Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

No one can understand a god. I don't worry about it.

G

LuciusAR wrote:
To me this is the ultimate Orwellian nightmare and it honestly puzzles me that people take comfort in what is essentially a supernatural dictatorship. If the state where to act this it would lead to rioting and revolution and rightly so (mind you I live in Britain so a strongly worded letter to the Times would be the most I could expect!). If I live in dictatorship I always have the option of taking to the streets and starting an uprising but with God I have no such option.

So yes my Atheism is comforting because if I am wrong then, as far as im concerned, we are all slaves.

Many of the religious people I know share the same belief about naturalism, and humanism. Essentially that if there is nothing beyond nature/humanity to which I can appeal, then I am a slave to nature/humanity.

Green Blow Fly wrote:No one can understand a god. I don't worry about it.

G

There's a quote from an old Hindu philosopher that I really like (it's not verbatim, but the jist is correct): If there is an all powerful being who created an infinite universe and all within it; how or why would they expect something as small and insignificant as a human being to understand them?

It always struck me as odd that what God desires is unwavering and unquestioning faith without evidence from his followers. Seems a bit petty to me.

So far this thread has generated less animosity than any "Do Deff Rollas affect vehicles?" thread.

^ truth.

What would Gork and Mork do? That is what ask myself when stuck in a moral condundrum.

G

Polonius wrote:That's a bit of slippery slope argument. The MMR debacle was a legal strategy (that failed) that had nothing to do with faith or religion.

Fair enough, the MMR thing was something of a stretch on my part. But I do think a culture in which people think there's nothing unusual about bucking the entirety of scientific community and declaring 'I know better' is a bad thing, especially when they don't know much about the topic at hand.

Again, and I hate to keep repeating myself, I fully oppose people using their faith to set public policy. All I'm saying is that I stand for a persons right to have whatever beliefs they want to in their own mind. I don't want it taught in schools, I don't want it used as evidence in the courtroom, and I dont' want it used to elect people. But if it makes a person feel better to think that god created his ancestors 6000 years ago and simply made everything look older to test his faith, well, I say let him. He's not going to be a visiting lecturer at the Geology Society. Yes, in a scientific forum, you can tell him that he's wrong. If he brings his faith based ideas into a factual arena, he deserves what he gets.

Sure, people have freedom to believe whatever they want, I'm not arguing to start shipping Young Earthers to gulags or anything. But I am saying the kind of culture where people are willing to reject massive amounts of research without ever bothering to understand it is a bad thing, and reflects poorly on the culture of knowledge and the quality of education in this country.

Not everybody is sophisticated. We're intelligent people, educated and trained in matters of theology, philosophy, logic and science. I'd argue that saying it's impossible that the Bible is literally true shows that you don't have a truly open mind towards faith. It's almost certainly not, I'd agree, but I don't know that. It could be true. God could have laid down dinosaur bones to test our faith, and every word could be the literal truth.

Sure, it's possible God lay the dinosaur bones down to test our faith. If someone actually believed that, and then went about their lives treating everything as a possible trap from God that might draw them away from the truth, and were equally suspicious of all facts... well then they'd be consistent. Except no-one acts like that, evidence as a test from God only comes up as a last step defence when there's something they can't otherwise explain.

Most people reject the idea that the bible is literally true because it conflicts with what we know about the world and how it works. Trusting our senses and reason, we decide that it is more allegorical, that translation, age, and the simplicity of it's authors give us wiggle room in which to extract the core truths while still being men of reason. We know that if god created us in his image, part of that was the abilty to think, create, and judge; and that rejection of literalism is part of our growth as spiritual beings. I'm totally on board with this thought.

Absolutely.

That said, there are a lot of people that, for lack of a better word, are simply better at self delusion. They can reject the evidence we see, they can ignore the rational processes we use, and the can gloss over the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the text itself. It's a very human thing, delusion. You see it in every person who stays with an abusive spouse, or believes that their friend is quitting drugs "for real this time," or the guy who submits his fifth novel after four were rejected. I use my self delusion on other things, but a lot use it on their faith and their religion. Yes, through extensive therapy, medication, and treatment you could probably break these people down, but to what end? I still say it's easier to just work around them, and kinder as well.

I think there's always a point in people becoming more aware and better informed.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's a bit unfair to accuse Envy89 of being a troll, he has a reasonable point.

Science has still not solved the question of how the universe was created. That doesn't mean it can't.

There are lots of unsolved questions in science. I expect there always will be.

But the idea of 'we don't know that, therefore God must have done it' is faulty. It's been faulty for a very long time, and isn't constructive in terms of scientific or religious debate.

Polonius wrote:It's a valid question, no doubt about that, but it wasn't presented as a valid question or point. It was presented as a smarmy little straw man that had very little to do with the actual topic, and was more concerned with making a position look bad than in advancing any recognizable point or assertion. For those keeping track at home, it involved the following little internet debating gambits: moving the goalposts, presenting anecdotal and unprovable evidence, a straw man argument, and posting in an ambiguous and indeed nearly unreadable format so that he can always claim it was "a joke." I'm sorry if it's unfair, but the Poster has made a habit of making similarly structured posts in various debates. I think my record is pretty clear that I'm fair minded and able to both defend my position well and willing to concede points when I cannot. I know a troll when I see one.

The tragedy inherent in this is that I actually agree with him on this point. I think that the universe was created by God. I just would advance the argument a little more diplomatically.

Is it possible he's not a troll, but just really bad at debate?

Green Blow Fly wrote:People often say that religion makes it's followers feel good because if they follow it's tenets then they get to go to heaven or something along those lines. I think that aethism is the same and even moreso... there is no accountibility to a higher power so you are free to do whatever you like as long as you can keep other people happy.

G

You've assumed that atheism carries with it a freedom from morality, which is a bad assumption. It's bad because it relies on the idea that morality and empathy can only come from God, which is obviously wrong given that atheists aren't over-represented in murder and stealing.

That said, the idea that the faithful choose religion is a bad argument. Good thing no-one made it.

sebster wrote:
Is it possible he's not a troll, but just really bad at debate?

It's possible, in fact he clearly is bad at debate. I think if you look at his posting history, in particular that one post, it was meant to elicit an emotional response, rather than to advance any position. His post was certainly flamebait, if not outright trolling. I'd also point out that he has an overtly political clip as his sig, and clearly has a political agenda.

I think there comes a point where if you're going to post on important matters you either learn how to post without trolling, or you have to bear the brunt of being treated like a troll. If you want to be taken seriously, post in a serious manner.

sebster wrote:
Fair enough, the MMR thing was something of a stretch on my part. But I do think a culture in which people think there's nothing unusual about bucking the entirety of scientific community and declaring 'I know better' is a bad thing, especially when they don't know much about the topic at hand.

Again, why? What's the harm? Why is it bad? I mean, I agree with you, I think it's a troubling sign. I'm just finding it interesting that nobody can point out what actually is the harm in people holding these beliefs.

Sure, people have freedom to believe whatever they want, I'm not arguing to start shipping Young Earthers to gulags or anything. But I am saying the kind of culture where people are willing to reject massive amounts of research without ever bothering to understand it is a bad thing, and reflects poorly on the culture of knowledge and the quality of education in this country.

Every culture does it. Nobody understands most research, not even intellectuals. I agree with you that society would be better if people took science more seriously, but the link between that and a faith in creationism isn't as strong as youd' think. your comment about education is a good one, in that I think most people are taught science as they're taught social studies: "here is a list of facts that we know are true. Memorize them and write them on the test." In fact, science is a process, but that's not what is emphasized. If more people understood how science is done, there might be less reluctance to accept evolution.

I'm also not sure you can't believe god created man in his image 6000 years ago and still learn science. If you believe in an omnipotent god, god could have created the world 5 minutes ago, with memories and history intact.

Sure, it's possible God lay the dinosaur bones down to test our faith. If someone actually believed that, and then went about their lives treating everything as a possible trap from God that might draw them away from the truth, and were equally suspicious of all facts... well then they'd be consistent. Except no-one acts like that, evidence as a test from God only comes up as a last step defence when there's something they can't otherwise explain.

News flash! People are hypocritical about their beliefs! Sorry, I mean, again, you're right of course. The other answer for fossils is that they were created in the flood. The point is that it's not about evidence. There isn't much science in the Bible, so there aren't a lot of times when scripture and empiricism will conflict, so it's pretty easy to pick one or two areas and really dig in your heels and ignore all evidence. Faith isn't just a belief in things unseen despite a lack of evidence, its that belief even in the fact of evidence against that belief. There is no evidence that can be produce that will shake these people. That, I suppose, is the real problem, that there are people that cannot be convinced, but luckily while the bible says mankind was created by god, it doesn't say that mankind shouldn't be exploring space, or curing disease.

On the other hand, many Christians view most aspects of life as a test from god.

I think there's always a point in people becoming more aware and better informed.

I agree. I think there are more pressing problems, and easier ways to find common ground between faith and science than by tackling this one head on. Treat the symptoms, to be sure, and continue efforts to educate the people, but the older generations aren't going to change their minds. The evidence for evolution is better now than it was even 20 years ago.

I think I need to make a few points about why I'm posting here.

I think that clinging to faith based ideas in the face of scientific evidence is bad. I don't think it's harmful to others, but I think it impedes a person's development and makes him more likely to make poor decisions on policy.

the reason I'm going to the mat for people who believe this is because I think that everybody has a right to believe what they want. I think that efforts to point out that a person's beliefs are wrong come perilously close to the dogma that reason was meant to eliminate. I think that much of the zeal for this issue comes not from a genuine concern about the issue and it's consequences but from a dislike of people that have certain beliefs. I feel that while evangelical Christians are a hard group to like sometimes, they're arrogance and lust for power should be met with tolerance and stoic resistance. I think that men of reason can be more Christian than the Christians.

Of course, this no longer applies once they enter the realm of public debate. If you want to talk, you better be prepared to back your stuff up, white boy.

Polonius wrote:Of course, this no longer applies once they enter the realm of public debate. If you want to talk, you better be prepared to back your stuff up, white boy.

Did I win something?

sebster wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:People often say that religion makes it's followers feel good because if they follow it's tenets then they get to go to heaven or something along those lines. I think that aethism is the same and even moreso... there is no accountibility to a higher power so you are free to do whatever you like as long as you can keep other people happy.

G

You've assumed that atheism carries with it a freedom from morality, which is a bad assumption. It's bad because it relies on the idea that morality and empathy can only come from God, which is obviously wrong given that atheists aren't over-represented in murder and stealing.

That said, the idea that the faithful choose religion is a bad argument. Good thing no-one made it.

I have never heard of a rapist or serial killer who is a religiou type unless you consider Satanism. I believe all sane people know the difference between right and wrong but I suppose that can be argued/refuted as well. Obviously a person's environment shapes their views, especially during the early years while still forming a complete identity for one's self. One is right to one person might be construed as wrong to another for whatever reason. An objective view from someone outside their sphere of influence might be considered alien to the one deeply entrenched in dogma.

G

LuciusAR wrote:

To me this is the ultimate Orwellian nightmare and it honestly puzzles me that people take comfort in what is essentially a supernatural dictatorship. If the state where to act this it would lead to rioting and revolution and rightly so (mind you I live in Britain so a strongly worded letter to the Times would be the most I could expect!). If I live in dictatorship I always have the option of taking to the streets and starting an uprising but with God I have no such option.

So yes my Atheism is comforting because if I am wrong then, as far as im concerned, we are all slaves.

Belief in God as the supreme power accords with an authoritarian mindset. This is no doubt why religious observance has a positive correlation with social and political conservatism, and related thinking such as a belief in creationism.

Polonius wrote:Did I win something?

Green Blow Fly wrote:I have never heard of a rapist or serial killer who is a religiou type unless you consider Satanism.

Really? You might want to read a newspaper sometime. Or maybe define "religious type" a little more narrowly. And Satanism is a red herring.

Kilkrazy wrote:Belief in God as the supreme power accords with an authoritarian mindset.

Leviathan anyone? Not the unit, the Hobbes work. And not the tiger. Though he is awesome too.

A nice example of authoritarianism is to tell your 7 year old daughter in early December she must be good or else Father Christmas won't bring her a present.

Green Blow Fly wrote:

I have never heard of a rapist or serial killer who is a religiou type unless you consider Satanism.

Jim Jones ?

Dahmer was a member of some little off shoot of the main church.

Albert Fish had some.... interesting...religious views too.

Matter does appear out of nothing. Positive and negative atoms just appear. Typically they annihilate each other. (Yes it's more complex than that. Read.)

People arguing about whether god exists or not is stupid. It's pretty much a personal question.

Anyway isn't this thread supposed to be about republicans, not if god actually does exist or not?

Polonius wrote:Again, why? What's the harm? Why is it bad? I mean, I agree with you, I think it's a troubling sign. I'm just finding it interesting that nobody can point out what actually is the harm in people holding these beliefs.

I think its dangerous to the extent that it drifts into public policy debate. When it comes, specifically, to the idea of 6,000 year old Earth there are no direct parallels, because as a research field it's mostly in the 'ain't it cool' area and not so much in the 'saving lives' area. The issue, to me, is not so much people believing the world to be 6,000 years old, but that people are so far removed from the debate that they can think something like a 6,000 year old earth is at all possible.

Look at the folk that pop up to argue that the solution to the financial crisis is to cut back welfare and social spending. Look at the MMR/autism thing. Maybe it is long bow, but it seems its all part of the same assumption that expert opinion doesn't matter and people can believe whatever they want and expect it all to be as legitmate as everything else.

Every culture does it. Nobody understands most research, not even intellectuals. I agree with you that society would be better if people took science more seriously, but the link between that and a faith in creationism isn't as strong as youd' think. your comment about education is a good one, in that I think most people are taught science as they're taught social studies: "here is a list of facts that we know are true. Memorize them and write them on the test." In fact, science is a process, but that's not what is emphasized. If more people understood how science is done, there might be less reluctance to accept evolution.

Yeah, I wish science, both hard and soft, were taught as a process of ongoing debate. I think it'd make a big difference.

I'm also not sure you can't believe god created man in his image 6000 years ago and still learn science. If you believe in an omnipotent god, god could have created the world 5 minutes ago, with memories and history intact.

It kind of makes the empirical method a bit void, that's for sure.

I agree. I think there are more pressing problems, and easier ways to find common ground between faith and science than by tackling this one head on. Treat the symptoms, to be sure, and continue efforts to educate the people, but the older generations aren't going to change their minds. The evidence for evolution is better now than it was even 20 years ago.

Yeah, fair point.

Polonius wrote:the reason I'm going to the mat for people who believe this is because I think that everybody has a right to believe what they want. I think that efforts to point out that a person's beliefs are wrong come perilously close to the dogma that reason was meant to eliminate. I think that much of the zeal for this issue comes not from a genuine concern about the issue and it's consequences but from a dislike of people that have certain beliefs. I feel that while evangelical Christians are a hard group to like sometimes, they're arrogance and lust for power should be met with tolerance and stoic resistance. I think that men of reason can be more Christian than the Christians.

I think this might be the part where you and I disagree, on the right to believe what ever we want. Sure, people can believe whatever they want in that you can't stop them believing it, and you it's a very bad thing to go about persecuting people for their beliefs. But just because people are entitled to their beliefs doesn't mean those beliefs are legitimate. Whether they enter the people forum or not, ignorance is ignorance.

Now, I'm not saying people should go around shouting down anyone with an opinion that isn't very well informed, there is such a thing as decent manners. But there's a point where the genuinely respectful thing is to be honest and say 'you're wrong, you don't know the basic facts of the argument and if you want to be taken seriously you'd better read up on the issue'.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I have never heard of a rapist or serial killer who is a religiou type unless you consider Satanism. I believe all sane people know the difference between right and wrong but I suppose that can be argued/refuted as well. Obviously a person's environment shapes their views, especially during the early years while still forming a complete identity for one's self. One is right to one person might be construed as wrong to another for whatever reason. An objective view from someone outside their sphere of influence might be considered alien to the one deeply entrenched in dogma.

G

Okay, no offence but 'no Christian serial killers' is very obviously wrong. Berkowitz. Yates. Dahmer. Insanity doesn't limit itself by religious preference.

The rest of it... I agree with entirely. A little anti-climactic maybe but there you have it

sebster wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:I have never heard of a rapist or serial killer who is a religiou type unless you consider Satanism. I believe all sane people know the difference between right and wrong but I suppose that can be argued/refuted as well. Obviously a person's environment shapes their views, especially during the early years while still forming a complete identity for one's self. One is right to one person might be construed as wrong to another for whatever reason. An objective view from someone outside their sphere of influence might be considered alien to the one deeply entrenched in dogma.

G

Okay, no offence but 'no Christian serial killers' is very obviously wrong. Berkowitz. Yates. Dahmer. Insanity doesn't limit itself by religious preference.

The rest of it... I agree with entirely. A little anti-climactic maybe but there you have it

One of the most twisted, bizarre, darkly funny things I ever saw was an interview with Dahmer where he claimed believing in evolution was an affront to God because it devalued human life. You know, because killing people, eating them, and planning to build a shrine from their bones is the perfect affirmation of the value of human life.

olympia wrote:So far this thread has generated less animosity than any "Do Deff Rollas affect vehicles?" thread.

Gee a thread full of atheists "discussing religion." Yea no animosity there.

Dakka should not be a forum denigrating religion. It violates the first rule of Dakka-be courteous to other posters.

How is this thread denigrating religion? It's discussing it. Everyone here is being pretty damn curteous, as we are all (hopefully) mature enough to realise it is a contentious issue. And not everyone posting is an atheist either. I really don't see why religious beliefs should get some special protection that means they mustn't be talked about, as long as this doesn't devolve into a slanging match.

Frazzled wrote:

olympia wrote:So far this thread has generated less animosity than any "Do Deff Rollas affect vehicles?" thread.

Gee a thread full of atheists "discussing religion." Yea no animosity there.

Dakka should not be a forum denigrating religion. It violates the first rule of Dakka-be courteous to other posters.

But this isn't a thread denigrating religion!

This goes back to the point of playing the victim I made earlier. People are discussing their respective viewpoints in a calm and rational manner. I admit many of the posters are falling on one side of the fence but this doesn’t mean that the other side is being persecuted and I see nothing here that could be described as discourteous.

Frazzled wrote:

olympia wrote:So far this thread has generated less animosity than any "Do Deff Rollas affect vehicles?" thread.

Gee a thread full of atheists "discussing religion." Yea no animosity there.

Dakka should not be a forum denigrating religion. It violates the first rule of Dakka-be courteous to other posters.

As shown before, any hint of the word "Christian" in any context besides saying "Gosh, aren't all Christians just wonderful?" and you take it as the most discourteous and insulting thing ever. You make it impossible to have any meaningful discussion on any subject if Christianity is involved. If this thread were about Islam saying the exact same things you wouldn't care at all and probably would be joining in. I remember a discussion in which we were talking about a small group of Christian fanatics, and even after pointing out they were the extreme minority of all Christians you were still frothing at the mouth that all of Christiandom was under violent assault and that everyone was a meanie and an atheist.

Frazzled wrote:
Gee a thread full of atheists "discussing religion."

But Polonius is a self-professed Catholic. Granted, there are some evangelicals out there who think the Pope is the anti-christ, but I would consider Catholics to be Christians.

Frazzled wrote:

olympia wrote:So far this thread has generated less animosity than any "Do Deff Rollas affect vehicles?" thread.

Gee a thread full of atheists "discussing religion." Yea no animosity there.

Dakka should not be a forum denigrating religion. It violates the first rule of Dakka-be courteous to other posters.

I've called out a general pattern of behavior that I felt was being disdainful towards religion, but I think most of the posters here have been respectful. Do you have an actual problem with any of the posts?

If nothing else, I think I've been working hard to defend the views of the religious folks in question, and I kind of resent you making such a sweeping claim about a thread, particularly one in which I am, for once, not in opposition to your stance.

Polonius wrote:
If nothing else, I think I've been working hard to defend the views of the religious folks in question, and I kind of resent you making such a sweeping claim about a thread, particularly one in which I am, for once, not in opposition to your stance.

Back on the topic of Republicans, a sarcastic remark is vastly preferable to terminating the thread with Extreme Christian Prejudice, but still very much in character. The 'Republican problem' is justification by religious stance, the forceful imposition of personal values on smaller cultures, and an apparent disdain for cosmopolitanism. In such a small world, especially compared to the Reagan/H. G. era, these 'qualities' are difficult to respect.