularism in the past weren't successful doesn't mean that it's a failed concept, especially considering the environment and lack of scientific/medical knowledge in the time. In the time we are talking about, the ability to band together (Even in the guise of us vs them) that religion fosters was more important.
Liektehbibel?
Woah. Did...did Albatross just use logic to disprove the Spaghetti Monster?
