Hmm, I know. Bit roasty toasty already, but bare with me.
As someone who considers himself pretty much atheist, I struggle to understand the point of Religion in the modern world. I get why people have Faith etc, but the organised, 'you are scum unless you do this that and the other' side of things confuses the hell out of me.
So, why do you follow the Religion you have chosen? Was there even a choice, or is it something your parents (trying to think of a neutral way to put this, so as not to stack things unfairly in the opening post) brought you up with (there, think I succeeded).
Have you ever considered other Religions? How do you regard other Religions? How do you regard other denominations, and have you ever considered converting to them? If so, why, or indeed why not? How much does your Religion genuinely affect your day to day life? Is it something you follow as much as you can, or more a 'handy when I need to make a difficult decision' type of thing?
Not looking to deride anyones beliefs, just explore your reasoning and motivations (hmm. Sorry about 'motivations' bit of a strong word, as it suggests an ulterior motive, but I just can't think of a better term right now, so please read it as a neutral word).
So, off you go. Please don't try to convert me, just see if you can help me understand!
I just posted this in the "Man, I hope he gets a boatload of cash from this..." thread:
tblock1984 wrote:I am a student of all religions, disciple of none.
I do fancy Odin (patron deity of Yule), but I don't worship him. Same with Christ and Hubbard's ideas.
I think they have very cool ideas that I keep in my philosophy, but that is all. Duality, the Life Wheel, dianetics and "do unto others" is good stuff.
I just don't like to be tied down by outdated rhetoric that is becoming more unattached from modern day life. Or contradictions in said rhetoric that are dismissed (or gasp! covered up.. *Cough* Oath of Vengeance *Cough*) to compensate for modern day life.
Just an personal opinion. I try to keep an open mind and play devil's advocate for all faiths. Sorry if I offend.
As a child, I was raised Mormon. At 16, I said WTF? Now, I am Neo-Pagan-Druid-Shaman-Buddhist with a dash of Scientology.
When you understand why you dismiss all other gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts
I was raised as a Rissho Kosei Kai Buddhist from my mom but in preschool I was sent to a Christian school. Then became a Christian during my teens in order to stop going to the frequent Buddhist meetings my mom dragged me along. To this day I still partake in some Buddhist activities just to make my mom happy.
After reading up on cultural anthropology and how basically nearly all human societies came up with religions for basically the same reasons (explain the unknown, control people, give people comfort, etc)....I later became agnostic. I also readily despise the obvious bias towards powerful men in much religious doctrines or when religion is used to prevent equality (gay rights).
There's no real evidence or compelling reason for me to devote my money and time towards organized religions and imo its very outdated especially when used to curtail scientific advancements or to belittle others. I also have enough labels to worry about rather than putting myself in another "Us versus Them" context that organized religions are based on.
I am a Asator and not really a "real" one I just think that since its not Christainity now, I know what your thinking no as a metal head I am not a Satanist in fact I view Satanism as a product of Christainity so I chose something unrelated to either!
Most people don't choose their religion, they are raised in the faith of their fathers whatever that may be, and either cleave to it or cleave from it when they reach maturity.
Others do convert, e.g. Malcolm X, Cat Stevens and Henry Winter (with whom I was at school.) These are probably the more spiritually minded people, see my next point:
Religion IMO arises from the various faculties of the human mind for abstract thought, curiousity, and related propensities which combine to create intelligence. Some people have a bit more of the spiritual component, and others have more of the concrete component.
I would disagree that religion or any other 'thing' needs to have a purpose to exist in the modern world. Surely if we believe in human progress, we aim to arrive at a situation like "The Dancers At The End Of Time" in which everyone can choose freely what they want to do.
All major religions promote what I might loosely call 'positive values' even if mixed with other attributes. I mean things like being kind and good, to generalise. These are also values which are promoted in humanism, chivalry, and 'socialism'.
Finally, while I am a confirmed C of E member, I am far from religious, my wife is Buddhist/Shinto, and neither of us are practising in our religions. Yet we both have a sense of good and bad (worthy and sinful) behaviour which I think is generally in line with socially accepted norms, and our daughter is a good, kind, well-behaved girl (so far...)
It just makes me feel good, sure the catholics have tortured people and led some crusades, but I still like being catholic. I like the symbolism, the saints, jesus, god, they just give me some good examples for my life and gives me hope for the world.
Kind of. But once upon a time, Religion was used to educate the masses, or at the very least explain the inexplicable (like bad harvest, infant mortality etc), as well as to provide a mutually beneficial moral compass for the community.
But now, we know why most things happen, and that being a knob to your neighbour just isn't cricket (as well as having a relatively universal definition of what being a knob to your neighbour entails). So my point of view is that Religion is less required these days, certainly in it's traditional role.
Also, not looking for anyone to excuse or apologise for action their Church of choice made in the past. That's largely got nothing to do with anyone still living, so there is no need for the guilt complex.
That's less to do with anything Religious, and more to do with the Police being relatively powerless. Nowt wrong with the average a Chav a good solid 80's style Police kicking couldn't sort out.
Religeon...hmmm. This could get real ugly real fast.
Religeon may quite simply be another form of expressing oneself. Some are charitable and help the sick and poor, others are TFG who rattle on about 'cleasing the heretic/infidel/unbeliever'. While these people reflect badly on thier religeon, it mostly stems from them, and not the religeon itself.
I am an atheist working in a Catholic school. Personally, I see no benefits that religion brings that could not arise anyway. In fact, some of the senior people in the school are more interested in the outward forms of their religion than they are in actual charitable behaviour towards their fellow man.
I was baptised CofE purely at the behest of my maternal grandmother. My father had no desire to impose religious values upon me (although he himself was raised Catholic). I was not raised in the faith at all. My father believed if I wanted to become religious, then when I was old enough, it would be my choice.
I do not practice any faith. I do not worship, and cannot understand WHY other people do. I am aware some people fear the unknown and seek answers that way. I don't fear the unknown - if I don't know what it is, how can I be afraid of it?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:As someone who considers himself pretty much atheist, I struggle to understand the point of Religion in the modern world. I get why people have Faith etc, but the organised, 'you are scum unless you do this that and the other' side of things confuses the hell out of me.
To honestly answer you, I'll have to make sure we're on the same page. When I use the term "religion" I refer to my personal beliefs. I strongly believe that everyone has their own mind and own way of thinking of things, so no matter how big a group of people is, nobody within them believes everything the same to the exact detail or in the same way. I don't think that's terribly unreasonable So as far as the more abrasive side, the one that tells you that you are anything less than perfect, I believe I am less than perfect "fallen" if you will) but that doesn't mean someone gets to lord that over me playing the religious ho to their pimp.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:So, why do you follow the Religion you have chosen? Was there even a choice, or is it something your parents (trying to think of a neutral way to put this, so as not to stack things unfairly in the opening post) brought you up with (there, think I succeeded).
I chose the religion (as defined above) by weighing out what worked and what didn't. I'd be lying if I said my upbringing didn't factor in (parents were both ministers, Christian private schooling). I'd also be lying if I said I didn't try as hard as possible to make anything else really work. Some ways I've lived my life were fun for a while but would just lead to me being depressed (both emotionally upset and medically depressed moreso). My next default if for some reason I stopped believing what I currently believe is Objectivism taken to the extreme. While more of a philosophy, it left me very satisfied in ways that I wasn't before.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Have you ever considered other Religions? How do you regard other Religions? How do you regard other denominations, and have you ever considered converting to them? If so, why, or indeed why not? How much does your Religion genuinely affect your day to day life? Is it something you follow as much as you can, or more a 'handy when I need to make a difficult decision' type of thing?
Yes, extensively. I was raised thinking that all Catholics were crazy-bad, baptists were bland and uncaring ritual followers, etc. I now see that everyone has their own personality and some people fit in better certain places. Minor differences don't bug me, and major difference bug me a whole lot less. It affects my day to day life in the sense that I have someone to talk to help make the tough decisions, someone to draw power from and it's where I draw the majority of my inner peace. I'm ridiculously analytical, and can deal with irrational fears and the like. The real fears (things like finances) are the ones I need that extra bit of peace to be able to deal with comfortably. I follow what I believe, but I don't subscribe to mainstream Christianity. I follow it as a personal relationship with God. I believe the Bible, but I also believe somethings could have been left out or altered based on who was translating at the time. I also use trial and error and personal experience to balance out what i believe in. It was not that long ago that I finally got peace about accepting homosexuality as a real life that people lead (it takes a lot to break through the programming). That's not to say I outright hate anyone (kinda defeats the purpose) or believe everyone should think exactly what I think (Holy Roman Empire much?), nor should law enforce anything but continued freedom (I'd rather someone choose what they want to believe as their choice, not as someone forcing them).
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Not looking to deride anyones beliefs, just explore your reasoning and motivations (hmm. Sorry about 'motivations' bit of a strong word, as it suggests an ulterior motive, but I just can't think of a better term right now, so please read it as a neutral word).
My reasoning and motivations are based mostly on personal experience, with much (not all) of what I was taught growing showing itself to be true throughout my life. Sort of a keep the good, discard the bad I guess. I draw a lot of personal strength form my beliefs and relationship with God, and anytime I ever bring it up with people is because it is a fitting moment, not to try and force it. I know what helps me lead a much happier and better life, and I know I can help other people do the same, even if it means they don't "convert" to what I believe (that would hardly be a "personal" relationship). A good example is my girlfriend who wasn't a "Christian" but has started praying recently and loves it. Will she ever be a "Christian?" I don't know nor do I care. Is she happier now that she's started praying? A hell of a lot more. She talks about it a lot and thanks me for not pressuring her into it, for letting her find it for herself. I'm hesitant to attend church to be honest, but I'd like a small group of similar-minded people to bounce my beliefs off of to keep me thinking and questioning myself.
I hope that helps you understand and answers your questions adequately Ask me if you have any more.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yet we both have a sense of good and bad (worthy and sinful) behaviour which I think is generally in line with socially accepted norms, and our daughter is a good, kind, well-behaved girl (so far...)
I have spiritual beliefs not really in any organsied form. I think however that without them, I would be a bastard, not because of fear of punishment, but becasue I wouldn't feel the same level of contentment and therfore take my frustration out on others..
Well, I think religion still answers questions that science can't. The purpose of man, the nature of morality, even things like the soul/body question and life after death. That's heavy stuff, and science is even more confused now than they were 500 years ago about that stuff.
For me, religion provided me with a way to think about spirituality, and to learn how to relate to the divine. I'm pretty sure there are studies about religious people being happier and more fulfilled.
Essentially, it helps a person relate to the world.
The spiritual element is something I forgot to mention. I believe I have a grasp on the way things work spiritually and consequently am able to influence them. Without beliefs, I wouldn't know anytihng about that.
Fifty wrote: The 'Theism' part of 'Atheism' refers more to a belief in that which is beyond rational explanation. Thus, atheism generally refers not only to belief in there being no God, but also a belief in there being no gods/divine universe.
That's incorrect. Theism is a very specific term which refers to the belief in God/god/s. Atheism is the lack of such a belief, and makes no further comment on one's faith in any other supernatural concepts.
Referring to oneself as an atheist while lacking any belief in the supernatural is simply an incomplete description.
No, it is not inaccurate at all. Literature on the roots of atheism, before it was even called such, discuss both what it does not and does not believe in. Atheism was a term coined for a set of ideas that had been established before the term itself. That one of the main focuses of this set of ideas was disbelief in god[s] led to the name focusing on that.
You are focusing on the semantic roots of a word rather than the ideological roots of a system of thought and ideas. Perhaps even a philosophy.
As I said elsewhere, Atheism is better defined by what it does than what it doesn't.
To be honest, because of situations exactly like this one, I do not like the term "Atheism". It is such a negative term and defines me what I am not intead of what I am.
I AM a logical person who values logical thinking, evidential-based enquiry and rational debate. I am NOT a person who believes in dogma, acceptance and faith in the supernatural.
You may also notice, from the way I phrase many things, that I do not even like the term "belief/believe", as it carries too many implications of a faith position rather than a logic position.
Polonius wrote:Well, I think religion still answers questions that science can't. The purpose of man, the nature of morality, even things like the soul/body question and life after death. That's heavy stuff, and science is even more confused now than they were 500 years ago about that stuff.
These are philosophical, not scientific questions.
Fifty wrote:You may also notice, from the way I phrase many things, that I do not even like the term "belief/believe", as it carries too many implications of a faith position rather than a logic position.
I like the word "Idea" better. I have a good idea.
(Still sour from the atheist vs. xmas topic...)
C'mon people, let's keep this one going! If someone steps on your toes, point it out in polite way. If that doesn't work, PM them. If that doesn't work, feth them. Hit ignore.
I want this thread to live very much. So do others. WE CAN DO IT!!!
Was I rude? I really wasn't directing any of what I wrote there at any one person. If you point out to me what I wrote that was personal or could be interpreted as such, I will re-write it.
Science does not preclude answers to those questions, it just does no supply them. I am happy that those questions can be answered within a framework that is consistent with a scientific standpoint without recourse to religion or the supernatural. I am very happy with any philosophical system of understanding that works within the empirical. This is why, for example, I am a fan of Buddhism (in its original form) without being a Buddhist myself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:
IntoTheRain wrote:It doesn't try to...
Because it knows it can't. Because science isn't made for answering those kind of questions.
Right?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fifty wrote:I am NOT a person who believes in dogma
Then why are you talking to him?
I don't believe in my dinner table either - I still eat my dinner from it!!!
Fifty wrote:
No, it is not inaccurate at all. Literature on the roots of atheism, before it was even called such, discuss both what it does not and does not believe in. Atheism was a term coined for a set of ideas that had been established before the term itself. That one of the main focuses of this set of ideas was disbelief in god[s] led to the name focusing on that.
The collective set of ideas is irrelevant. All of those thinkers you're referencing as the Atheists had atheism in common, but also possessed a number of other diverse, metaphysical beliefs. Nietzsche is a great example here; assuming you're willing to call him an atheist, not everyone is.
The uniting characteristic which is being referenced is the lack of belief in God/god/s, not the sum of each of their individual perspectives on metaphysics, rationalism, or any other philosophical position.
Compare the terms liberal, and Liberal. The Liberals were a group political thinkers grouped together due to their emphasis on individual freedom as described by the word liberty. They also held a number of other political beliefs, but those beliefs have no bearing on the meaning of the term liberal as that which is marked by open-mindedness.
Fifty wrote:
You are focusing on the semantic roots of a word rather than the ideological roots of a system of thought and ideas. Perhaps even a philosophy.
I'm focusing on the philosophical definition of the term. A good run down can be found here. I'm also acknowledging that many of the Atheists actually held beliefs which were demonstrably metaphysical in nature.
Fifty wrote:
As I said elsewhere, Atheism is better defined by what it does than what it doesn't.
So you're envision Atheism as something approaching a religion in the Buddhist, or Hindu tradition?
Fifty wrote:
To be honest, because of situations exactly like this one, I do not like the term "Atheism". It is such a negative term and defines me what I am not intead of what I am.
Yes, that's one of the great misunderstandings of the word. By technical fact anyone, or anything, that does not explicitly deal in the belief in God/god/s is an atheist.
Fifty wrote:
I AM a logical person who values logical thinking, evidential-based enquiry and rational debate. I am NOT a person who believes in dogma, acceptance and faith in the supernatural.
It sounds like you're a logical positivist with a stronger than average bend towards atheism.
Fifty wrote:
You may also notice, from the way I phrase many things, that I do not even like the term "belief/believe", as it carries too many implications of a faith position rather than a logic position.
That's fine, insofar as you aren't becoming confused with respect to what actually turns on belief, and what turns on logic. Many people fall into that trap very easily. On both sides of the debate.
Fifty wrote:Science does not preclude answers to those questions, it just does no supply them.
Well, it will never be able to supply them if the answers to those questions can never be tested.
I am happy that those questions can be answered within a framework that is consistent with a scientific standpoint without recourse to religion or the supernatural. I am very happy with any philosophical system of understanding that works within the empirical.
Fifty wrote:Was I rude? I really wasn't directing any of what I wrote there at any one person. If you point out to me what I wrote that was personal or could be interpreted as such, I will re-write it.
Not at all, sorry for that rant bleeding into my kudos to you. I was reciting a line from the movie "Dogma". Rufus the 13th apostle for FTW!
That rant that came after was my followup from the thread you quoted. Sorry for not being concise...
Kilkrazy wrote:If science can take a stab at the origin of the universe, finding Higgs Bosons and so on, I don't see why it couldn't tackle life after death.
Well, we already know a lot about how the brain works and how a person dies. And it takes a lot less investigation to find out a week-old corpse doesn't spontaneously reanimate.
In that sense, you could say that science has already "tackled" it to whatever degree it can be tackled with empirical testing. "Life after death" usually then goes into souls, and other planes of existence, and such. You can't really disprove the existence of those kind of things.
A lot of that depends on how we want to look at souls. Simply because the definition defines them as something which is incorporeal doesn't mean they actually must be as such. After all, we used to think the mind was something fully distinct from the body. A substance in itself. But that doesn't mean because we now see the mind as a series of electrical impulses flashing along neural pathways that what we're discussing isn't the mind. It simply means we were mistaken as to the mind's true nature, and likely still are.
I know this might be inflammatory, but has anyone else noticed that when it comes to Science V Religion, the onus is always on Science to come up with the proof/evidence, whilst the Religious view remains the default until disproven?
But what's the difference between a mind and a soul?
It seems like the usual difference is that the soul is incorporeal by definition; if it weren't incorporeal the word "mind" or "brain" would be used to describe it.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I know this might be inflammatory, but has anyone else noticed that when it comes to Science V Religion, the onus is always on Science to come up with the proof/evidence, whilst the Religious view remains the default until disproven?
Seems a tad unfair to my mind. Discuss.
Do you not understand anything about the differences between faith and empirical science? If you're expecting faith to provide proof, you're doing it wrong.
If religion had evidence, it wouldn't be religion. If science didn't have evidence, it wouldn't be science.
Kilkrazy wrote:If science can take a stab at the origin of the universe, finding Higgs Bosons and so on, I don't see why it couldn't tackle life after death.
Well, we already know a lot about how the brain works and how a person dies. And it takes a lot less investigation to find out a week-old corpse doesn't spontaneously reanimate.
In that sense, you could say that science has already "tackled" it to whatever degree it can be tackled with empirical testing. "Life after death" usually then goes into souls, and other planes of existence, and such. You can't really disprove the existence of those kind of things.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I know this might be inflammatory, but has anyone else noticed that when it comes to Science V Religion, the onus is always on Science to come up with the proof/evidence, whilst the Religious view remains the default until disproven?
Seems a tad unfair to my mind. Discuss.
I think: It is possible to know anything (not everything) in this universe, except for one thing. I choose to not give that thing a name. It is like saying "Well, I don't know your name, so I'm gonna call you Bob..."
I do refer to it as Pan sometimes though, from Ancient Greek πᾶν pan "entire". Therefore, I think pantheist is a better fit for me...
Wiki wrote:In Wicca, the (Pan) archetype of the Horned God is highly important, as represented by such deities as the Celtic Cernunnos, Indian Pashupati and Greek Pan.
I see all gods as the same single entity that is a collective conscience, similar to the concept of thetans before Incident 1 in Scientology. You may call it God, Allah, Satan, Joe Pesci, or Christopher Walken. We are always part of it, too. The only distinction is: do you have a physical body, or not. We are all drops of water in the water fall. One day, we will be returned to the river from whence we came.
All science has on it's side, is the emperical evidence that god does not exist (as I assume that is the debate)... and really though, having evidence that something does not exist, doesn't really add up to anything.
This is why magic tricks will continue to work, mainly because people are not necessarily there to have faith, (though that is one of the pillars of magic, and I am not talking about religion per se) more often than not, people partake for the inspiration. The sheer spectacle if you may.
Not all religions focus heavily on aesthetics, but in general, there is a long-running use of what some would consider propaganda (and many pieces in their own time, clearly were propaganda), mainly due to the fact that religion has always been so political on the whole of it.
In many ways, religion is the sole founder, of the concept of politics; and in many ways, religions played an extremely integral role, in the way we incorporate business and economics into our every day lives today.
Back to the OP though...
Religion is clearly not as integral to society, as it once was. I don't necessarily take this to mean that humans have changed all that much, or that we no longer "need" religion (I mean, I need a taco, but do I really need that taco? I have faith in this taco, to deliver itself unto me), just that, the huge assortment of experience available (indirectly for most cases, but clearly present) to the modern human; this is bound to lessen the amount of people to choose religion as their personal life "guide". I can find my experiences in rocks, just by staring at them... staring at them.... rocks and trees.
If you have hard time understanding your experience (however you would construct that box, as to rationally assume it is possible to actually do so in the first place), you are more likely to drift down a spiritually oriented path. Many people are turning to eastern religions, mainly for the change of aesthetic, an new set of guidelines if you will. If having a clear separation of what is and isn't right or wrong, or clear hazy backwards, and otherwise designated confusing; religion might be for you. If you can simply handle the fact that life really might be a totally inert experience, devoid of anything besides that which we directly (and even indirectly within a certain context) experience; agnosticism and iPods might be for you.
If you simply cannot stand the fact that your experience, is as ill-defined as you allow it to be; atheism might be for you.
tblock1984 wrote:I see all gods as the same single entity that is a collective conscience, similar to the concept of thetans before Incident 1 in Scientology.
Isn't that already part of Hinduism?
Wrexasaur wrote:All science has on it's side, is the emperical evidence that god does not exist (as I assume that is the debate)... and really though, having evidence that something does not exist, doesn't really add up to anything.
Is it evidence that god doesn't exist, or no evidence that god does exist?
Fifty wrote:
No, it is not inaccurate at all. Literature on the roots of atheism, before it was even called such, discuss both what it does not and does not believe in. Atheism was a term coined for a set of ideas that had been established before the term itself. That one of the main focuses of this set of ideas was disbelief in god[s] led to the name focusing on that.
The collective set of ideas is irrelevant. All of those thinkers you're referencing as the Atheists had atheism in common, but also possessed a number of other diverse, metaphysical beliefs. Nietzsche is a great example here; assuming you're willing to call him an atheist, not everyone is.
The uniting characteristic which is being referenced is the lack of belief in God/god/s, not the sum of each of their individual perspectives on metaphysics, rationalism, or any other philosophical position.
Compare the terms liberal, and Liberal. The Liberals were a group political thinkers grouped together due to their emphasis on individual freedom as described by the word liberty. They also held a number of other political beliefs, but those beliefs have no bearing on the meaning of the term liberal as that which is marked by open-mindedness.
Fifty wrote:
You are focusing on the semantic roots of a word rather than the ideological roots of a system of thought and ideas. Perhaps even a philosophy.
I'm focusing on the philosophical definition of the term. A good run down can be found here. I'm also acknowledging that many of the Atheists actually held beliefs which were demonstrably metaphysical in nature.
I think the problem we have here is that the term "Atheist" was not even used until the late 18th Century. If you contend that there was no such thing as Atheism or Atheists until then, you are correct in what you are saying. I view it that there were Atheists before that date who never referred to themselves, nor were referred to by their contemporaries as Atheists. Those earlier thinkers were unified more by a belief in how to think more than a belief in what not to think.
I think we could, for the purposes of a more meaningful conversation, agree to disagree on how to use the word "Atheist" and refer to Rationalists a preferred term for "my" kind of Atheist and an "A-theist" or "Unbeliever" for your kind of Atheist.
As I say though, I do not like the term Atheist anyway, and don't really like to call myself or be called one, so I'll even concede the term to you and use your definition for this thread, whilst retaining my own definition for use in my own thoughts.
Sadly, no-one has ever come up with a term I really like in order to better describe what I am. Rationalist is okay, but I don't lke it. Humanism also seems to come with a whole heap of baggage I do not like to have attached to my values, ideas and, okay, beliefs.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There is no empirical evidence I am aware that God does not exist.
Science does not disprove God, as far as I am concerned. That does not make me believe in him though, any more than it makes me follow any other religious belief system.
Religion gave me hope and lifted me out of my depression. It gives me moral guidance and a community that doesn't judge me. I used to be a hardcore atheist, but my life has become a lot better since becoming religious.
That said, I'm no zealot and I think that any of the religions could be right or wrong. I find homosexuals an awkward topic because I think it's abberant behavior, but I tolerate them.
We should probably kill the thread quietly before someone comes in with a 'lol sky fairy' argument.
Fifty wrote:There is no empirical evidence I am aware that God does not exist.
Science does not disprove God, as far as I am concerned. That does not make me believe in him though, any more than it makes me follow any other religious belief system.
The number zero is not a number? As far as I am concerned, zero is just as statistically relevant, as a billion is, or a trillion... bananas, hats, shoes, fishnet stockings... woah... that just got kinky.
tblock1984 wrote:I see all gods as the same single entity that is a collective conscience, similar to the concept of thetans before Incident 1 in Scientology.
Isn't that already part of Hinduism?
Yes. But, I think you misinterpret my idea of Pan. It's not you, it's me.... Unfortunately, I can't think of a better analogy.
Oh well, I am not here to hammer my philosophy into anyone's head, just share it.
To begin with,I'm not religious,nor do I belive in any particular god,that being said...
The only answer I can honestly come up with to MDG's original question is this.
The point that religion serves in the modern world is simply to offer comfort and guidence to those who make the choice to have faith in it.
It answers questions (weather correctly or not) for them concerning morality,society and "what happens when you die."
The fact that I disagree with the basic tenents of religion does not minamilize it's impact and purpose for those who have faith.
We are all, in one way or another.searching for answers to the same questions...for those with religious faith,much of that "search" has ended.
Did you know that that's what philosophy does? If science doesn't try to answer philosophical questions and philosophy doesn't try to answer scientific questions, then they should both go out and have a child that solves both scientific AND philosophical questions. They should call it Philoscience or Sciphilosophy.
Cheese Elemental wrote:Religion gave me hope and lifted me out of my depression. It gives me moral guidance and a community that doesn't judge me. I used to be a hardcore atheist, but my life has become a lot better since becoming religious.
That said, I'm no zealot and I think that any of the religions could be right or wrong. I find homosexuals an awkward topic because I think it's abberant behavior, but I tolerate them.
We should probably kill the thread quietly before someone comes in with a 'lol sky fairy' argument.
That doesn't make religion true, it just makes it nice. And even the "nice" part is subjective, as I know plenty of people whom religion has made miserable, including a girl whose childhood was ruined by her Jehovas Witness upbringing, a guy whose Islamic upbringing made him hate himself, a couple of Catholics with very very mixed feelings about their religion vs their sexuality (gay) and more...
I am happy for you if religion provided those things, but I would question whether it was faith, doctrine or community that provided it, and whether it has really solved the problems you had, or just removed the need to solve them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrexasaur wrote:
Fifty wrote:There is no empirical evidence I am aware that God does not exist.
Science does not disprove God, as far as I am concerned. That does not make me believe in him though, any more than it makes me follow any other religious belief system.
The number zero is not a number? As far as I am concerned, zero is just as statistically relevant, as a billion is, or a trillion... bananas, hats, shoes, fishnet stockings... woah... that just got kinky.
I can't see the connection you are trying to make here?
That you can prove the absence of numbers, and zero is an absence of numbers, so you must be able to prove the absence of God too?
Bu zero is NOT an absence of numbers. It IS a number that measures an absence of things.
So, in that case, are you saying that you can prove there are zero Gods? How?
That's a big issue. My church doesn't preach anti-gay and in fact we have support groups for people who were beaten up because they were gay.
It all depends on the church and diocese its in. A diocese in Virginia and a diocese in California may have totally different beliefs about society despite them both being Roman Catholic.
Fifty wrote:I can't see the connection you are trying to make here?
That you can prove the absence of numbers, and zero is an absence of numbers, so you must be able to prove the absence of God too?
Bu zero is NOT an absence of numbers. It IS a number that measures an absence of things.
So, in that case, are you saying that you can prove there are zero Gods? How?
I have met zero gods, and pretty much all of the miracles in various texts, are literally impossible. You can interpret a natural event as the cause for such an interpretation, but the lack of proof is still there. And yes, by many definitions, zero is still a number; even if the lack of being a number, in the context of other existing numbers, is all that makes it one.
In a base ten system, zero is merely representative of the possibility for a non-number (zero), to "artificially" represent a set of numbers. The presence of possibility, denotes our ability to comprehend that which is undefinable. Even though natives seeing ships on the horizon, may have interpreted the ships as one thing, they were still using a zero construct; in order to denote that which they did not understand fully. IN essence, this leads us to a conclusion, along the lines of "god IS zero", or something like that. I can comprehend what this could mean, but as I said, the only difference between knowing, and not knowing, is how much you did not know in the first place.
I already stated that this is a silly argument, and I am not trying to disprove the existence of god, just merely pointing out that we have no confirmation of god even existing.
I summarize all of this in a very simple concept, which I consider to be basically minimalism
Why is it so easy for me to experience this landscape? How can my mind fabricate an experience, based on nothing but the lack of space. Is there more too it than the lack of space? Does the presence of space actually compose the ideal of this experience.
Yes, but lack of proof does nor prove lack of existence. 200 years ago we had no proof that electrons exist, but it did not mean they didn't. Infact, a lot of scientific progress (especially in particle physics) is based on conjecture leading to testing and thereby finding (or not) proof.
I agree with you 100% on one thing though - there is NO proof (or even reliable evidence) of God existing.
Ironically, if someone could prove that God exists, then believing in him would become like believing in dinner tables of hat stands - once you have proof, faith would become meaningless anyway, in addition to merely wrong.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:What is the point of Religion in the modern world?
Social control. The same reasons for religion since way back when. I'm not trolling. This is essentially what I believe the purpose of organized religion is.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:So, why do you follow the Religion you have chosen?
I was raised Catholic. I am no longer Catholic or any other organized religion. I am agnostic but this could be phantom feelings left over from my Catholic upbringing.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Have you ever considered other Religions?
When I was younger and disillusioned with the Catholic Church. None of them had any answers for me.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:How do you regard other Religions?
I am actually a BIG believer in the idea of, "if it works for you, go for it!" If it improves your life, great! I have no issues with believers of any faith, philosophy or idea until they impose those beliefs onto others. For me this is true of Christians, Muslims or whatever.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:How do you regard other denominations, and have you ever considered converting to them?
Oh, I can't say I don't enjoy trying to tear down the occasional enthusiastic Christian (Flying Spaghetti Monster anyone?). But I really try to fight that urge as I get older because I know it is a base desire.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:If so, why, or indeed why not? How much does your Religion genuinely affect your day to day life? Is it something you follow as much as you can, or more a 'handy when I need to make a difficult decision' type of thing?
Oh! When life gives me lemons I become a hard core Catholic all over again! It is allowed, after all! Just joking. This doesn't really apply to me.
I will be putting Pastafarian on my next census form.
Not because I actually believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but because I believe in the value of mockery as a weapon in the fight against idiocy/creationism. In the face of such blind stupidity as creationism, how can any rational person not resort to mockery to preserve their sanity?
I will be putting Pastafarian on my next census form.
Not because I actually believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but because I believe in the value of mockery as a weapon in the fight against idiocy/creationism. In the face of such blind stupidity as creationism, how can any rational person not resort to mockery to preserve their sanity?
My friend started his own religion called P.A.G.A.N. = People Against Goodness And Normalcy, I am a member, does that count?
Cheese Elemental wrote:Religion gave me hope and lifted me out of my depression. It gives me moral guidance and a community that doesn't judge me. I used to be a hardcore atheist, but my life has become a lot better since becoming religious.
Consider yourself fortunate, because the reverse was true for me. Christianity and its various inconsistencies, hypocrisies, and the people who gloried in them undermined my belief in a moral society, created an environment where you were constantly judged, and drove me to the edge of self-destruction. It was only once I got away from that toxic environment that I began to feel like a worthwhile human being and began to move away from that precipice.
I will be putting Pastafarian on my next census form.
Not because I actually believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but because I believe in the value of mockery as a weapon in the fight against idiocy/creationism. In the face of such blind stupidity as creationism, how can any rational person not resort to mockery to preserve their sanity?
What a nice, blanket attack on anyone who is religious who believes in the idea of creation.
Perhaps I should say that people who believe in the Big Bang theory are stupidly blind. See, I can troll too (in fact I get accused of it daily so I must be doing it right).
I think this thread needs a lock. It's just gonna get ugly.
Fifty wrote:Yes, but lack of proof does nor prove lack of existence.
Of course not, but it can lead to the rational assumption that the possibility is moot (and/or null and void), at least by our common understanding.
200 years ago we had no proof that electrons exist, but it did not mean they didn't. Infact, a lot of scientific progress (especially in particle physics) is based on conjecture leading to testing and thereby finding (or not) proof.
If you can equate something like electrons (which can be studied directly) to an amorphous figure, that seemingly occupies only the mind of humans; I am pretty sure I could dig what you were saying. The problem is just that though, I cannot logically connect electrons, to the form and existence of god; by any stretch of my logical mind.
Fifty wrote:
I think the problem we have here is that the term "Atheist" was not even used until the late 18th Century.
The term 'atheism' (atheisme) originated in 16th century France as a pejorative. The etymological root of the word, the Greek 'atheos', had a meaning almost directly comparable to that of the modern 'atheism'; with the only difference being one of possession vs. belief ('without god' vs. 'lacks a belief in god').
Fifty wrote:
If you contend that there was no such thing as Atheism or Atheists until then, you are correct in what you are saying. I view it that there were Atheists before that date who never referred to themselves, nor were referred to by their contemporaries as Atheists. Those earlier thinkers were unified more by a belief in how to think more than a belief in what not to think.
In that case you also have to lump a number of theistic thinkers into the classification of 'Atheist'; including Spinoza, Voltaire, Kant, James, and several others.
But, moving on: you're envisioning God/god/s as a sort of metaphor for inflexible thinking?
Example: Someone who clings to his belief in phlogiston is as guilty of a belief in God as someone who continues to believe in the inferiority of women due to a particular reading of the Koran.
Fifty wrote:
I think we could, for the purposes of a more meaningful conversation, agree to disagree on how to use the word "Atheist" and refer to Rationalists a preferred term for "my" kind of Atheist and an "A-theist" or "Unbeliever" for your kind of Atheist.
As I say though, I do not like the term Atheist anyway, and don't really like to call myself or be called one, so I'll even concede the term to you and use your definition for this thread, whilst retaining my own definition for use in my own thoughts.
I doubt there's much else that we would disagree on. There's a fair amount of rationalism in my own thinking. The one thing I might posit that you probably won't like is the necessity of belief. That is, given certain circumstances, belief is likely to be a prerequisite for progress as a person/group.
A non-theistic example: I believe that if I work hard, I'll be rewarded. I don't like working hard, but I so like being rewarded. So I work hard, because I believe it will lead to reward. Of course, I don't know it will lead to reward. There's no guarantee of anything a priori to the desired eventuality, so my the entire operation turns on my belief in what will transpire.
Taking this into theistic territory: Inevitably, any significant endeavor will involve a stubborn insistence on the pursuit of that which is seemly unattainable. As you've said, much of science is predicated on utilizing patient observation as a means of fact-checking any given theory. While that sound relatively simple on paper, any good scientist will tell you that it isn't quite so elementary as advertised. Long hours in a lab suck, for lack of a better word; especially when those long hours can effectively terminate a career should they prove your theory wrong. Something is required to keep a person motivated in the course of such an endeavor, and for a lot of people that something is God/gos/s. For just as many others its Science, where the word references more than the process itself. In any case, its an abstract concept that provides emotional comfort in times which are difficult for reason or another.
Cheese Elemental wrote:Religion gave me hope and lifted me out of my depression. It gives me moral guidance and a community that doesn't judge me. I used to be a hardcore atheist, but my life has become a lot better since becoming religious.
Consider yourself fortunate, because the reverse was true for me. Christianity and its various inconsistencies, hypocrisies, and the people who gloried in them undermined my belief in a moral society, created an environment where you were constantly judged, and drove me to the edge of self-destruction. It was only once I got away from that toxic environment that I began to feel like a worthwhile human being and began to move away from that precipice.
THIS!!! 1000x (meaning, I can totally relate with every fiber of my being)
I will be putting Pastafarian on my next census form.
Not because I actually believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but because I believe in the value of mockery as a weapon in the fight against idiocy/creationism. In the face of such blind stupidity as creationism, how can any rational person not resort to mockery to preserve their sanity?
What a nice, blanket attack on anyone who is religious who believes in the idea of creation.
Perhaps I should say that people who believe in the Big Bang theory are stupidly blind. See, I can troll too (in fact I get accused of it daily so I must be doing it right).
I think this thread needs a lock. It's just gonna get ugly.
I think it is doing good. It only gets ugly if we let it.
Let it out people! Confusion, frustration, betrayal... Lets get to know each other better, and understand the faith of others better. Just remember to play nice, and let's not accuse people of trolling. Ask if that was their intention. If things heat up, TAKE IT OUTSIDE!!! PM if you want to continue 1 on 1.
WE ARE BIG KIDS, DAMMIT!!! Let's act that way. I want more knowledge, more understanding. Share, don't be stingy! Input, inpuuuuut. Om nom nom...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Please, take this with a grain of salt. It is a role reversal exersize that was made by an atheist. I have been on both sides of it, Christian (Well, Mormon) as well as atheist. Don't be outraged, just listen to the point he is trying to make. His outlook is why I am sometimes cynical of certain Christians... Not all, just the archetype he portrays. The "I'm right, you are wrong" concept,
I'm surprised no one has bitched about my new Sig yet.
I just find it offensive someone would call me stupid for believing in creation. The Big Bang sounds as far out of left field to me as some diety just creating something out of nothing sounds to someone not being religious.
I believe in God, I'm Christian and while I may not see everything as accurate in the Bible I still hold onto my belief in God. For me, sometimes pulling out the Bible or going to church makes me feel a lot better about myself. I imagine it's akin to non-religious people doing whatever it is that they do to find inner peace.
I think that is why religion exists in the modern world. For some, having faith in someone of a higher form on a different plane of existence that they believe will bring them comfort should be reason enough for that person to believe what they believe in.
It is the same reason people smoke or get high or down mass quantities of alcohol. It makes them feel better. I don't judge potheads or alcoholics or smokers on why they do what they do to relieve stress. I don't agree with it as being suitable only for health reasons (and no, don't berate me on weed being harmless because it's not).
If I can respect a stoners decision to live life not actually being mentally part of the world around him due to lowered brain activity, than why can't people respect those who worship or believe or have faith in a diety that is neither physical or of this plane of existence?
I can't fathom how being stoned daily or drunk daily can make life better, just like non-believers can't fathom how believing in something/someone that isn't a form made physical can make life better for believers.
That is because: A) I am not offended. That is your opinion, I can dig that. B) I am a true American, based on those three at the bottom. C) I am happy we can have a conversation about something without the two of us calling each other trolls, like the night before last.
I'm an agnostic, though on balance, I'd prefer it if there was no sentient higher power. I find the idea of a God who can think on anything approaching a human level and who has any sort of power/responsibility in the universe really depressing.
I have absolutely no problem with religious people.
I have a problem with fanatical or rude people though, be they atheist or religious.
I think, from my discussions with a lot of different people, that believing in a higher power brings a lot of comfort and peace of mind to people. Sometimes I envy that, as I'm often grumpy and discontented. Certain studies have shown that people with faith tend to live happier and longer lives than atheists. So I never try to argue someone out of their faith- I assume they would find is as offensive as I find someone trying to convert me to their religion.
I value doubt a lot, and for that reason agnosticism seems to fit me. If I had kids, I'd happily let my partner raise them in whatever faith she wanted though, and possibly attend religious services if they wanted me to. I also go to funerals and weddings, because they have an important social function, and I go to Mass at christmas, because it makes my mother happy. The social function of religion can be really valuable.
I dunno about you but I relate fine to
THE DIVINE
At least better than to Lady Gaga
and whatever it was that ate her.
having started off like Wrex, lets go for the hat trick:
I am pretty convinced that religion doesn't have a point. Its like a huge institutional Cargo Cult that has too much inertia to fail. Folks don't want to look at the possibility that they were completely wrong that all their ritual and supplicaton hasn't provided any real impact, so they induct their children to help justify that their position was right.
If a person were to present a text as contradictory as most religious text in anything but a religious light the book would be discredited solely on being self referential. Never mind the appeal to consequences inherent in its teachings. Yet when one questions these books they suddenly are burdened with proof. As much as I'd like one to be verifyably right Christianity is just as right/wrong as Scientology at the moment. Would the person with superpowers please stand up...and demonstrate?
I'm impressed that Religion keeps coming up though. Its like we all want to talk about it yet, being the internet, everyone wants to be right too much to let go enough for a good discussion.
Edit: and I keep reading that sentence wondering if I've actually been vaguely nice to the Space Clam Movement Hubbard built....
Being called a troll doesn't bother me much so long as the one calling me a troll takes time to read my posts.
I feel like Gwar at times. I have stepped on peoples shoes but not to the point I've gotten mod warnings so I must not be THAT bad but I think in every thread I post I get called a troll and I think half the name callers just do it as soon as they see I have posted without so much as reading what I post. I've seen it happen to Gwar in YMDC.
I follow the 3rd rule of being an American to the "t". If I say something about my country, either positive or negative, I really don't give a damn if it offends someone or not. First Amendment. Only pansies are afraid to speak their mind out of fear of offending someone.
I'm not all bad tblock. I have no problem with other religions or even people who don't believe. I'm not a zealot. I don't push the Lutheran denomination of Christianity on other people. If you want to believe in Allah or Jehovah or "Bob the repair man" that is your choice in life. I also like to learn about other religions in my spare time. Right now I've been reading the Scientology books by L.R Hubbard and a lot of what the books say about life make sense, even to a Christian like me. I think Scientology gets a bad rap due to the zealots that exist and the fact that a lot of people hate Hollywood (I'm not gonna just pick on T. Cruise as he isn't the only celeb to embrace it) and see Scientology as non-sense because many people don't take Hollywood seriously.
Not saying Scientology is right or wrong but to me it makes sense. Maybe the books don't reveal everything but then again, going to church doesn't make me Christian. It's my belief in the Christian Bible that makes me Christian.
(It also helped the other night when I took a step away from Dakka, checked out Warseer and then played some WoW. That mellowed me quite a bit).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FITZZ wrote: You forgot D. a pro gun stance in Fateweavers post is about as surprising as an " I love zombie movies " rant in one of my post...
Damn right!! Don't like it my guns would like to have a word with you.
I'm only being joking Fitzz. If the sig allowed more stuff I'd put up the other 12 "You might be an American" pronouncements.
Oldgrue wrote:I'm impressed that Religion keeps coming up though. Its like we all want to talk about it yet, being the internet, everyone wants to be right too much to let go enough for a good discussion.
I am not surprised. We all do want to talk about it. I want to talk about it. With reasonable people with unique points of view.
That is why I am trying to be an amateur MOD for this thread. I think we can talk about it without falling into the trap you pointed out.
Fateweaver:I found some of your opinions so shockingly different to what I know as normal that I thought you were a troll. I asked if you were one, because to be honest I couldn't understand your point of view or relate to it, really at all. Also, I was in a snarky mood. And I think patriotism is generally a very bad thing. I do read your posts though, generally the only ones I skip are the ones where there is a quoted bit of text, a rebuttal, then another quoted bit of text, then another rebuttal, ad nauseum. I just can't be arsed reading something with so little flow and coherance.
Dakka is WAAAY more conservative than anywhere else I've posted. In a lot of ways, I like that. It's good to be exposed to other ways of thinking, even if they wind you up and annoy you.
Fateweaver wrote:I really don't give a damn if it offends someone or not. First Amendment. Only pansies are afraid to speak their mind out of fear of offending someone.
I'm not all bad tblock. I have no problem with other religions or even people who don't believe. I'm not a zealot. I don't push the Lutheran denomination of Christianity on other people. If you want to believe in Allah or Jehovah or "Bob the repair man" that is your choice in life. I also like to learn about other religions in my spare time. Right now I've been reading the Scientology books by L.R Hubbard and a lot of what the books say about life make sense, even to a Christian like me. I think Scientology gets a bad rap due to the zealots that exist and the fact that a lot of people hate Hollywood (I'm not gonna just pick on T. Cruise as he isn't the only celeb to embrace it) and see Scientology as non-sense because many people don't take Hollywood seriously.
I am not saying you are bad. In the Obama thread I called you a troll, then you called me a troll for calling you a troll. I didn't mean to offend you by saying that. That is why I now say "Ask first", because we will offend people on the intarwebz. It is a fact. Read any youtube comments lately? At least Dakka isn't like that.
I just want this thread to be a safe place on the net where smart people can discuss smart things in a smart manner. I didn't mean to single you out, I was apologizing, really. I guess I should just say it: Sorry Fate.
I am just very annoyed that everyone here seems to dislike pity posts. I don't like them either, but because troll gets tossed around here more than the "N"-bomb is repeated in Oakland. We all think that we are entitled to our opinion, and that is true. But not at the cost of others... Wow, I am getting pretty preachy...
FITZZ wrote: You forgot D. a pro gun stance in Fateweavers post is about as surprising as an " I love zombie movies " rant in one of my post...
Damn right!! Don't like it my guns would like to have a word with you.
I'm only being joking Fitzz. If the sig allowed more stuff I'd put up the other 12 "You might be an American" pronouncements.
It's cool Fateweaver,I happen to strongly agree with you concerning the rights of citizens to own firearms,in fact you might say the little arsenal I own is where I put my "faith".
Now back to the religious discussion.....
It's all good. I value peoples opinions but I can't be arsed to care about what people who I will most likely never meet in real life care about me.
Sometimes having faith in Smith&Wesson or Taurus is not such a bad thing.
Apology accepted tblock and I'm sorry for coming off like a troll. I get really impassioned about things that offend me or piss me off (for sure check me out in any gun thread..lol) and sometimes I might go overboard. Just know that when someone offends me I for sure don't give a damn if I offend them back. You offend me, it's on like donkey kong.
Fateweaver wrote:
Not saying Scientology is right or wrong but to me it makes sense. Maybe the books don't reveal everything but then again, going to church doesn't make me Christian. It's my belief in the Christian Bible that makes me Christian.
Have you ever seen an e-meter? Or the claims that tomatoes can scream? Least of all the entheta filter for computers. Or maybe that the genetic history of man included Clams, Process R2-45, to name a few.
I'm just waiting to be declared suppressive though. Or a heretic....depends on if they're a church or not.
edit:no need for terrible grammar...except this is the internet. Fixed some.
Fateweaver wrote:
Not saying Scientology is right or wrong but to me it makes sense. Maybe the books don't reveal everything but then again, going to church doesn't make me Christian. It's my belief in the Christian Bible that makes me Christian.
Have you ever seen an e-meter? Or the claims that tomatoes can scream? Least of all the entheta filter for computers. Or maybe that the genetic history of man included Clams, Process R2-45, to name a few.
Fateweaver wrote:
Not saying Scientology is right or wrong but to me it makes sense. Maybe the books don't reveal everything but then again, going to church doesn't make me Christian. It's my belief in the Christ that makes me Christian.
Golden Eyed Scout wrote:Provide meaning for life and answer the unanswerable.
Does it really *need* meaning?
Hey if it makes *you* happy go for it (so long as all other participants are consenting) but not everything need meaning.
Oldgrue wrote:Does it really *need* meaning?
Hey if it makes *you* happy go for it (so long as all other participants are consenting) but not everything need meaning.
Everything inherently strives to be contextually awesome though... goddamn I am in love with these things already.
Being an Atheist to me means accepting there is no meaning to life. We simply are. How we got here, where we're going, where we'll end up are all just chance. Humanity, the greatest example we know of the sheer jamminess of the cosmos.
Thankfully, being a migratory and inquisitive species, we'll soon be out among the stars poking and mucking around, and I think the world will be better for it. Space Exploration gives us a chance to cross over Religious and Geographical boundaries, and act as a single species.
Posting from iPod, please forgive the typos. I think the second the universe was created, there was an entity that was woven into the very fabric of the universe. I refer to it as Pan. It is a curious entity, with its conscience drifting through time and space, testing the limits of matter and energy. Like a scientist perfoming an experiment, it is trying to create the perfect instance of, for lack of a better term, 42. It is not perfect, and some of the things it does things we can't understand.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I know this might be inflammatory, but has anyone else noticed that when it comes to Science V Religion, the onus is always on Science to come up with the proof/evidence, whilst the Religious view remains the default until disproven?
Seems a tad unfair to my mind. Discuss.
Do you not understand anything about the differences between faith and empirical science? If you're expecting faith to provide proof, you're doing it wrong.
If religion had evidence, it wouldn't be religion. If science didn't have evidence, it wouldn't be science.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Being an Atheist to me means accepting there is no meaning to life. We simply are. How we got here, where we're going, where we'll end up are all just chance. Humanity, the greatest example we know of the sheer jamminess of the cosmos
Being an atheist absolutely does not mean life is without meaning. I find it upsetting (not offensive, but distressing) that people can be so defeatist about a world not created by God. And it is not just religious people who think life only has meaning if it comes from God - even lots of atheists say it.
If there is no Creator, it just means that we have to imbue life with meaning ourselves instead of having someone else do it for us. Unlike most of the children I work with and most of my colleagues, I do not believe in God, yet there is no less value/meaning to what I do to help them than what the believers in my school do. The card I got last week from an ex-student thanking me for saving him from a life of gang-crime in East London holds no less meaning for me - in fact, it holds more. I value his thanks as highly as I could possibly value the attention of any deity. That card came at a good time for me, when I'd not had anything like it for a while, and it reminded me why I do what I do. There is 100% plenty of meaning in an atheist life, and in atheist philosophies. Seeing a kid who can barely read and write explain to his friend who is videoing exactly how a heart functions, while he sticks fingers through ventricles and atrea, watching the face of a girl who suddenly "gets" decimals, pupils remembering to thank you for the trip you organised, seeing pupils collect their exam results (in fact, you could, if interested, watch some of my pupils collecting theirs - that teacher is one my colleagues, by the way, not me - I avoided the camera and am only in it briefly), realising who the next pupil you can try to help is...
Just because something started by chance (or, arguably, inevitability), it does not mean it cannot acquire meaning.
I'm not sure if Humanism is different to Atheism however it is a philosophy or moral code which gives meaning to life without the need for worship of a deity.
I will be putting Pastafarian on my next census form.
Not because I actually believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but because I believe in the value of mockery as a weapon in the fight against idiocy/creationism. In the face of such blind stupidity as creationism, how can any rational person not resort to mockery to preserve their sanity?
What a nice, blanket attack on anyone who is religious who believes in the idea of creation.
Perhaps I should say that people who believe in the Big Bang theory are stupidly blind. See, I can troll too (in fact I get accused of it daily so I must be doing it right).
I think this thread needs a lock. It's just gonna get ugly.
Well, supposedly there are non-religous people who believe in something called "intelligent design". I think they are foolish to believe that too. It is not a religious thing, it is an ID/Creationism thing. I am one of those rare people who reads works from people with viewpoints I disagree with. I find it easy and interesting to read science books I agree with, but I also like to pick apart books that challenge my own ideas like Darwin's Black Box and Non-zero to prove I'll at least listen, even if I do not accept what is being said. Now, I am willing to concede the point that God may exist as I have no evidence to disprove it. I don't think he does exist, but I am willing to admit I may be wrong. On the other hand, the mountains of evidence for evolution compared to the claims I have seen to try and support Creationism seem a different case. (And Creationism is not helped by the number of people who create fake, easily disprovable evidence, to support it). A few inexplicable cases that are often no better explained by Creationism than they are by Evolution do not make a case.
Fateweaver, you and I are on the same page when it comes to how we express are opinions on the 'web. I don't know you, so I am not going to sugarcoat how I say things the way I do in the real world.
I also find it interesting that you say you believe in a book, rather than a God. Do you believe the book, or believe in it? I suspect the former, but it is an interesting point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrexasaur wrote:If you can equate something like electrons (which can be studied directly) to an amorphous figure, that seemingly occupies only the mind of humans; I am pretty sure I could dig what you were saying. The problem is just that though, I cannot logically connect electrons, to the form and existence of god; by any stretch of my logical mind.
But 200 years ago, electrons would have seemed equally crazy to the common man. Everything around us is mostly empty space? Most people cannot cope with the idea of wave-particle duality, and yet, it does not make it wrong.
@Killkrazy - Humanism has too many ideas I dislike. I am almost as reluctant to sign up for Humanism as I am for religions. If I was going to go down any road, I think I'd go for some philosophical branch of Buddhism (I'd have to avoid some of the ones that started going down more metaphysical branches).
Fifty: I politely ask that you NOT call Creationism 'idiocy'. That's insulting religion, something not permitted on this forum. This is why we can't have threads about religion; they ultimately devolve into trolling, shitstorms, and people forgetting Rule #1.
Fifty wrote:
I think the problem we have here is that the term "Atheist" was not even used until the late 18th Century.
The term 'atheism' (atheisme) originated in 16th century France as a pejorative. The etymological root of the word, the Greek 'atheos', had a meaning almost directly comparable to that of the modern 'atheism'; with the only difference being one of possession vs. belief ('without god' vs. 'lacks a belief in god').
But, in the context we are using it here, talking about belief systems, it was not used in this way until the late 18th Century.
Fifty wrote:
If you contend that there was no such thing as Atheism or Atheists until then, you are correct in what you are saying. I view it that there were Atheists before that date who never referred to themselves, nor were referred to by their contemporaries as Atheists. Those earlier thinkers were unified more by a belief in how to think more than a belief in what not to think.
In that case you also have to lump a number of theistic thinkers into the classification of 'Atheist'; including Spinoza, Voltaire, Kant, James, and several others.
But, moving on: you're envisioning God/god/s as a sort of metaphor for inflexible thinking?
Example: Someone who clings to his belief in phlogiston is as guilty of a belief in God as someone who continues to believe in the inferiority of women due to a particular reading of the Koran.
I'd even go back as far as some thinkers in Ancient Greece, who, though they never called themselves atheists, held to a world-view that rejected myth and held to principles of logical deduction and evidence-based enquiry (flawed though their methods may have been). I wouldn't like to say who are and are not atheists by ticking down a list, but it is worth remembering the influence the Church had in making people avoid saying certain things about the way the world worked. But yes, there are genuine theists who took a rational approach to philosophical questions. In the context they were living, it may have been almost irrational to do otherwise at times.
I don't think I see God and a metaphor for inflexible thinking, but maybe as an example of it. Someone who believes in phlogiston would be... odd. If they believed in phlogiston against the evidence because of some book some guy once wrote 250 years ago that has since been superceded, I am not quite sure if I would call them religious or a crazy-person.
Fifty wrote:
I think we could, for the purposes of a more meaningful conversation, agree to disagree on how to use the word "Atheist" and refer to Rationalists a preferred term for "my" kind of Atheist and an "A-theist" or "Unbeliever" for your kind of Atheist.
As I say though, I do not like the term Atheist anyway, and don't really like to call myself or be called one, so I'll even concede the term to you and use your definition for this thread, whilst retaining my own definition for use in my own thoughts.
I doubt there's much else that we would disagree on. There's a fair amount of rationalism in my own thinking. The one thing I might posit that you probably won't like is the necessity of belief. That is, given certain circumstances, belief is likely to be a prerequisite for progress as a person/group.
A non-theistic example: I believe that if I work hard, I'll be rewarded. I don't like working hard, but I so like being rewarded. So I work hard, because I believe it will lead to reward. Of course, I don't know it will lead to reward. There's no guarantee of anything a priori to the desired eventuality, so my the entire operation turns on my belief in what will transpire.
Taking this into theistic territory: Inevitably, any significant endeavor will involve a stubborn insistence on the pursuit of that which is seemly unattainable. As you've said, much of science is predicated on utilizing patient observation as a means of fact-checking any given theory. While that sound relatively simple on paper, any good scientist will tell you that it isn't quite so elementary as advertised. Long hours in a lab suck, for lack of a better word; especially when those long hours can effectively terminate a career should they prove your theory wrong. Something is required to keep a person motivated in the course of such an endeavor, and for a lot of people that something is God/gos/s. For just as many others its Science, where the word references more than the process itself. In any case, its an abstract concept that provides emotional comfort in times which are difficult for reason or another.
I don't know how to answer that. Yes, endeavour and reward is based on a system that requires trust. You could argue that trust is a form of belief. There are people in the world I trust, people in the world you could say I "believe in". I trust my friends to do the right thing by me, my job to keep giving me pay cheques, etc...
I think we are moving towards Game Theory in your final paragraph there.
Avoiding going down that very tangential route though, as a rationalist, I would not like to deny the idea of emotional comfort being necessary in life. Clearly it is. Just because I can't explain something, that does not mean I will deny it.
I would also rather someone be comforted by religion than that person be miserable. In my own life, I have seen people comforted by their faith in God after the passing of a loved one. For example, a pupil at my school died in a quite unpleasant way about 10 months ago. His mother also works at the school and I am good friends with her. I attended his funeral, I even sang and prayed, something I never do during regular services at school. I would rather she be comforted than right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cheese Elemental wrote:Fifty: I politely ask that you NOT call Creationism 'idiocy'. That's insulting religion, something not permitted on this forum. This is why we can't have threads about religion; they ultimately devolve into trolling, shitstorms, and people forgetting Rule #1.
Creationism/ID is not an exclusively religious position. It is a position held by religious people, admittedly, but it is also put under the umbrella of ID, mostly for political reasons.
If you prefer me to refer to ID, fine.
I'll avoid calling it idiocy and refer to "I consider it foolish".
I wonder though, if we are allowed to attack subjugation of women, of whether, as part of Isalmic culture, if not Islam itself, it also gets protection?
Indeed. Gentlemen, cease and desist the attacks on creationism and intelligent design. If you can't discuss the topic without doing so, then don't post.
Wrexasaur wrote:If you can equate something like electrons (which can be studied directly) to an amorphous figure, that seemingly occupies only the mind of humans; I am pretty sure I could dig what you were saying. The problem is just that though, I cannot logically connect electrons, to the form and existence of god; by any stretch of my logical mind.
But 200 years ago, electrons would have seemed equally crazy to the common man. Everything around us is mostly empty space? Most people cannot cope with the idea of wave-particle duality, and yet, it does not make it wrong.
Are you saying that god is a form of something that we already understand to a certain degree? Electrons as we understand them now, have allowed us to streamline technology. Our supposed understanding of god (which has definitions that would denote the literal impossibility of that) could be attributed to no more than our understanding of our selves; it could also however, denote the opposite, in which god has a further understanding of us (however you would interpret that given the context of god). Electricity gives me the power to use my computer, and participate in this conversation; I could say that god, perhaps in some way, is the reason that I can be here doing this in the first place, but I hardly equate that to god being as simple to understand as electricity is.
God is an amorphous figure, that has no more meaning than an individual chooses to put into it. Even though someone might feel so strongly that they are right, there are an awful lot of other people that probably feel the exact same way, in terms of their own views. If god means comfort, that is what god is. If god means lack of understanding, that is what god is.
I also feel like you are trying to sell me snake oil now quite frankly. If god is as simple as electrons, which is honestly what you are trying to tell me in short; then how, and by who's perception could that possibly be god. Is WD-40 god? Does the fact that I can use something like that in many circumstances make it universal? I can't imagine that you are actually pushing sincerely along this line of questioning, so I think I will take a pass on the rest of this rather twisted conversation.
No offense though, I just have a hard time getting what your selling. And I know that you are basically agnostic, or whatever other precise label you prefer.
I am simply saying that 200 years ago electrons did not fit into any frame of reference then available. Electrons as we understand them now, as both a particle and a wave, as having quantum potentiality, as part of an atom that is mostly empty space, as experiencing the weak nuclear force, one of the four fundamental forces... all of these frames of reference were unavailable 200 years ago - thus there would be no context for people to understand them. Just because they fit into a world as we understand it now, it does not mean we understand everything about the world.
IF (And it is a very big IF that I do not believe will happen), God were shown to exist, it would need to be within a framework of understanding that does not currently exist, just as the context for understanding electrons did not exist back then.
Cheese Elemental wrote:Fifty: I politely ask that you NOT call Creationism 'idiocy'. That's insulting religion, something not permitted on this forum. This is why we can't have threads about religion; they ultimately devolve into trolling, shitstorms, and people forgetting Rule #1.
Creationism is not representative of mainstream christianity. It's a tenet of a few of the more unusual sects.
The first book of the Bible deals explicitly with with creation myth - if you follow 'the book', to cherry-pick from it is unseemly IMHO. That's a thread which, when pulled would unravel the whole jumper (or 'sweater' for our American chums). The question of 'where everything comes from' has a definite scientific answer, and is not a philosophical question, as the Pope asserts. There's nothing wrong with admitting we don't have the ultimate answer - asking the questions is what ultimately gives life meaning, not filling the gaps with god/s.
Albatross wrote:The first book of the Bible deals explicitly with with creation myth - if you follow 'the book', to cherry-pick from it is unseemly IMHO. That's a thread which, when pulled would unravel the whole jumper (or 'sweater' for our American chums). The question of 'where everything comes from' has a definite scientific answer, and is not a philosophical question, as the Pope asserts. There's nothing wrong with admitting we don't have the ultimate answer - asking the questions is what ultimately gives life meaning, not filling the gaps with god/s.
It's possible to believe in the bible without reading it literally. In fact, I argue it's best not to. The very fact that there are multiple versions of man's creation illustrates that the biblical story of creation is probably more poetic or symbolic than literal. Keeping in mind that the bible makes it clear in other places that God is not constrained in any way by time, I don't have any problem holding both scientific knowledge and biblical creation in my mind at once.
And no, there is no definite scientific answer where everything comes from. The search for the prime mover is still going on, and early cosmology and big bang theory were originally criticized as being religious, and not scientific, due to the then idea of an eternal universe.
At the end of any discussion on the big bang, all you have to do is ask "where did that super dense matter come from" to realize that there are still some pretty profound philosophical questions.
As for your final sentence, exactly how is the attitude you express there any different from any religious screed?
You may find it a bit unseemly, but the Pope is on board with the whole Evolution idea. If the Pope says "Here is how we see it", then that is what I will view as mainstream Christianity.
Albatross wrote:if you follow 'the book', to cherry-pick from it is unseemly IMHO.
Not really, there's no divine authority in the bible. Jesus is the word of the God; the bible is a scrapbook of assorted Jewish scripture, accounts of Jesus' life, and writings by early Christians.
There are plenty of times where the New Testament overrides what you would have assumed from reading the Old Testament, Jesus healing on the Sabbath for example. Thus, you already know from the bible that the Old Testament isn't water tight.
I think you are mistaken KK, Creationism is representative of the whole Christianity, but only if you are a member of certain anti-Christianity groups, this means that:
a)They don´t know what they are talking about (a normal state in the human race)
b)For all they care the Pope could say that the sky is blue in St Peters Square that they would argue that the Pope denies the sky blueness.
Examples of this type of specimen, quite a few in Spain´s left leaning people to ridiculous extremes, lately in Spain not being a Christian in the Roman era was equal to being atheist as published by 2 mainline papers when talking about a movie set in the 3rd century AD. (Poor Jupiter et pantheon they got kicked to non existence)
When it comes to Evolution V Creationism, I'm surprised that people don't see how the two can co-exist, with both being correct after a fashion.
After all, God could have created Man using Evolution. By this, I mean God first kicked off those little spiralling coils of DNA(naynaynaynaynaynay) that eventually became the various species we know and eat today, as well as ourselves. The Bible's only mistake here is being a little too literal in claiming we were Gods main design, and the rest merely beta-testing. Happy Middle Ground, or a Cop Out is down to you guys!
Mind you, I guess the above hypothesis first requires the person to accept Evolution as a theory, which appears to be the major stumbling block.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
After all, God could have created Man using Evolution. By this, I mean God first kicked off those little spiralling coils of DNA(naynaynaynaynaynay) that eventually became the various species we know and eat today, as well as ourselves. The Bible's only mistake here is being a little too literal in claiming we were Gods main design, and the rest merely beta-testing.
I don't know if you're positing casually, or if you really have a very limited understanding of christian thought, but the bible doesn't claim we were God's main design. It simply tells the story of creation up to mankind. Considering how the Bible makes it clear that the Jews were the chosen people above other people, it's pretty low on the "humans are best" stuff.
As for beta testing, I have no clue what you mean.
IIRC, the Bible (or at least some denominations) claim Man was made in God's image, thats what I meant by it.
As for Beta-Testing, it explains the other beasts, trees etc as previous attempts at his perfect design. Not flawed so much as imperfect, the same way that even the greatest painters start with a sketch, and then amend it over time.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Fair point, but once again I was casual posting.
Might put that at the top of all my future posts, so people pick up on the message rather than the wording
I am the GW rulebook of Religious Discussion!
My point really is that the Bible is silent on both of those and IIRC could be interpreted as such. In effect God creating everything. he created Adam and Lilith but she got too uppity for Adam's redneck arse so he commissioned a new work from the head sculptor. The Big G was, like, tired of hearing Adam's constant whining so made Eve, thinking "that'll shut him up." God had no idea what God was in for. J. Christ if he only knew he would have stuck with the goats. You don't hear them whining all the time.
I guess I'd also ask how seriously people are supposed to respond to posts that you don't want to put a ton of thought into? Not to claim this is serious business, but what's the point?
To see peoples responses. Think of me as a provocateur. I like to gather peoples opinions and digest them. No real motive other than I genuinely enjoy discourse. So when a question pops into my head, I ask it and await replies.
Philip K Dick proposed once that the creation of the world was a mistake and the rest of history in the Bible was an attempted cover up.
Back on topic, when I speak about creationism not being representative of mainstream Christianity, I mean creationism in the sense that ID is right and Evolution is wrong. The belief in the literal truth of Genesis, if you take it to the extreme.
I think you can take the Pope as fairly representative of mainstream Christianity. He says evolution is right, but it doesn't rule out the concept of Creation by God setting the universe going with a bunch of suitable physical laws and so on. The basic question of where it all began still lies with God, in the Pope’s view of things.
Interestingly, it is impossible to see the edge of the universe, so we will never be able to see if it is finite or infinite, or what might lie outside it. Maybe our universe is inside the mind of God.
Creationism is NOT maintream Christianity, however much you might want it to be. Catholicism is mainstream Christianity, and within that, Roman Catholicism.
The Pope, without doubt, is the leader of the largest group of Christians. He says no to Creationism. Evolution as divinely influenced, yes. Not Creationism though...
ll out of atheists...duh!
So as far as the more abrasive side, the one that tells you that you are anything less than perfect, I believe I am less than perfect "fallen" if you will) but that doesn't mean someone gets to lord that over me playing the religious ho to their pimp.
Just joking. This doesn't really apply to me.
