two months ago a lady in my apartment said she needed to make an appointment with me using her very broken english. Now most of my apartment is run by sweet middle aged elderly women so i assumed she was one of them. maybe they were going to come over to check my electricity or heater? it's happened before. so i politely told her i would be at home all day on Tuesday.
That tuesday afternoon my doorbell rings. i open the door to see a man standing there with pretty good english. i suddenly realize this person isn't an electrician or a plumber, he's a jahovas witness. i had been tricked into making an appointment with someone who is planning on saving my soul. Crap.
well anyways i'm always open to conversation, i'm not afraid to defend what i stand for so i did so with this person. I'm an atheist and i'm well read enough to defend my beliefs. i keep winning every argument and leaving this guy with more questions than answers about his religion. he keeps brining these pamphlets over with stuff to try to back his points so i feel like i might as well do the same.
i want to know if anyone has any really good articles that i can print out (that are in korean) which help explain things like evolution and common logical flaws in the bible. this guys english is good but sometimes i can see he's not following me.
On January 30 2009 17:49 NoobsOfWrath wrote: Why do you feel it is necessary to break down his beliefs? Has he expressed an interest in you doing so?
Well he's trying to do so to you. If he says your beliefs are wrong because X (his belief), you defend your views by showing how X doesn't invalidate your viewpoints. The simplest and generally only way to do that is to show that X is wrong.
As a general rule though in any argument about religion no matter how well you break down or show the flaws in someone's beliefs, they will NEVER be swayed. It's more of an emotional than logical thing to most people.
Also if your tactic is to show problems with the Bible or to demonstrate evolution, that's probably the wrong methodology. I'd focus less on trying to show why he is wrong (which he isn't, necessarily) and more on why his arguments aren't substantiated. ie if he says "God is the creator of the Earth, etc, how can you deny God" don't respond by showing that the Bible contradicts itself often but rather ask "How do you know that God created the Earth? What led you to that conclusion". If you are intelligent you'll find and demonstrate that their logic is based on assumptions (faith). And that's as good to "winning" as you're going to get.
Give me a PM if you want to try arguing against the xtian viewpoint (I'll represent it).
As a general rule though in any argument about religion no matter how well you break down or show the flaws in someone's beliefs, they will NEVER be swayed. It's more of an emotional than logical thing to most people.
Well yes, that is why it's called faith. Ultimately, all believers choose to believe, they are rarely convicted in a logical manner, because honestly, trying to prove religion is a child's debate.
If God and etc exist or not is much more of a personal choice, than a general truth (at least in this point of human evolution).
And I'm so annoyed of people who make it their mission to spread their beliefs by going from house to house, I mean, I don't go to their church trying to convince anyone that God is actually an oversized fairy
As a general rule though in any argument about religion no matter how well you break down or show the flaws in someone's beliefs, they will NEVER be swayed. It's more of an emotional than logical thing to most people.
Well yes, that is why it's called faith. Ultimately, all believers choose to believe, they are rarely convicted in a logical manner, because honestly, trying to prove religion is a child's debate.
If God and etc exist or not is much more of a personal choice, than a general truth (at least in this point of human evolution).
And I'm so annoyed of people who make it their mission to spread their beliefs by going from house to house, I mean, I don't go to their church trying to convince anyone that God is actually an oversized fairy
God either exists or doesn't exist. It's not a personal choice. Your beliefs are a personal choice, but that doesn't change reality.
As a general rule though in any argument about religion no matter how well you break down or show the flaws in someone's beliefs, they will NEVER be swayed. It's more of an emotional than logical thing to most people.
Well yes, that is why it's called faith. Ultimately, all believers choose to believe, they are rarely convicted in a logical manner, because honestly, trying to prove religion is a child's debate.
If God and etc exist or not is much more of a personal choice, than a general truth (at least in this point of human evolution).
And I'm so annoyed of people who make it their mission to spread their beliefs by going from house to house, I mean, I don't go to their church trying to convince anyone that God is actually an oversized fairy
You have yet to be touched by his noodly appendage!
As a general rule though in any argument about religion no matter how well you break down or show the flaws in someone's beliefs, they will NEVER be swayed. It's more of an emotional than logical thing to most people.
Well yes, that is why it's called faith. Ultimately, all believers choose to believe, they are rarely convicted in a logical manner, because honestly, trying to prove religion is a child's debate.
If God and etc exist or not is much more of a personal choice, than a general truth (at least in this point of human evolution).
And I'm so annoyed of people who make it their mission to spread their beliefs by going from house to house, I mean, I don't go to their church trying to convince anyone that God is actually an oversized fairy
God either exists or doesn't exist. It's not a personal choice. Your beliefs are a personal choice, but that doesn't change reality.
Well that was exactly what I was implying, it's a matter of personal choice. It's not like your personal choice can influence the actual fact of something's existence or nonexistence. Sorry if I miss-worded my statement
As a general rule though in any argument about religion no matter how well you break down or show the flaws in someone's beliefs, they will NEVER be swayed. It's more of an emotional than logical thing to most people.
Well yes, that is why it's called faith. Ultimately, all believers choose to believe, they are rarely convicted in a logical manner, because honestly, trying to prove religion is a child's debate.
If God and etc exist or not is much more of a personal choice, than a general truth (at least in this point of human evolution).
And I'm so annoyed of people who make it their mission to spread their beliefs by going from house to house, I mean, I don't go to their church trying to convince anyone that God is actually an oversized fairy
You have yet to be touched by his noodly appendage!
Actually that FSM crap is total bullshit. I prefer pizza
well you can use these arguments, like explaining evolution and such against these kind of guys who are radicals. Like the jehova guys.
I think, the biggest part of christianity in the US is kinda radical. And imo you are used to this kind of religion (though I am just assuming) Lot of the American neoprotestant minichurches are radicals in the sense of taking the Bible word by word. I find it ridiculous that in a lot of states of US, that creationism is included in the education.. this is utterly stupid and shows something.
If you get in a debate with a welleducated, non-radical christian person, I wonder if you could save your stance
On January 30 2009 18:37 freelander wrote: If you get in a debate with a welleducated, non-radical christian person, I wonder if you could save your stance
Ive debated this with very well educated christians. While in most situations they think act logically and rationally as soon as religion is debated, their arguments become terrible.
Religion is a way for humans to cope with death. Some people just cant handle that when the die they will cease to exist. Religion gives them the comfort of knowing that when they die they continue living. The rest of religion is just fluff and just serves to re-enforce the persons beliefs. Ask ANY christian, and they will say they are going to heaven. However how many christians also have sex before marriage, work on the sabbath etc.? The rest of religion is just there to re-enforce belief with arbitary rules.
On January 30 2009 18:37 freelander wrote: If you get in a debate with a welleducated, non-radical christian person, I wonder if you could save your stance
Ive debated this with very well educated christians. While in most situations they think act logically and rationally as soon as religion is debated, their arguments become terrible.
Religion is a way for humans to cope with death. Some people just cant handle that when the die they will cease to exist. Religion gives them the comfort of knowing that when they die they continue living. The rest of religion is just fluff and just serves to re-enforce the persons beliefs. Ask ANY christian, and they will say they are going to heaven. However how many christians also have sex before marriage, work on the sabbath etc.? The rest of religion is just there to re-enforce belief with arbitary rules.
On January 30 2009 18:37 freelander wrote: If you get in a debate with a welleducated, non-radical christian person, I wonder if you could save your stance
Ive debated this with very well educated christians. While in most situations they think act logically and rationally as soon as religion is debated, their arguments become terrible.
Religion is a way for humans to cope with death. Some people just cant handle that when the die they will cease to exist. Religion gives them the comfort of knowing that when they die they continue living. The rest of religion is just fluff and just serves to re-enforce the persons beliefs. Ask ANY christian, and they will say they are going to heaven. However how many christians also have sex before marriage, work on the sabbath etc.? The rest of religion is just there to re-enforce belief with arbitary rules.
christians working on sabbath? why not?
Even if what you say about religion is true, any well educated person, christian or not, will tell you that since you cannot prove or disprove (I'm talking in a scientific manner) the existence of a God and etc. religion is just what it is, and belief in divinity resumes to personal choice. A true christian doesn't know he'll be going to heaven, he lives his life with that hope. It's all a matter of choice really.
Though I admit most Christians are self-deluding sheeple
I think they have me up on "saveable" list since I politely talked to them and accepted their funny magazines. But I wasnt at home last time they shoved up but they did leave a folder explaining that satan is really ruling the world. And no it really says that and backs it up with bible quotes.
i called an 800 number about ordering 'holy cleansing water' from some fucking evangelical shit on tv. i played a bunch death metal and rambled about satan for a minute before then hung up on me. lol religious people
On January 30 2009 18:37 freelander wrote: If you get in a debate with a welleducated, non-radical christian person, I wonder if you could save your stance
Ive debated this with very well educated christians. While in most situations they think act logically and rationally as soon as religion is debated, their arguments become terrible.
Religion is a way for humans to cope with death. Some people just cant handle that when the die they will cease to exist. Religion gives them the comfort of knowing that when they die they continue living. The rest of religion is just fluff and just serves to re-enforce the persons beliefs. Ask ANY christian, and they will say they are going to heaven. However how many christians also have sex before marriage, work on the sabbath etc.? The rest of religion is just there to re-enforce belief with arbitary rules.
religion is a way of having a population police itself where enforcement by government is impracticle or unworkable. religious laws and rules are also created in opposition to human nature so people will always feel indebted to the religion.
On January 30 2009 19:34 Rekrul wrote: one time a jahovas witness came to our door in korea long ago when i lived with joel
he did a c-walk then was like ....I AM THE FUCKING DEVIL with a crazy look in his eyes
then the jahovas witness turned around quickly walked down the stairs
1. wear a slayer shirt 2. put something heavy on 3. show him who darwin is 4. explain that by jehovas beilives there is only room for like 40,000 of them in the sky, and there are about 5 milion of them in the USA and Canada.
I just remember what my teacher said. Ask if Jehowas wittnes believes holy triangle (well god, jesus and holy spirit). They don't. Just say that you join if they believe that too. For 20 years no jehovas wittness came that door again :D
guys... the blog was asking for someone to link me to an article (korean ideally) that i can hand to him for him to read about how evolution works fine without religion and common conflicts in the bible. can someone actually help me with this?
for those who ask why i bother with this, i have every right to do so (along with freetime) + he's coming knocking on my door trying to preach something to me, attempting to impose his believes on me. i have every right to enter us into discourse. i did debate in college and i enjoy this kinda stuff.
i already made some logical points that he had no way to refute and had to go back and ask his superiors.
stuff like:
A) If god created the universe where did god come from? if god has been around forever it seems more logical to claim that the cosmic soup of the universe has been around forever--at least we have evidence for that. you basically get in a loop hole when you try to point to a creator because you need to ask yourself where that creator came from.
B) He made some argument about how the world likes a machine and machines require a creator. i used Wittgensteining logic and explained that he was simply using language to define the world as machine like; calling the world a machine is just a metaphore for the world, not a definition and therefore not a sound argument.
C) I pointed out that athiests can be good people and bad people just like the religious can be good and bad. With that being said it seems like religion isn't necessary for morality to exist. infact it should be more impressive for someone to make a moral act without the accountability than someone to make a moral act because he knows he's being watched and possibly punished if not done so.
D) going into that last point he said that i may be right but that God had a plan for me. he pointed to his book and said he gave us all this information. i pointed out that it was only one book and that's hardly a lot of information when you consider how many books have been written, just goto your library and you'll how many more books you need to have a solid compass to guide yourself.
also do not derail the blog into a religion vs atheism/agnosticism thread, this is to help me gather useful info to refute this guy who, by the way, is a really nice guy.
if you're wondering why i do this stuff it's because i only became an agnostic then athiest by people challenging my beliefs. i feel a lot better off now without the whool being pulled over my eyes and if this person has the balls to go around doing this stuff the least i can do is give him some logical feedback.
On January 30 2009 18:37 freelander wrote: well you can use these arguments, like explaining evolution and such against these kind of guys who are radicals. Like the jehova guys.
I think, the biggest part of christianity in the US is kinda radical. And imo you are used to this kind of religion (though I am just assuming) Lot of the American neoprotestant minichurches are radicals in the sense of taking the Bible word by word. I find it ridiculous that in a lot of states of US, that creationism is included in the education.. this is utterly stupid and shows something.
If you get in a debate with a welleducated, non-radical christian person, I wonder if you could save your stance
well apparently your not well educated yourself because the only state that teaches evolution is Kansas. there arn't tons of states doing this and right now one of the biggest movements in Kansas is to get this law reversed. by the way i'm in KOREA right now so there's no need to bash on american religions (even if they deserve it).
On January 30 2009 19:00 TheFlashyOne wrote: its really really really strange to be a real Atheist. at least be an agnostic.
To me it is stranger to devote your life to one religion knowing that throughout history there have been thousands of other religions, denominations, cults that people have complete faith in. And while there may be thousands or millions of people throughout history that have held the same beliefs as you, far more have had faith in another religion or are not religious. Yet somehow, YOUR religion, that for most people is just a religion they were born into and know little if anything about what other religions believe, is the right religion.
I don't feel the need to find contradictions or things that just don't add up in the bible when I explain why I am an atheist. It's hard for me to comprehend how anybody who has given faith and religion any thought can be so ignorant as to think that they know the one that is true. I don't try to tear apart a persons religion I simply explain why I would never choose one.
How could anybody honestly feel that a just god would only give salvation for eternity to those who were born in the right place in the universe and at a time. Missionaries may serve this purpose of spreading the word of a religion throughout the world so that more can be saved, but I can see no reason that people born in Africa, China, or the jungles of the amazon should ever feel the need to give up what makes the different cultures of the world so great because they fear eternal damnation. Most christians feel that their missionary work is so good and important, but I would that this is probably what infuriates me the most about religion.
i think what he meant was that since its impossible to actually disprove that god exists theres still a leap of faith to be an atheist (to say that god absolutely does not exist) and so its more logical to be an agnostic. the mistake alot of people make is thinking that being agnostic means you think its 50/50 whether god exists or not. you can think the chances of god existing are the same as the spaghetti monster and everything else, still agnostic because you're not absolutely sure he doesnt.
if you want help you gotta post some of the stuff hes saying, its hard to attack someone who actually believes the hard line religious stuff because theyre willing to throw out logic to accept the beliefs, you're not gonna trip them up with conflicting lines in the bible or somethin. its much easier to attack his arguments
It is no more illogical to be an atheist than it is to be a baptist and believe that unless you are a baptist you are going to hell. Using fear to make people to convert to their religion.
Like some of my cousins and the others that are apart of their church honestly believe and have told other people in my family that if they are not baptized that they will go to hell. While if they do miraculously know the true word of god and they are right, then what they are doing is admirable, however the chances of their word of god being right, considering there is a god is tiny. So they are most likely just assholes.
did i say it was? obviously its far more illogical, because the leap of faith involved is far greater. im just saying that most people who consider themselves atheists are more likely agnostic, strictly speaking, because the thought processes that lead to 'atheism' often reject any leap of faith.
On January 30 2009 22:29 Snare wrote: Tasteless just lost a fan =]
Why the hell is that? What does ANYTHING of his work, which is, presumably the reason most people who don't know him like him, have to do with his religious belief?
OMG I hate that type of rationalization SO MUCH
yeah fuck tasteless, he's a dirty non believer, who cares if he's the most funny English starcraft caster alive?
I'll just come out and say it. Atheist's are just as bad as mormons, jehovah's witnesses, etc. Your just the other extreme of the religious spectrum. You still push YOUR beliefs (That there is no god, no afterlife etc) on others.
I just wonder, why even bother? Who cares if there's a god or not, or if one religion is right or if a million are wrong. It doesn't effect our day to day life. We will all figure out the truth on our deathbed.
Using the historical mega-fiasco of most religions (perhaps excepting only Hinduism and Buddhism) and highlighting how detrimental they have been to human life is not the right argument to validate or promote atheism. Granted, religions are mankind's greatest paradox. Designed to instill ethics, yet resulting in more dividing and more casualties. However, that's not what we are talking about. We're debating whether God exists.
To me, being Atheist is simply wrong and these people (obviously) can not back up their claim that they have a 100% certainty that God does not exist. I think these people we're simply fed up with religions and since they did not have any other direction, they ended up here without thinking about it too much.
Agnostics are not as rigid. They believe that it's impossible to prove or disprove God's existence. At first glance, these wise words seems logical, modest and easy to adopt. I carefully considered being agnostic but i concluded that it still wasn't logical enough.
Believing in God is the only logical option. I can easily imagine something to be eternal, but its inconceivable to imagine a process that has no beginning. Science made considerable advancements in our understanding of the birth of the Universe but we will never able to know what was the sparking element that set all the events in motion. God. It's impossible to argue against it. Life and death, molecules integration, oxygen, air travel, computers, vegetation and animals etc... The world is too complex and well synchronized to have just 'happened' without divine intervention.
However, it's really important to make a distinction. I do not mean God in its traditional form; an Old man dressed in white with irreproachable ethics and almighty power, granting or denying salvation. I simply mean that the sparking element HAD to be from an intelligent and superior force somewhere. I will only be an agnostic in my description of that 'God' since yes, it's impossible to know how God looks like or behaves. I won't even speculate about whether God is inherently good or evil.
On January 30 2009 22:57 TheFlashyOne wrote: Using the historical mega-fiasco of most religions (perhaps excepting only Hinduism and Buddhism) and highlighting how detrimental they have been to human life is not the right argument to validate or promote atheism. Granted, religions are mankind's greatest paradox. Designed to instill ethics, yet resulting in more dividing and more casualties. However, that's not what we are talking about. We're debating whether God exists.
To me, being Atheist is simply wrong and these people (obviously) can not back up their claim that they have a 100% certainty that God does not exist. I think these people we're simply fed up with religions and since they did not have any other direction, they ended up here without thinking about it too much.
Agnostics are not as rigid. They believe that it's impossible to prove or disprove God's existence. At first glance, these wise words seems logical, modest and easy to adopt. I carefully considered being agnostic but i concluded that it still wasn't logical enough.
Believing in God is the only logical option. I can easily imagine something to be eternal, but its inconceivable to imagine a process that has no beginning. Science made considerable advancements in our understanding of the birth of the Universe but we will never able to know what was the sparking element that set all the events in motion. God. It's impossible to argue against it. Life and death, molecules integration, oxygen, air travel, computers, vegetation and animals etc... The world is too complex and well synchronized to have just 'happened' without divine intervention.
However, it's really important to make a distinction. I do not mean God in its traditional form; an Old man dressed in white with irreproachable ethics and almighty power, granting or denying salvation. I simply mean that the sparking element HAD to be from an intelligent and superior force somewhere. I will only be an agnostic in my description of that 'God' since yes, it's impossible to know how God looks like or behaves. I won't even speculate about whether God is inherently good or evil.
So basically you have a personal interpretation, which even though seems very logical, since there are no definite arguments, it may be logical only to you. So it's your personal choice of belief. Which makes it no different from being a traditional Christian or an intense atheist
On January 30 2009 22:57 TheFlashyOne wrote: Using the historical mega-fiasco of most religions (perhaps excepting only Hinduism and Buddhism) and highlighting how detrimental they have been to human life is not the right argument to validate or promote atheism. Granted, religions are mankind's greatest paradox. Designed to instill ethics, yet resulting in more dividing and more casualties. However, that's not what we are talking about. We're debating whether God exists.
To me, being Atheist is simply wrong and these people (obviously) can not back up their claim that they have a 100% certainty that God does not exist. I think these people we're simply fed up with religions and since they did not have any other direction, they ended up here without thinking about it too much.
Agnostics are not as rigid. They believe that it's impossible to prove or disprove God's existence. At first glance, these wise words seems logical, modest and easy to adopt. I carefully considered being agnostic but i concluded that it still wasn't logical enough.
Believing in God is the only logical option. I can easily imagine something to be eternal, but its inconceivable to imagine a process that has no beginning. Science made considerable advancements in our understanding of the birth of the Universe but we will never able to know what was the sparking element that set all the events in motion. God. It's impossible to argue against it. Life and death, molecules integration, oxygen, air travel, computers, vegetation and animals etc... The world is too complex and well synchronized to have just 'happened' without divine intervention.
However, it's really important to make a distinction. I do not mean God in its traditional form; an Old man dressed in white with irreproachable ethics and almighty power, granting or denying salvation. I simply mean that the sparking element HAD to be from an intelligent and superior force somewhere. I will only be an agnostic in my description of that 'God' since yes, it's impossible to know how God looks like or behaves. I won't even speculate about whether God is inherently good or evil.
So basically you have a personal interpretation, which even though seems very logical, since there are no definite arguments, it may be logical only to you. So it's your personal choice of belief. Which makes it no different from being a traditional Christian or an intense atheist
Actually, it make's him quite different, as he does not latch on to what others believe, and has his own belief system.
On January 30 2009 22:57 TheFlashyOne wrote: Using the historical mega-fiasco of most religions (perhaps excepting only Hinduism and Buddhism) and highlighting how detrimental they have been to human life is not the right argument to validate or promote atheism. Granted, religions are mankind's greatest paradox. Designed to instill ethics, yet resulting in more dividing and more casualties. However, that's not what we are talking about. We're debating whether God exists.
To me, being Atheist is simply wrong and these people (obviously) can not back up their claim that they have a 100% certainty that God does not exist. I think these people we're simply fed up with religions and since they did not have any other direction, they ended up here without thinking about it too much.
Agnostics are not as rigid. They believe that it's impossible to prove or disprove God's existence. At first glance, these wise words seems logical, modest and easy to adopt. I carefully considered being agnostic but i concluded that it still wasn't logical enough.
Believing in God is the only logical option. I can easily imagine something to be eternal, but its inconceivable to imagine a process that has no beginning. Science made considerable advancements in our understanding of the birth of the Universe but we will never able to know what was the sparking element that set all the events in motion. God. It's impossible to argue against it. Life and death, molecules integration, oxygen, air travel, computers, vegetation and animals etc... The world is too complex and well synchronized to have just 'happened' without divine intervention.
However, it's really important to make a distinction. I do not mean God in its traditional form; an Old man dressed in white with irreproachable ethics and almighty power, granting or denying salvation. I simply mean that the sparking element HAD to be from an intelligent and superior force somewhere. I will only be an agnostic in my description of that 'God' since yes, it's impossible to know how God looks like or behaves. I won't even speculate about whether God is inherently good or evil.
So basically you have a personal interpretation, which even though seems very logical, since there are no definite arguments, it may be logical only to you. So it's your personal choice of belief. Which makes it no different from being a traditional Christian or an intense atheist
Actually, it make's him quite different, as he does not latch on to what others believe, and has his own belief system.
Even if it is, by definition, different since it's original, the fact that it is original does not make IT (the belief system) any more logical/true; it, possibly, only makes him different as a person.
On January 30 2009 22:57 TheFlashyOne wrote: Using the historical mega-fiasco of most religions (perhaps excepting only Hinduism and Buddhism) and highlighting how detrimental they have been to human life is not the right argument to validate or promote atheism. Granted, religions are mankind's greatest paradox. Designed to instill ethics, yet resulting in more dividing and more casualties. However, that's not what we are talking about. We're debating whether God exists.
To me, being Atheist is simply wrong and these people (obviously) can not back up their claim that they have a 100% certainty that God does not exist. I think these people we're simply fed up with religions and since they did not have any other direction, they ended up here without thinking about it too much.
Agnostics are not as rigid. They believe that it's impossible to prove or disprove God's existence. At first glance, these wise words seems logical, modest and easy to adopt. I carefully considered being agnostic but i concluded that it still wasn't logical enough.
Believing in God is the only logical option. I can easily imagine something to be eternal, but its inconceivable to imagine a process that has no beginning. Science made considerable advancements in our understanding of the birth of the Universe but we will never able to know what was the sparking element that set all the events in motion. God. It's impossible to argue against it. Life and death, molecules integration, oxygen, air travel, computers, vegetation and animals etc... The world is too complex and well synchronized to have just 'happened' without divine intervention.
However, it's really important to make a distinction. I do not mean God in its traditional form; an Old man dressed in white with irreproachable ethics and almighty power, granting or denying salvation. I simply mean that the sparking element HAD to be from an intelligent and superior force somewhere. I will only be an agnostic in my description of that 'God' since yes, it's impossible to know how God looks like or behaves. I won't even speculate about whether God is inherently good or evil.
dude ur analogy is a) old and b) weak and proves nothing, let alone logically proving the existance of god. David Hume wrote a book called "Dialogues concerning natural religion" where you can find your exact argument in the mouth of Cleanthes, claiming the natural order of the universe proves the existence of an intelligent designer. Hume goes on and disproves that logic convinvingly through the character of Philo. You should read Humes book so you dont have to use outdated and disproved arguments from 200 years ago anymore...
edit: also his belief is by no means original as others said... probably already proven by showing his exact opinion already is in a 200 year old book, but just to make it clear again, his belief is that of a classic deist, its nothing original. I suggest all of you read Humes book if you want some standard knowledge/education about the god question, Im sure it will help to differentiate your own standpoint a lot.
in regard to tasteless, the jehovas are theists. Use that to your advantage by steering towards the classic theodicy problem. Ask him if god is all-knowing, all-mighty and all-bountiful. If he answers to all these questions with "yes" (which he should) then ask him how it can be possible that there is evil in the world. For a theist, this question cannot be answered without offending one of his previous premises that god is a) all-knowing, b)all-mighty and especially c)all-bountiful.
While old as fuck, its still useful to put yourself in the argumentative/logically superior position against a theist. From there on it should be np to at least constitute that his religion has some serious logical flaws and since ur a rationalist, its impossible for you to believe in systems which base on logically flawed premises. This should get you rid of him.
A similar point to your D is asking what reasons suggest that the probability of existance of his god is higher than that of all the other gods known in the world. And if he existed why should he be worthshipped? I would not want to associate with the god portraited in the old testamony.
dude ur analogy is a) old and b) weak and proves nothing, let alone logically proving the existance of god. David Hume wrote a book called "Dialogues concerning natural religion" where you can find your exact argument in the mouth of Cleanthes, claiming the natural order of the universe proves the existence of an intelligent designer. Hume goes on and disproves that logic convinvingly through the character of Philo. You should read Humes book so you dont have to use outdated and disproved arguments from 200 years ago anymore...
edit: also his belief is by no means original as others said... probably already proven by showing his exact opinion already is in a 200 year old book, but just to make it clear again, his belief is that of a classic deist, its nothing original. I suggest all of you read Humes book if you want some standard knowledge/education about the god question, Im sure it will help to differentiate your own standpoint a lot.
Well, A- it wasn't an analogy , B-My point wasn't weak and C- it does prove something.
I didn't read Hume's book but i checked and he seems to argue against the Argument from design (my argument) but doesn't go as far as to deny the existence of god. That would simply make him an agnostic yet i'd be really curious to know what his arguments are about the impossibility of proving God's existence.
Im not sure why the opinion of an 18th century scottish scholar should have preponderance over mine in this debate.
On January 30 2009 22:29 Snare wrote: Tasteless just lost a fan =]
On January 30 2009 23:26 tdotkrayz wrote: I've lost a lot of respect for Tasteless...
Not to say that I don't respect him as a commentator anymore, but I don't respect him as a person the way I used to.
^WTF?!? You dont respect him because he isnt religious, lol O_o. What do his religious believes have to do with how good he is as a person or at his job or at anything for that matter. On the contrary, actually I gained respect for him for his willingness to enter a debate with a kind of people who stand so firmly to their believes that usually cant be argued with.
I think that if you believe in a god, there is one, and if you don't, there isn't one. The god just lives in the people's minds anyway, the minds of those who believe. I'd have a lot more to say about religions but sadly I don't think it's the right place for that.
I'll say that I met a danish person who researches what the Jehova's Witnesses do, how they blackmail and threaten people who leave them and how they keep pushing their beliefs to others. Apparently at least in Danmark there had been a lot of that kinds of crimes performed by Jehova's Witnesses, which makes me think of them as a joke. Actually, my grandmother's friend's son was threatened and blackmailed by them, so the Danish person's claims definitely aren't just out of the thin air. As if God, if he existed, would want that. Ridiculous.
However, one of the biggest reasons that this kind of stuff makes no sense is the bible. Some say that bible is God's word although it's written by humans. It's their opinions and how they feel, and there are certain parts where the same things are described differently in different people's views. Also, why would there be more than one major religion if there was only one real "god"? The other people's opinions are wrong? That's just a stupid thing to say. I think that it's the same "god" they all worship, but just different sides of him or different intepretions.
This post is starting to get ridiculously lenghty, so I guess I'll just stop that. I guess I'd describe myself as an agnostic; I like to think of why people would think how they would, what could be and what would not.
You have to realize that everyone's beliefs are beliefs. Spiritual beliefs do not have to be rational in the scientific sense. There is nothing wrong with religious beliefs in any way until it becomes too extreme and you try to push it into other people; same thing with atheism.
Jehova's witnesses are annoying at times but you have to realize that some of them really do believe that they are doing the right thing. And for individuals with strong beliefs, you can't change the way they think because they're so rooted deep into it. I've heard some absurd arguments from both sides that attempt to validate their own beliefs and/or shut down the opponent's beliefs.
I used to be a Christian for a long time, and I renounced by beliefs only after reading and learning about Christianity and other religions. It takes time; throwing evolution arguments isn't going to do anything because it's such a common and rather trite topic that people often use against Christians and it pretty much doesn't do anything to them because they've composed counter-arguments towards it for fucking years now, regardless of how absurd their arguments may sound to us.
On January 30 2009 22:49 ZZangDreamjOy wrote: I'll just come out and say it. Atheist's are just as bad as mormons, jehovah's witnesses, etc. Your just the other extreme of the religious spectrum. You still push YOUR beliefs (That there is no god, no afterlife etc) on others.
I just wonder, why even bother? Who cares if there's a god or not, or if one religion is right or if a million are wrong. It doesn't effect our day to day life. We will all figure out the truth on our deathbed.
yeah your totally right! and who gives a fuck if the world is flat or if germs really exist? who cares if a man was born of a virgin or if a cracker turns into the blood and body of another person? why not sit back in our big reclining chair; drunk off ignorance and high off indifference while we spew some overly simplistic excuse that deters from discourse. why not just do that?
If you don't want to challenge/question/investigate your own thoughts, life, and meaning then stay off this blog. read the last four lines of your post and ponder the lethargy of your life philosophy.
There's also the problem that when a person, for example, really wants to hear the god's voice, he will hear it even if it wouldn't actually happen since he wants to hear it so much he'll intepret it as the god's voice even if it was not. Like if I want to find signs of god in every sound I hear inside my head or in my dreams or whatever, I will find them and I'll intepret them the way that it was the god who said that or whatever. It's always like that with everything; people will always try to intepret everything to help or reinforce their cause.
dude ur analogy is a) old and b) weak and proves nothing, let alone logically proving the existance of god. David Hume wrote a book called "Dialogues concerning natural religion" where you can find your exact argument in the mouth of Cleanthes, claiming the natural order of the universe proves the existence of an intelligent designer. Hume goes on and disproves that logic convinvingly through the character of Philo. You should read Humes book so you dont have to use outdated and disproved arguments from 200 years ago anymore...
edit: also his belief is by no means original as others said... probably already proven by showing his exact opinion already is in a 200 year old book, but just to make it clear again, his belief is that of a classic deist, its nothing original. I suggest all of you read Humes book if you want some standard knowledge/education about the god question, Im sure it will help to differentiate your own standpoint a lot.
Well, A- it wasn't an analogy , B-My point wasn't weak and C- it does prove something.
I didn't read Hume's book but i checked and he seems to argue against the Argument from design (my argument) but doesn't go as far as to deny the existence of god. That would simply make him an agnostic yet i'd be really curious to know what his arguments are about the impossibility of proving God's existence.
Im not sure why the opinion of an 18th century scottish scholar should have preponderance over mine in this debate.
well its quite simple, your analogy never goes beyond assumption. Unfortunately you have no evidence, no cold hard data to prove the existence of god. Also, you have no clue if order really exists in matter, maybe it only exists in (your) mind? If you really think your analogy comes close to logic proof, you not only need to read Humes book, but also get a grip of basic logic.
Oh, I also wanna explain to you why the opinion of an "18th century scottish scholar" should have more preponderance over your opinion in this debate... Probably because he is a well known and one of the most important philosophers of the 18th century/the enlightenment? Probably because his book about this topic is the philosophical standard lecture on it? Maybe u also think that your opinion is far more sophisticated than those of pre-christian greek scholars like Aristoteles, Platon, Sokrates and all the other big ancient philosophers. But maybe, just maybe, ur ignorance just knows no bounds...
There also are theories that suggest that the creation of the world is just a metaphor and that the world in fact was created as detailed in the Evolutionistic way of thinking, but that the bible's 7 days were actually spread accross billions of years and are just a... metaphor. I think that this easily makes the most sense. It's silly to try to prove others wrong, just try to make everything work... sigh.
the problem is this video is followed by one of those fringe 9/11 conspiracy videos with some fight club sound track in the back ground, i can't give him this, i lose all credibility. i'm tempted to give him a dawkins book, i'll even buy it for him.
anyone know which is the best one to suggest? i find hitchens tooooo much for a religious person. actually... on that note, what's the best daniel dennet book? breaking the spell?
On January 31 2009 00:04 Shikyo wrote: There also are theories that suggest that the creation of the world is just a metaphor and that the world in fact was created as detailed in the Evolutionistic way of thinking, but that the bible's 7 days were actually spread accross billions of years and are just a... metaphor. I think that this easily makes the most sense. It's silly to try to prove others wrong, just try to make everything work... sigh.
i really wasn't expecting this much of a response to the blog, i have to go soon, but i'll read the other responses tomorrow. sorry. i do appreciate feedback.
BUT PLEASE HELP ME FIND ARTICLES, NO ONE IS DOING THAT
On January 30 2009 18:23 PH wrote: Jehovah's witnesses are very strange from my experiences with them. Don't expect too much.
Just cut contact and give it a rest. If you're completely secure in your beliefs, then what does it matter?
I feel the opposite. They have been always nice to me even though I'm really agnostic. When people approach me with their religious views I just treat them with respect, and say I have my beliefs and they should respect mine like I do theirs.
Never had any problems doing it that way. I know people might keep trying to persude you, but I just walk away from the situtation afterwards. It's easy like that. No drama.
dennet wont sway a religious person, he goes out of his way to avoid being confrontational in the books ive read the god delusion would be fine but to be honest no rational arguments are likely to affect someone like that.
tasteless, I have to find a few articles on this subject for a paper I want to write for my english class. I'll let you know if I find anything interesting.
iirc, wikipedia's article on evolution is actually pretty good, and cites lots of sources.
On January 30 2009 22:49 ZZangDreamjOy wrote: I'll just come out and say it. Atheist's are just as bad as mormons, jehovah's witnesses, etc. Your just the other extreme of the religious spectrum. You still push YOUR beliefs (That there is no god, no afterlife etc) on others.
I just wonder, why even bother? Who cares if there's a god or not, or if one religion is right or if a million are wrong. It doesn't effect our day to day life. We will all figure out the truth on our deathbed.
Hi. What you are saying about atheists is generally wrong, you are making a gross generalization. First of all, atheists don't go from door to door trying to recruit people like jehovah's witnesses. They just live their life, and, seeing as most atheists are critical thinkers of some sort, they will defend their beliefs and/or pose critical questions about other beliefs. There are some atheists who find it hard to believe that there is a considerable amount of people who believe in a transcendental entity that has created the universe and is perhaps guiding it, and that there is a life after death, the 'wellness' of which depends on how you live your life. Some of these atheists may make bold and offensive statements to initiate discussion on the matter, because they feel they are completely in the right. Some of these atheists may indeed go to far and attack people for their beliefs. Most atheists, I hope and do think, accept that one can not be 100% certain that a God of sorts does not exist. However, they realize that it is very improbable, so they dismiss this thesis. These atheists may be called 'atheist agnostics'. Now, when you're saying that "Atheist's are just as bad as mormons, jehovah's witnesses, etc.", you're not only calling all mormons and jehovah's witnesses 'bad', which is quite an improper statement. Also, you are generalizing all atheists and calling them bad on the basis of the behaviour of a few atheists, which is like calling all muslims bad because you had an unpleasant experience with a few of them. I think you are also quite wrong in saying that religion does not effect our daily life, but I won't go into that here cause I've already made a long post and my hands are tired and I'm stoned and I feel like doing something else.
Arguing with a man like that is a waste of time. The thought process that goes, "this man clearly hasn't thought closely enough about the logic of the situation", is fatally flawed.
The reality is he can't follow the logic because he doesn't want to. Thinking through a complicated issue like religion requires a scientific mind and the will to think through all the lines of argument. The issue is large enough that it's easy to become confused or philosophical and ignore the obvious answer. If their perspective on every issue is shifted then the don't see the argument properly.
The basic flaws in religious belief are actually very simple and Dawkins does a great job of outlining them. But you still need to think the ideas through yourself.
I honestly believe the best thing you can do is tell the man he doesn't understand, briefly explain why he is wrong and then that you don't want to continue the argument. You wouldn't give a psychic or an astrologer this much time, this dude is no different.
All you're really doing is boosting your own ego whilst wasting his and your time.
Maybe you could find this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance article in korean wikipedia ( here ) and then look through references ect and maybe you'll find something interesting. Atleast it's an interesting up to date area in the whole evolution topic and might sway him. I cant read korean at all so I cant dig any deeper.
EDIT: Considering the jehovas that came to my door wanted to talk about Noah's Ark I kinda doubt that anything will work.
The Noah's Ark "confirmation" by there being floods in other cultures is so fucking stupid.
Ancient civilizations grew around rivers, and rivers tend to flood, thus they all have a fucking flood story, and by virtue of relativity one of those floods happens to be the greatest of them all.
On January 30 2009 19:50 Eatme wrote: I think they have me up on "saveable" list since I politely talked to them and accepted their funny magazines. But I wasnt at home last time they shoved up but they did leave a folder explaining that satan is really ruling the world. And no it really says that and backs it up with bible quotes.
seriously, politely talking to them the first couple times made them keep coming back. and I was a minor at the time, they kept coming back to tell a minor what he should believe in. =( messed up on a lot of levels
On January 30 2009 18:23 PH wrote: Jehovah's witnesses are very strange from my experiences with them. Don't expect too much.
Just cut contact and give it a rest. If you're completely secure in your beliefs, then what does it matter?
One of my best friends is a Jehovah's Witness and there's nothing strange about him. He's actually very polite and respecting of other people's beliefs. Perhaps the man Tasteless is involved is also very respecting about Nick's beliefs and is just using this as a learning experience as any sensible person might.
What does any debate about anything matter if both sides are secure in their beliefs? We might as well just ignore anyone and everyone who doesn't believe just like we do, then start wars to punish them for thinking differently.
On January 30 2009 23:47 MasterOfChaos wrote: A similar point to your D is asking what reasons suggest that the probability of existance of his god is higher than that of all the other gods known in the world.
On January 30 2009 22:49 ZZangDreamjOy wrote: I'll just come out and say it. Atheist's are just as bad as mormons, jehovah's witnesses, etc. Your just the other extreme of the religious spectrum. You still push YOUR beliefs (That there is no god, no afterlife etc) on others.
A Jehovah's Witness approaches Tasteless with the intent to convert him Tasteless stands up for his beliefs in a civilized manner Peanut gallery makes accusations of extremism on Tasteless' part
What. The. Fuck. I live in California, and not once have I ever seen an atheist running around trying to convert people, while I get approached by people who apparently think I need salvation multiple times a year. How you think that atheists are just as "extreme" as people who believe anybody who doesn't believe in their religion is going to hell is beyond me.
On January 31 2009 04:57 Underwhelmed wrote:. How you think that atheists are just as "extreme" as people who believe anybody who doesn't believe in their religion is going to hell is beyond me.
Envy? I can't think of something else. All (other) atheists I know are friendly, down to earth and rational in their thought process.
Jehovas witness were at my doorstep some day, read some things from the bible, gave me some magazines. I reacted in a sarcastic way like "ooh, thats REALLY interesting". They said they would come again, but I never saw anyone of them again. Would be fun meeting more of them. And guys from scientology, haha :D
My answer to Jehovas Witnesses is always so simple: if my parents had been Jehovas Witnesses I'd be dead, since they don't allow blood transfusions and I once needed one when I was ~2.5 years old. They just shut up, look a bit confused and walk away.
That being said I don't believe in any god whatsoever. Neither does my dad, thankfully. And my mom is only a light version of a believer, she perfectly understand people who don't believe.
You can also refer your friend to the youtube channel Dawkins involve himself with http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=RationalResponse&view=videos There are a lots of information from highly respected leaders of the scientific community in many of the videos, Richard Dawkins included.
- my brother in law in one week got 3 or 4 different religious nuts show up his door, mormons, jehovas, and assorted protestants.. he was fed up with it and decided to do something about it - the sneaky guy gave them all a specific appointment and insisted he wanted to speak to the ministers etc.. after he called his local priest and rabbi too insisting on an "interesting" invitation with a lot of "potential".. none new who else was going to be invited.. when they finally all showed up, he set up the grill, started the debate and just sat back and enjoyed the show..
On January 30 2009 18:03 benjammin wrote: i think you should change the blog title to:
a pebble vs an ocean
isn't apathy one of the stages of being an atheist?
no
that's an agnostic
the atheist at least opts to chose a side.
no
agnosticism claims that all these little squabbles over proof or disproof are over things that are unknown and always will be
an apathetic is indifferent to what people believe
my point was that all the good-natured logic in every atheist will eventually turn into apathy when they realize all the good-natured logic in the world isn't going to change anyone's mind
On January 30 2009 18:03 benjammin wrote: i think you should change the blog title to:
a pebble vs an ocean
isn't apathy one of the stages of being an atheist?
no
that's an agnostic
the atheist at least opts to chose a side.
no
agnosticism claims that all these little squabbles over proof or disproof are over things that are unknown and always will be
an apathetic is indifferent to what people believe
my point was that all the good-natured logic in every atheist will eventually turn into apathy when they realize all the good-natured logic in the world isn't going to change anyone's mind
My friend's parents have always been JWs and recently he met this chick (who I assume is religious/JW) and he totally converted to their beliefs and became a douche. He deleted all his porn and calls it pollution. He says him and his gf are not gonna have sex until marriage and all sorts of other illogical bullshit. I haven't hung out with him ever since (because he doesn't come around).
I think Xcetron's family is JW, he knows a lot about their beliefs and stuff.
On January 30 2009 19:00 TheFlashyOne wrote: its really really really strange to be a real Atheist. at least be an agnostic.
I agree, in my mind its worse to be a real atheist than religious because at least most religious people will admit that everything they believe is based on faith, while an atheist believes that what he believes is based on logic.
Kind of like the greek philosophers who believed that they could understand the universe by sitting in a cave using nothing but pure logic and deduction. More often than not, when you actually get out there and measure something your paradigm changes (thats the story of science (nature) anyway....that what you think you understand is pretty much guaranteed to be completely wrong).
I bet it would be really funny and interesting if you got a rep of each major religion (christian, JW,mormon,islam,jew, hindu, bhuddism,scientology-lol) and got them all in a room where you tell them you are an agnostic and you want to convert to a new religion.
I could see them fighting over you and with each other and generally serving the purpose of discrediting religion as a whole.
On February 01 2009 04:49 spitball wrote: I'm not sure if this has been brought up but here goes.
"Atheism vs. Agnosticism What's the Difference? Are they Alternatives to Each Other?" (hint: they're not)
I think the biggest difference between athieism and agnosticism is that athiest have BELIEFS that religion is bullshit and will probably try and 'convert' religious people to athiesm. Agnostics generally just don't give a fuck. So athieism is a pseudo-religion in itself.
Also some agnostics believe in a higher power but just don't know what to make of it or how to be in touch with it. Athiests generally and totally do not.
On February 01 2009 06:00 CharlieMurphy wrote: I bet it would be really funny and interesting if you got a rep of each major religion (christian, JW,mormon,islam,jew, hindu, bhuddism,scientology-lol) and got them all in a room where you tell them you are an agnostic and you want to convert to a new religion.
I could see them fighting over you and with each other and generally serving the purpose of discrediting religion as a whole.
On January 30 2009 19:00 TheFlashyOne wrote: its really really really strange to be a real Atheist. at least be an agnostic.
I agree, in my mind its worse to be a real atheist than religious because at least most religious people will admit that everything they believe is based on faith, while an atheist believes that what he believes is based on logic.
Do you believe that Santa Claus (In the form of a jolly old man who delivers all the good kids presents on Christmas eve) exists?
To me it's extremely funny how the idea of an invisible allmighty power guiding everything has become so ingrained in our culture that it would need "disproving". Unicorns don't need "disproving" do they?
I had a really funny experience with a lady from JW once. Me and a couple of friends were standing at a train station when she came up to us and started handing out pamphlets. While we politely glanced in them (stupid stories about how you without "god" in your life will become most unhappy) she asked one of the girls "Do you belive in god?" And she's like, "Yea sure I'll belive in him if he can get me a good girlfriend". The lady just stares at her silently for like 10-20 seconds before silently muttering "I'll pray for you my child" and walking away. We almost doubbled over with laughter :p
On January 30 2009 19:00 TheFlashyOne wrote: its really really really strange to be a real Atheist. at least be an agnostic.
I agree, in my mind its worse to be a real atheist than religious because at least most religious people will admit that everything they believe is based on faith, while an atheist believes that what he believes is based on logic.
Do you believe that Santa Claus (In the form of a jolly old man who delivers all the good kids presents on Christmas eve) exists?
I believe everything I hear until I rule it out with either intuition or logic, and even then I go back to it as new information or experiences come up. Whether that story is allegorical or symbolic is a very real possibility. By qualifying it to be literal (a real old man), you kind of push the logical side of things.
edit: btw, this is the opposite of the scientific method, which starts from axioms and builds up. The scientific method is very good for institutional uses and things involving definite experiments. However, it is not well suited to creating your personal reality because, essentially, it takes more than a lifetime to do it properly. It is not practical.
On February 01 2009 06:00 CharlieMurphy wrote: I think the biggest difference between athieism and agnosticism is that athiest have BELIEFS that religion is bullshit and will probably try and 'convert' religious people to athiesm. Agnostics generally just don't give a fuck. So athieism is a pseudo-religion in itself.
Also some agnostics believe in a higher power but just don't know what to make of it or how to be in touch with it. Athiests generally and totally do not.
I don't believe in any higher being. I can't disprove their existance, but I have no reason to believe there is one. So while a higher being might exist, I don't really care about it.
However, a higher being in the form of the teaching of any religion does not exist. They are all invented by humans and each group thinks they are right. Since their beliefs contradict each other, only one religion can be right. But if there really were a right religion, why would anyone believe in something else?
However, that talking about higher being(s) aka god(s) should not be the main concern of any religion. Religion should be about love, peace, charity and harmony and not about who will go to hell for not believing and who will go to heaven for giving the pope money.
On February 01 2009 06:00 CharlieMurphy wrote: I think the biggest difference between athieism and agnosticism is that athiest have BELIEFS that religion is bullshit and will probably try and 'convert' religious people to athiesm. Agnostics generally just don't give a fuck. So athieism is a pseudo-religion in itself.
Also some agnostics believe in a higher power but just don't know what to make of it or how to be in touch with it. Athiests generally and totally do not.
I don't believe in any higher being. I can't disprove their existance, but I have no reason to believe there is one. So while a higher being might exist, I don't really care about it.
However, a higher being in the form of the teaching of any religion does not exist. They are all invented by humans and each group thinks they are right. Since their beliefs contradict each other, only one religion can be right. But if there really were a right religion, why would anyone believe in something else?
However, that talking about higher being(s) aka god(s) should not be the main concern of any religion. Religion should be about love, peace, charity and harmony and not about who will go to hell for not believing and who will go to heaven for giving the pope money.
I can say right off the bat that many of your concepts do not hold up.
First of all, how do you know that all religions are invented by humans? Christians hold that the Bible was spoken by God through man. Considering that this is true, neither the Bible nor Christianity is invented by man.
But if there really were a right religion, why would anyone believe, in something else?
I have no idea how to refute this logic as, no offense, it's not very good. Let's say that God DOES exist and Christianity IS the right religion. Why would you believe in no God? That would be the same as asking why people believe in a different religion. Because everyone else thinks that THEY are right.
religion should be about love, peace, charity and harmony
Wouldn't this subscribe to your believe that religion is man-made, invented by man? This follows man's concept about how things should be, not the way God wants things to be.
not about who will go to hell for not believing and who will go to heaven for giving the pope money
Talking to non-believers of God, I get this common misconception a lot. Every single time, I give this analogy:
Suppose that you, along with everyone in the world, were born with a disease. Because of this disease, you will eventually die but you don't realize it. Now, suppose I come along and offer you the medicine that will take away your disease. However, I say that you have to take the medicine everyday, otherwise the disease will come back and sicken you.
Now, there are two possibilities. The first is that you trust me, take the medicine, and you live. The other is that you call me a liar, say that you have no disease (you think you are fine), and you reject the medicine I offer.
However, along with that, you criticize me for choosing who lives and who dies. Does this sound reasonable at all to you?
This is the same thing as what Christians believe. Satan imparted his sinful nature in man (Adam and Eve) and because of this we need to die. Jesus has already died on the cross for our sins and has given us His blood as our "medicine". We were destined to go to Hell but God saves us from this. Many atheists see this as God condemning us to hell because they don't believe. How unfortunate it is that they don't realize that God wants to save us.
On January 30 2009 18:03 benjammin wrote: i think you should change the blog title to:
a pebble vs an ocean
isn't apathy one of the stages of being an atheist?
no
that's an agnostic
the atheist at least opts to chose a side.
no
agnosticism claims that all these little squabbles over proof or disproof are over things that are unknown and always will be
an apathetic is indifferent to what people believe
my point was that all the good-natured logic in every atheist will eventually turn into apathy when they realize all the good-natured logic in the world isn't going to change anyone's mind
but peoples minds can and do change
sure, but if they do it's typically by their own free will, not by combating zealotry with zealotry
On February 01 2009 06:00 CharlieMurphy wrote: I think the biggest difference between athieism and agnosticism is that athiest have BELIEFS that religion is bullshit and will probably try and 'convert' religious people to athiesm. Agnostics generally just don't give a fuck. So athieism is a pseudo-religion in itself.
Also some agnostics believe in a higher power but just don't know what to make of it or how to be in touch with it. Athiests generally and totally do not.
On February 01 2009 06:09 fight_or_flight wrote: I believe everything I hear until I rule it out with either intuition or logic, and even then I go back to it as new information or experiences come up. Whether that story is allegorical or symbolic is a very real possibility. By qualifying it to be literal (a real old man), you kind of push the logical side of things.
Bullshit, you don't default to a position of belief on everything. If I claimed that packs of rabid Giant Radioactive Space Hamsters terrorize the galaxy, you'd be immediately skeptical (and rightfully so) because there's a complete and total lack of evidence to support my claim. So once, again: Do you believe in Santa Claus?
edit: btw, this is the opposite of the scientific method, which starts from axioms and builds up. The scientific method is very good for institutional uses and things involving definite experiments. However, it is not well suited to creating your personal reality because, essentially, it takes more than a lifetime to do it properly. It is not practical.
I can only hope by "personal reality", you mean "beliefs", not objective reality.
On February 01 2009 06:00 CharlieMurphy wrote: I think the biggest difference between athieism and agnosticism is that athiest have BELIEFS that religion is bullshit and will probably try and 'convert' religious people to athiesm. Agnostics generally just don't give a fuck. So athieism is a pseudo-religion in itself.
Also some agnostics believe in a higher power but just don't know what to make of it or how to be in touch with it. Athiests generally and totally do not.
I don't believe in any higher being. I can't disprove their existance, but I have no reason to believe there is one. So while a higher being might exist, I don't really care about it.
However, a higher being in the form of the teaching of any religion does not exist. They are all invented by humans and each group thinks they are right. Since their beliefs contradict each other, only one religion can be right. But if there really were a right religion, why would anyone believe in something else?
However, that talking about higher being(s) aka god(s) should not be the main concern of any religion. Religion should be about love, peace, charity and harmony and not about who will go to hell for not believing and who will go to heaven for giving the pope money.
I can say right off the bat that many of your concepts do not hold up.
First of all, how do you know that all religions are invented by humans? Christians hold that the Bible was spoken by God through man. Considering that this is true, neither the Bible nor Christianity is invented by man.
Because they are, because I say so. Yeah, great argument, I know, but the bible was written by humans. Wether it was from the influence of god or drugs, it is still written by human hand. If you insist on believing in god, that is your right, and I won't judge you for your believe. If you insist that christianity is right and everyone should believe in it, I despise you. Sounds ignorant comming from someone, who just called all religions of our world wrong, yes, but thats the way I see things. If I will be proven wrong, I will still go to my heaven with a beer volcano and a stripper factory, because my religion is awesome.
But if there really were a right religion, why would anyone believe, in something else?
I have no idea how to refute this logic as, no offense, it's not very good. Let's say that God DOES exist and Christianity IS the right religion. Why would you believe in no God? That would be the same as asking why people believe in a different religion. Because everyone else thinks that THEY are right.
The only possibility is lack of information. You can make the wrong decision based on a lack of information, but wouldn't a all-mighty, all-knowing being make sure, we have everything we need to believe in him?
religion should be about love, peace, charity and harmony
Wouldn't this subscribe to your believe that religion is man-made, invented by man? This follows man's concept about how things should be, not the way God wants things to be.
Yes, because religion is man-made, and should be something positive. Do you just imply, that your religion does not stand for good things? That god wants us to suffer?
On February 01 2009 06:57 BanZu wrote: This is the same thing as what Christians believe.
You believe in a made-up story, that was created to bring people on the right path thousands of years ago. I don't want to talk your religion bad, its basic message is a good one, that everyone should consider following. But its logic is as flawed as you see mine. God created the earth like 8000 years ago, and made Eve from Adams rib and so on.
Yes, because religion is man-made, and should be something positive. Do you just imply, that your religion does not stand for good things? That god wants us to suffer?
Saying that good things are not the focus does not imply that we do not stand up for those things, they just aren't the main focus. To assume something like that is faulty logic.
You can make the wrong decision based on a lack of information, but wouldn't a all-mighty, all-knowing being make sure, we have everything we need to believe in him?
This argument assumes that an omniscient being will also be benevolent.
On February 01 2009 06:09 fight_or_flight wrote: I believe everything I hear until I rule it out with either intuition or logic, and even then I go back to it as new information or experiences come up. Whether that story is allegorical or symbolic is a very real possibility. By qualifying it to be literal (a real old man), you kind of push the logical side of things.
Bullshit, you don't default to a position of belief on everything. If I claimed that packs of rabid Giant Radioactive Space Hamsters terrorize the galaxy, you'd be immediately skeptical (and rightfully so) because there's a complete and total lack of evidence to support my claim. So once, again: Do you believe in Santa Claus?
I'm talking about people who seem to genuinely believe what they are saying. Its obvious that you don't believe what you just said. Also, I didn't claim I wasn't skeptical, what I'm saying is that if I don't have a good reason to disbelieve it, then I tentatively accept it as true until something changes my mind in the future.
The very fact that there is someone who seems to genuinely believe in something, or a group of people, means that it is more likely to be true than not in the face of no opposing evidence. Why else would they spend time telling you about it?
edit: btw, this is the opposite of the scientific method, which starts from axioms and builds up. The scientific method is very good for institutional uses and things involving definite experiments. However, it is not well suited to creating your personal reality because, essentially, it takes more than a lifetime to do it properly. It is not practical.
I can only hope by "personal reality", you mean "beliefs", not objective reality.
No, I'm talking about truth, and truth is objective. However, due to our short lifespan, no one can really objectively know everything, so that makes our reality/beliefs of the world around us pretty subjective. Put another way, we can always become more objective. Anyone claiming they somehow know objective reality is probably much less objective than even the general population.
On February 01 2009 10:18 fight_or_flight wrote: I'm talking about people who seem to genuinely believe what they are saying. Its obvious that you don't believe what you just said. Also, I didn't claim I wasn't skeptical, what I'm saying is that if I don't have a good reason to disbelieve it, then I tentatively accept it as true until something changes my mind in the future.
The very fact that there is someone who seems to genuinely believe in something, or a group of people, means that it is more likely to be true than not in the face of no opposing evidence. Why else would they spend time telling you about it?
Sorry, normally I don't wade into these sort of discussions, but WHAT THE FUCK, that is some of the worst reasoning I have ever seen in my entire life. I sincerely hope that you don't mean what you just said.
For some reason when I read this title the first thing that came to mind was a 3 way boxing match, tasteless vs jahovas witness vs kangaroo. I dont know why.
On topic somewhat -
Assuming the lack of a god is no different than assuming the existence of one. Neither of you can really argue your points in any sort of manner that goes beyond assumption, sorry.
On February 01 2009 10:18 fight_or_flight wrote: I'm talking about people who seem to genuinely believe what they are saying. Its obvious that you don't believe what you just said. Also, I didn't claim I wasn't skeptical, what I'm saying is that if I don't have a good reason to disbelieve it, then I tentatively accept it as true until something changes my mind in the future.
The very fact that there is someone who seems to genuinely believe in something, or a group of people, means that it is more likely to be true than not in the face of no opposing evidence. Why else would they spend time telling you about it?
Sorry, normally I don't wade into these sort of discussions, but WHAT THE FUCK, that is some of the worst reasoning I have ever seen in my entire life. I sincerely hope that you don't mean what you just said.
The other option is to believe nothing until its "proven". However,
1) There are many things, deeply psychological, which we just assume to be true that we never think about.
2) It is obvious that everyone is so completely biased that it is better to not pretend that what you believe is based on truth, but rather, what you don't believe is in opposition to truth. Something false can seemingly be upheld by 1000 facts, but it only takes one fact to disprove 1000 lies.
1. truth is not subjective 2. truth never contradicts itself
Because truth is not subjective, some ideas are more objective than others. This means that no matter what your worldview is, it can always be improved to be more objective. It shows that there is indeed something to strive for.
The idea that truth never contradicts itself is a very powerful axiom. Lies can be internally consistent as well, but a mixture of truth and lies will show contradictions. You can use this principle to discover what’s true and what’s false. Here’s what I mean:
It is difficult to tell if any single idea is true or false, just like it is difficult to tell which of two similar puzzles a single puzzle piece belongs to. But a large collection of non-contradicting ideas will reveal whether the entire collection is true or false. The larger the collection, the easier it is to see. You start with one ambiguous puzzle piece, find others that fit onto it, and soon you can tell which of the two puzzles you’ve put together.
Another analogy is panning for gold. You start with a large amount of material that includes both silt and gold flakes, then you shake the pan and let the silt fall away. This indicates the importance of continually thinking, reading, and discussing large amounts of new material, which is then to be sorted or filtered via intuition and critical thinking to reveal what is true.
It is better to look for what’s wrong with a theory than what’s right. Debates can rage forever concerning the thousand facts supporting a single lie, but no one can argue with a single fact that disproves a thousand lies.
Remember, as long as your worldview is internally consistent, it is most likely entirely true or entirely false. Combine this principle with the five-step process below, and you will have an effective truth analysis method. The process of discovering truth is one of cycling between gathering material, formulating theories, working out inconsistencies, and gathering more material.
Most importantly, truth is always verified by both logic and intuition—logic without intuition, or intuition without logic should never be used to determine truth. They must be used in tandem. If there is conflict between logic and intuition, check your logical assumptions. Use intuition to guide and logic to analyze.
The process goes like this:
1) Gather new ideas from contemplation, observation, discussion, or some reading material. Then pick a mystery, a contradiction, a set of observations or anything that needs to be explained or resolved.
2) To make a good theory that will explain all of that, start with the infinite set of all possibilities. This means anything goes, no idea is too ludicrous. Use your intuition and guess.
3) As ideas come to mind, use critical thinking to eliminate everything that is self contradictory or absolutely impossible. Look for holes in these ideas, try to shoot them down.
4) Of the bulletproof theories that are left, select the theory that:
* explains all the facts * explains the facts better than any other theory * explains facts that previous theories could not * is logically consistent and has no internal contradictions * makes sense * feels intuitively correct
5) The theory is worth keeping if:
* it predicts things which are later confirmed by observation * you find correlation from other independent sources
6) If you come across something that challenges the theory, then:
* check to see that it’s really a challenge, and not just an illusory paradox based on assumptions or incorrect perspective * check to see if the challenge is even valid, or if it is internally inconsistent and full of holes * modify the theory to accomodate the challenge * come up with a whole new theory that explains everything more elegantly than the old one
This is opposite the process used in science and mathematics that starts with axioms and builds upon them. The problem with that method is that it starts with a very limited finite set and creeps upward like a stalagmite. If the assumptions or axioms are false, then everything built on it is in error. Furthermore, such a process cannot skip steps, as it always needs verification from the status quo to proceed to the next step. It cannot take leaps of faith or logic, and therefore cannot make paradigm shifts. It’s an inflexible process that definitely has its advantages when it comes to high risk applications that need lots of security and assuredness, but as far as breaking new ground is concerned, it’s incredibly slow. Any creativity in that process happens only in the formation of the basic axioms, or in accidents that occur along the way.
The process described in this article starts with an infinite set, and whittles away what doesn’t fit. This means there is no need to leap across a logical abyss because one approaches from the other side. It is much easier to build a bridge if someone is already on the other side. Likewise, once a radical idea has been confirmed using this process, it is much easier to work backwards and logically bridge the abyss. Also, the fitting together of ideas and sorting of truth from lies requires creativity at every step, so it’s the best method of achieving rapid innovation.
Yes, because religion is man-made, and should be something positive. Do you just imply, that your religion does not stand for good things? That god wants us to suffer?
Saying that good things are not the focus does not imply that we do not stand up for those things, they just aren't the main focus. To assume something like that is faulty logic.
Right, the main focus is crusades and holy war. Sorry, had to go there
You can make the wrong decision based on a lack of information, but wouldn't a all-mighty, all-knowing being make sure, we have everything we need to believe in him?
This argument assumes that an omniscient being will also be benevolent.
Isn't the christian (and most other too) image of god a loving and forgiving god?
Yes, because religion is man-made, and should be something positive. Do you just imply, that your religion does not stand for good things? That god wants us to suffer?
Saying that good things are not the focus does not imply that we do not stand up for those things, they just aren't the main focus. To assume something like that is faulty logic.
Right, the main focus is crusades and holy war. Sorry, had to go there
You can make the wrong decision based on a lack of information, but wouldn't a all-mighty, all-knowing being make sure, we have everything we need to believe in him?
This argument assumes that an omniscient being will also be benevolent.
Isn't the christian (and most other too) image of god a loving and forgiving god?
The Abrahamic god, a.k.a. YHWH, Jehova, "God", etc., is a fellow that killed people and destroyed nations that harmed his people (the Jews), killed people that pissed him off (often Jews, lol), and often encouraged and supported violence. The Christians and their New Testament depicts him as a rather different god, and due to the widespread influence that Christianity has had upon the world for centuries, many people often will take the "loving and forgiving" Christian God as the model of a god.
There are many religions, alive or presently extinct, where their god or gods weren't some kind of absolute moral imma-love-u-man figure.
On February 01 2009 06:57 BanZu wrote: Suppose that you, along with everyone in the world, were born with a disease. Because of this disease, you will eventually die but you don't realize it. Now, suppose I come along and offer you the medicine that will take away your disease. However, I say that you have to take the medicine everyday, otherwise the disease will come back and sicken you.
Now, there are two possibilities. The first is that you trust me, take the medicine, and you live. The other is that you call me a liar, say that you have no disease (you think you are fine), and you reject the medicine I offer.
However, along with that, you criticize me for choosing who lives and who dies. Does this sound reasonable at all to you?
This is the same thing as what Christians believe. Satan imparted his sinful nature in man (Adam and Eve) and because of this we need to die. Jesus has already died on the cross for our sins and has given us His blood as our "medicine". We were destined to go to Hell but God saves us from this. Many atheists see this as God condemning us to hell because they don't believe. How unfortunate it is that they don't realize that God wants to save us.
jesus christ man, do you even see the logical flaw in this whole argument? you have no evidence that we need "medicine" to be fine. i know tons of athiests, myself and others, who live perfectly healthy lives. i donate to charity and try to be a good friend to people. everyone makes mistakes but i do my best to be a good person.
obviously religions preach about doing the right thing. unfortunately this has also been misinterpreted into war, genocide, racism and homophobia. it also has a strew of completely illogical bi-products like denying blood transfusions, believing in a virgin birth, telling women they can't get an education, masturbation is a sin, condoms can't be used in africa when aids is rampant, not eating pork, wearing special underpants and much much more.
there is absolutely no reason for religion to be part of a normal healthy persons life. why do we need to goto church to suck up to god and take his "medicine"? why is it necessary to jump through all these hoops when it's glaringly obvious that people can be just fine without it?
also, i feel that this blog is getting derailed, if you guys want me to make another religion thread, in the main section and moderate that, maybe one involving Christopher Hitchens instead of Richard Dawkins then i'm happy to do that.
on the subject of athiests and agnostics i think there's some confusion on how we look at the two.
i'm an athiest only in the sense that i find no evidence of a god just like i find no evidence of unicorns. if we suddenly find a unicorn or unicorn bones somewhere i won't sit around saying "nope! i still don't buy it" just like many fundamentalists still don't believe in dinosaur bones. i will look at the new evidence and change my views. however, i'm not really an agnostic about unicorns, i pretty much believe they are made up, just like god. so because i opt to not believe in god just like the unicorns; i'm basically an atheist about them. while, just like an agnostic, i don't know where the universe came from, i find the whole idea of a divine creator way toooo far fetched to be something i'll consider until something convincing comes forth.
if you want to make it easier you can lump both athiests and agnostics into the category skeptics
I suggest you look up coffee ghost and the fighting atheist. Both make very good videos, and are pretty accessible to christians/theists.
As far as the topic of creationism/religion is concerned, the idea of a god or creator is not illogical. The notion that any human religion is even close to true is beyond absurd.
On February 01 2009 06:57 BanZu wrote: Suppose that you, along with everyone in the world, were born with a disease. Because of this disease, you will eventually die but you don't realize it. Now, suppose I come along and offer you the medicine that will take away your disease. However, I say that you have to take the medicine everyday, otherwise the disease will come back and sicken you.
Now, there are two possibilities. The first is that you trust me, take the medicine, and you live. The other is that you call me a liar, say that you have no disease (you think you are fine), and you reject the medicine I offer.
However, along with that, you criticize me for choosing who lives and who dies. Does this sound reasonable at all to you?
This is the same thing as what Christians believe. Satan imparted his sinful nature in man (Adam and Eve) and because of this we need to die. Jesus has already died on the cross for our sins and has given us His blood as our "medicine". We were destined to go to Hell but God saves us from this. Many atheists see this as God condemning us to hell because they don't believe. How unfortunate it is that they don't realize that God wants to save us.
jesus christ man, do you even see the logical flaw in this whole argument? you have no evidence that we need "medicine" to be fine. i know tons of athiests, myself and others, who live perfectly healthy lives. i donate to charity and try to be a good friend to people. everyone makes mistakes but i do my best to be a good person.
obviously religions preach about doing the right thing. unfortunately this has also been misinterpreted into war, genocide, racism and homophobia. it also has a strew of completely illogical bi-products like denying blood transfusions, believing in a virgin birth, telling women they can't get an education, masturbation is a sin, condoms can't be used in africa when aids is rampant, not eating pork, wearing special underpants and much much more.
there is absolutely no reason for religion to be part of a normal healthy persons life. why do we need to goto church to suck up to god and take his "medicine"? why is it necessary to jump through all these hoops when it's glaringly obvious that people can be just fine without it?
also, i feel that this blog is getting derailed, if you guys want me to make another religion thread, in the main section and moderate that, maybe one involving Christopher Hitchens instead of Richard Dawkins then i'm happy to do that.
I'm not here to argue the logics of God. I'm only here to present my view on things, as are you. I didn't post to try and "convince" you that God exists or to say that using logic you can tell that there's God. In fact, that wouldn't make any sense because faith is a big part of religion.
there is absolutely no reason for religion to be part of a normal healthy persons life. why do we need to goto church to suck up to god and take his "medicine"? why is it necessary to jump through all these hoops when it's glaringly obvious that people can be just fine without it?
Before I say any more, I want to say that I, in no way, look down upon non-believers and what they believe in. This is the exact thing I was talking about. You make feel that you are normal and healthy, but the Bible says otherwise and whether you believe this or not is up to you.
Also, you may feel that going to church is a labor and a chore and that one only does so to "suck up to god" but I can testify otherwise, and so can many other Christians.
On February 01 2009 06:57 BanZu wrote: Suppose that you, along with everyone in the world, were born with a disease. Because of this disease, you will eventually die but you don't realize it. Now, suppose I come along and offer you the medicine that will take away your disease. However, I say that you have to take the medicine everyday, otherwise the disease will come back and sicken you.
Now, there are two possibilities. The first is that you trust me, take the medicine, and you live. The other is that you call me a liar, say that you have no disease (you think you are fine), and you reject the medicine I offer.
However, along with that, you criticize me for choosing who lives and who dies. Does this sound reasonable at all to you?
This is the same thing as what Christians believe. Satan imparted his sinful nature in man (Adam and Eve) and because of this we need to die. Jesus has already died on the cross for our sins and has given us His blood as our "medicine". We were destined to go to Hell but God saves us from this. Many atheists see this as God condemning us to hell because they don't believe. How unfortunate it is that they don't realize that God wants to save us.
jesus christ man, do you even see the logical flaw in this whole argument? you have no evidence that we need "medicine" to be fine. i know tons of athiests, myself and others, who live perfectly healthy lives. i donate to charity and try to be a good friend to people. everyone makes mistakes but i do my best to be a good person.
obviously religions preach about doing the right thing. unfortunately this has also been misinterpreted into war, genocide, racism and homophobia. it also has a strew of completely illogical bi-products like denying blood transfusions, believing in a virgin birth, telling women they can't get an education, masturbation is a sin, condoms can't be used in africa when aids is rampant, not eating pork, wearing special underpants and much much more.
there is absolutely no reason for religion to be part of a normal healthy persons life. why do we need to goto church to suck up to god and take his "medicine"? why is it necessary to jump through all these hoops when it's glaringly obvious that people can be just fine without it?
also, i feel that this blog is getting derailed, if you guys want me to make another religion thread, in the main section and moderate that, maybe one involving Christopher Hitchens instead of Richard Dawkins then i'm happy to do that.
I'm not here to argue the logics of God. I'm only here to present my view on things, as are you. I didn't post to try and "convince" you that God exists or to say that using logic you can tell that there's God. In fact, that wouldn't make any sense because faith is a big part of religion.
there is absolutely no reason for religion to be part of a normal healthy persons life. why do we need to goto church to suck up to god and take his "medicine"? why is it necessary to jump through all these hoops when it's glaringly obvious that people can be just fine without it?
Before I say any more, I want to say that I, in no way, look down upon non-believers and what they believe in. This is the exact thing I was talking about. You make feel that you are normal and healthy, but the Bible says otherwise and whether you believe this or not is up to you.
Also, you may feel that going to church is a labor and a chore and that one only does so to "suck up to god" but I can testify otherwise, and so can many other Christians.
-_-
Some of these things that people from both sides are saying.
Oh organized religion, that wonderful opiate of the masses....
Anyway, you can be both an agnostic and an atheist; they're not contradictory terms. Being an atheist simply means you don't believe in god(s), while being an agnostic means you acknowledge that you cannot provide concrete proof for this belief. The label of agnostic atheist probably fits Tasteless best.
On February 01 2009 06:57 BanZu wrote: Suppose that you, along with everyone in the world, were born with a disease. Because of this disease, you will eventually die but you don't realize it. Now, suppose I come along and offer you the medicine that will take away your disease. However, I say that you have to take the medicine everyday, otherwise the disease will come back and sicken you.
Now, there are two possibilities. The first is that you trust me, take the medicine, and you live. The other is that you call me a liar, say that you have no disease (you think you are fine), and you reject the medicine I offer.
However, along with that, you criticize me for choosing who lives and who dies. Does this sound reasonable at all to you?
This is the same thing as what Christians believe. Satan imparted his sinful nature in man (Adam and Eve) and because of this we need to die. Jesus has already died on the cross for our sins and has given us His blood as our "medicine". We were destined to go to Hell but God saves us from this. Many atheists see this as God condemning us to hell because they don't believe. How unfortunate it is that they don't realize that God wants to save us.
jesus christ man, do you even see the logical flaw in this whole argument? you have no evidence that we need "medicine" to be fine. i know tons of athiests, myself and others, who live perfectly healthy lives. i donate to charity and try to be a good friend to people. everyone makes mistakes but i do my best to be a good person.
obviously religions preach about doing the right thing. unfortunately this has also been misinterpreted into war, genocide, racism and homophobia. it also has a strew of completely illogical bi-products like denying blood transfusions, believing in a virgin birth, telling women they can't get an education, masturbation is a sin, condoms can't be used in africa when aids is rampant, not eating pork, wearing special underpants and much much more.
there is absolutely no reason for religion to be part of a normal healthy persons life. why do we need to goto church to suck up to god and take his "medicine"? why is it necessary to jump through all these hoops when it's glaringly obvious that people can be just fine without it?
also, i feel that this blog is getting derailed, if you guys want me to make another religion thread, in the main section and moderate that, maybe one involving Christopher Hitchens instead of Richard Dawkins then i'm happy to do that.
Alright, I don't want to debate with you but I really have to respond. You can be an atheist, thats alright with me, I just don't like militant atheists. I have no idea if you are, so don't take offense. I just have to say, while you are right that organized religion can be manipulated to spread ignorance, and even control a society, that this ability is true for most ideologies, and is a possibility always. Religion or not, most of these events in history probably would have occurred. Ignorance would of still been there, and there would of been someone rallying people behind him/her to spread these beliefs.
Well anyways, good luck debating with this guy, religious debates are always fun.
On February 01 2009 12:15 TheFlashyOne wrote: Guys guys guys....i like all your debate skills and your philosophical finesse...but face it. God exists.
indeed i do put forth my best to be humble and keep a low profile, but i guess sometimes, there's nothing wrong in indulging myself in the stout glorifications of my stoic followers!
now, sacrifice me a lamb and build magnificent marble statues in honor of my omnipotence!
On February 01 2009 14:53 IdrA wrote: most of the events probably would have occured so you shouldnt argue against it? do you realize how dumb that is?
Err? I didn't say that. I said most of the crimes in history that Religion has caused would have occurred anyways, because man was the one who caused them, Religion was just a means to rally people. There are many other means. For that, Tasteless should not hate religion. That was my reference to militant atheists. I don't care if you don't believe in God, I don't even care if you aren't comfortable with the idea of organized religions [I, personally, am not], I do care when people think that Religion is the cause of most problems in the past, present, and future.
religion has been one of the most commonly used tools to motivate masses throughout history, the fact that others exist is irrelevant. religion is a means to harm and has very few redeeming values, none that cant be found elsewhere. so why do you have a problem with arguing against it?
and yes you did say you have a problem with arguing against it, you said you didnt like militant atheists (which is what that means, atheists who push their beliefs)
@Dazed_Spy if you make the claim that "Religion or not, most of these events in history probably would have occurred.", you need to provide examples on how one event in history can "probably would have occurred."
On February 01 2009 15:09 IdrA wrote: religion has been one of the most commonly used tools to motivate masses throughout history, the fact that others exist is irrelevant. religion is a means to harm and has very few redeeming values, none that cant be found elsewhere. so why do you have a problem with arguing against it?
and yes you did say you have a problem with arguing against it, you said you didnt like militant atheists (which is what that means, atheists who push their beliefs)
I don't have a problem with people who debate on weather or not god exists, and takes the side of atheism. That is what I meant. Religion has been the most common tool to motivate masses throughout history to do wrong, as well as right. As you said, so what, these qualities can be found elsewhere. From cult personalities to god damn economic theory. Communism isn't wrong because hundreds of millions died under Communist regimes. That was the act of man. Communism is wrong because its fucking stupid economic theory.
On February 01 2009 15:20 rei wrote: @Dazed_Spy if you make the claim that "Religion or not, most of these events in history probably would have occurred.", you need to provide examples on how one event in history can "probably would have occurred."
Xenophobia, racism, nationalism, ideologies [communism, capitalism, socialism, blah blah blah], imperialism, abusive dictators. The examples are as fuckin numerous as religious wars and prosecution are throughout history. The vast majority of the time they overlap for god sakes.
Edit: You can add atheism on the list of ideologies that can, and have been, abused.
@Dazed_Spy that's a little more convincing, what's your opinion on why would these fucked up events kept happening? you know fuck up shits such as the hollocaust, the NanKing rampage, Invasion of Iraq ect...
k well you entirely went back on what you said at first so i guess theres no real discussion to be had here.
I just don't like militant atheists
I don't have a problem with people who debate on weather or not god exists, and takes the side of atheism.
unless by militant you meant suicide bombing atheists or whatever, but if you did then you were talking about something that doesnt exist. christopher hitchens is about as militant as we get.
On February 01 2009 15:30 rei wrote: @Dazed_Spy that's a little more convincing, what's your opinion on why would these fucked up events kept happening? you know fuck up shits such as the hollocaust, the NanKing rampage, Invasion of Iraq ect...
Human nature. I cant believe I'm going to quote the men in black, but hey: Edwards: Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it. Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.
The further back in history you go, the worse it is. Humans hate and fear what they don't understand. Humans are emotional and dumb, this can be used to rally them with little difficulty, to be honest. Humans also have natural instincts to kill. Combine this, and its inevitable that there are going to be humans out there who use their intelligence, political strengths, wealth, to attain power and then abuse it for either themselves, or whatever ideology they belong to- probably both.
Take every conquest in human history, excluding the crusades. There are literally hundreds of thousands of genocides during and after the war. There is of course, hundreds of thousands of people who die as a direct result of the war- battles, starvation due to disruption in resources, etc. None of these had any religious reasoning behind them. It was just man wanting to conquer, it was just politicians wanting glory. To single out one particular thing- like religion, or communism, etc- and declare it the bogeyman is stupid and pathetic. And is, ultimately, exactly the same tactics that these past ideals used to rally and control the people
On February 01 2009 15:32 IdrA wrote: k well you entirely went back on what you said at first so i guess theres no real discussion to be had here.
I don't have a problem with people who debate on weather or not god exists, and takes the side of atheism.
unless by militant you meant suicide bombing atheists or whatever, but if you did then you were talking about something that doesnt exist. christopher hitchens is about as militant as we get.
You have a very bad comprehension of the english language. Debating on the existence or lack thereof of a divine being is not the same as being militant. Militant atheism is going around screaming that religion is false, people who follow it are blind fools, that it is the bane of human existence. Debating on the existence of god is debating on the existence of god. Jesus christ, pay attention for once rather than running your mouth.
The difference between the majority of Atheists and Religious people is the ability to think critically. An example, Atheists don't believe shits just because someone tell them, they think critically therefore, they require evidence and logic, This is also the reason why most well educated people are Atheists. As evidence:You won't see anyone with an PHD goes Suicide bombing.
On February 01 2009 15:40 rei wrote: The difference between the majority of Atheists and Religious people is the ability to think critically. An example, Atheists don't believe shits just because someone tell them, they think critically therefore, they require evidence and logic, This is also the reason why most well educated people are Atheists. As evidence:You won't see anyone with an PHD goes Suicide bombing.
Lol what? I take it your an atheist. Aint very fucking smart- and this is considered to be common wisdom- to make errant generalizations. You hurt your own position. Because you didn't think very critically and logically with your last statement.
Empirical Evidence from Hawkins' book the god delusion he talked about the distribution and correlation between Atheist and Education. You should read some of his work. And please don't go down the path of being condescending by suggesting i'm illogical and not thinking critically, personal attacks will go no where in an online discussion. It will only go 'somewhere' if it is in real life, and i let your imagination figure out how it would develop if personal insults are exchanged in real life discussion
On February 01 2009 15:32 IdrA wrote: k well you entirely went back on what you said at first so i guess theres no real discussion to be had here.
I just don't like militant atheists
I don't have a problem with people who debate on weather or not god exists, and takes the side of atheism.
unless by militant you meant suicide bombing atheists or whatever, but if you did then you were talking about something that doesnt exist. christopher hitchens is about as militant as we get.
You have a very bad comprehension of the english language. Debating on the existence or lack thereof of a divine being is not the same as being militant. Militant atheism is going around screaming that religion is false, people who follow it are blind fools, that it is the bane of human existence. Debating on the existence of god is debating on the existence of god. Jesus christ, pay attention for once rather than running your mouth.
no need to be condescending dumbshit arguing against religion and going around telling people that religion is false is the SAME FUCKING THING. you're just trying to pull out of contradicting yourself by making it sound like one is more belligerent than the other.
On February 01 2009 15:32 IdrA wrote: k well you entirely went back on what you said at first so i guess theres no real discussion to be had here.
I just don't like militant atheists
I don't have a problem with people who debate on weather or not god exists, and takes the side of atheism.
unless by militant you meant suicide bombing atheists or whatever, but if you did then you were talking about something that doesnt exist. christopher hitchens is about as militant as we get.
You have a very bad comprehension of the english language. Debating on the existence or lack thereof of a divine being is not the same as being militant. Militant atheism is going around screaming that religion is false, people who follow it are blind fools, that it is the bane of human existence. Debating on the existence of god is debating on the existence of god. Jesus christ, pay attention for once rather than running your mouth.
no need to be condescending dumbshit arguing against religion and going around telling people that religion is false is the SAME FUCKING THING. you're just trying to pull out of contradicting yourself by making it sound like one is more belligerent than the other.
No need to be condescending? Idra...you do that every damn day on these boards. I don't know why the hell you presume that a Debate is the equivalent of an argument, it is not. You already wrote (militant atheists, those who push their beliefs on others). That is an argument, that is forceful. A debate is just a reasoned discussion with point and counter point. The difference lies I suppose, in the motivation/emotions of the person doing it. If I am in a debate on weather or not god exists, that hardly equates me to attempting to convert the person, we are just having a discussion.
On February 01 2009 16:09 rei wrote: Here is another fact: Atheism does not have to be taught, there is no sunday bible equivalent Atheism book study,
if you can think critically, which I assume you can, Dazed_Spy, tell me how people became Atheist or an non-believer?
After this I've gotta go to bed. People change their views on god simply by re-evaluation of what they believe. Many people are born in Atheists households and are taught to believe in Atheism, so don't give me that crap. I know many people- quite a few teachers in fact- who have gone from militant atheism to religion and back again several times throughout their lives. It's the experience of the individual.
Edit2: Studies show atheists are on average smarter and have higher education than religious people. Studies also show Whites are on average smarter and have higher education than blacks. The answer to both, at least I think, falls on socioeconomics. Urban vs rural, lower/middle class vs uppermiddle/upper class cultural differences. That correlation does not prove a thing, and I don't think any study can actually prove it, so that remains purely my own hypothesis. Far too big a question to actually have a realistic answer for, on either side.
On February 01 2009 16:19 Dazed_Spy wrote: If I am in a debate on weather or not god exists, that hardly equates me to attempting to convert the person, we are just having a discussion.
On February 01 2009 14:42 Dazed_Spy wrote: Tasteless, be a man, and convert.
On February 01 2009 16:19 Dazed_Spy wrote: If I am in a debate on weather or not god exists, that hardly equates me to attempting to convert the person, we are just having a discussion.
On February 01 2009 15:40 rei wrote: The difference between the majority of Atheists and Religious people is the ability to think critically. An example, Atheists don't believe shits just because someone tell them, they think critically therefore, they require evidence and logic, This is also the reason why most well educated people are Atheists. As evidence:You won't see anyone with an PHD goes Suicide bombing.
Somewhat untrue. Atheism has become rather popular with youth for various reasons, but often many of these young atheists are atheists just because other people are, or just simply for the reason of going against the general ideals of the generations before them.
I attended a Catholic school for high school, and a good half or so of the students weren't Christian at all. However, of this half, a very minuscule amount of these students didn't really have any clear reasons as to why they believed, or in this case, not believed. Often, when they did present their arguments they were horribly flawed, and often their attitudes was that "I do not believe and so I am better than the blind faithful". However, they were just as ignorant and blind as the more extreme Christians in the school.
This idea that atheists are all critical thinking individuals in this thread is extremely flawed. There are as many ignorant adherents in atheist circles as in religious circles, and both sides have extremely bright individuals as well, although they are rather hard to find and pick out from the common mass of fools.
There are many well educated and intelligent people that are religious. My mother, with a PhD in biology, was the one that taught me about evolution and many other scientific things when I was young. She is a devout Presbyterian. Although I have dropped my faith in Christianity, similarly to how my father did around my age, I can understand the faith of those that follow a religion and by no means are these faiths completely misguided and stupid. There are many religious individuals that think critically about their own faiths and their opinions guide them.
In response to your "You won't see anyone with a PhD go suicide bombing", that's also wrong. Just because you have a Ph.D and presumably "think critially" doesn't mean that you will act in a "moral" way. Often, intellectuals have a very firm stance on their beliefs and so they may often act in an extreme way without feeling much remorse for their actions. An example of this would be the Einsatzgruppen, murder squads of the Nazis. They moved into captured towns and localities and exterminated Jews. The group was not composed of criminals or sadists; they were drawn from the elite of the German middle class. There were more PhD graduates among the Einsatzgruppen proportionally than any other unit of the German army.
On February 01 2009 16:09 rei wrote: Here is another fact: Atheism does not have to be taught, there is no sunday bible equivalent Atheism book study,
if you can think critically, which I assume you can, Dazed_Spy, tell me how people became Atheist or an non-believer?
Atheism is taught by some people; one can argue that these religion arguments is an attempt for both sides to not only defend their views but also to teach their views to the other side.
Individuals may become atheist for a number of reasons. They may come to believe that there is no such thing as a supernatural god. They may come to complete theological disagreement with the religion that they grew up in. Something may have occurred in their life which pissed them off and they lost faith in their god (common in Christianity).
You don't necessarily have to think hard to lose faith, really.
I'm fairly certain I will never become a Christian again as I have far too many issues with the religion itself, and I absolutely abhor the institutions of almost every Christian denomination. Catholicism is the only one with a decent system.
On February 01 2009 16:50 Dazed_Spy wrote: lol, hell, I've gone from being an atheist and back again my self more than like...4 times.
Since you are sleep typing, would you mind sharing what exactly it is that convinces you to become a theist again? Is it always to the same religion? Have you dabbled with Wotan and Thor at all or is it always back to the Judeo-Christian deities?
On February 01 2009 16:19 Dazed_Spy wrote: That correlation does not prove a thing, and I don't think any study can actually prove it, so that remains purely my own hypothesis. Far too big a question to actually have a realistic answer for, on either side.
It could, as an extension of anomie or other social disorders. Remember when Obama talked about people clinging to guns and religion? While it was a terrible thing for a politician to say, many sociologists would say that it fit the bill.
Also, I have no idea what rei is talking about. He tells you to read Dawkins' work and then says it doesn't need to be taught.
On February 01 2009 15:32 IdrA wrote: k well you entirely went back on what you said at first so i guess theres no real discussion to be had here.
I just don't like militant atheists
I don't have a problem with people who debate on weather or not god exists, and takes the side of atheism.
unless by militant you meant suicide bombing atheists or whatever, but if you did then you were talking about something that doesnt exist. christopher hitchens is about as militant as we get.
You have a very bad comprehension of the english language. Debating on the existence or lack thereof of a divine being is not the same as being militant. Militant atheism is going around screaming that religion is false, people who follow it are blind fools, that it is the bane of human existence. Debating on the existence of god is debating on the existence of god. Jesus christ, pay attention for once rather than running your mouth.
no need to be condescending dumbshit arguing against religion and going around telling people that religion is false is the SAME FUCKING THING. you're just trying to pull out of contradicting yourself by making it sound like one is more belligerent than the other.
No need to be condescending? Idra...you do that every damn day on these boards. I don't know why the hell you presume that a Debate is the equivalent of an argument, it is not. You already wrote (militant atheists, those who push their beliefs on others). That is an argument, that is forceful. A debate is just a reasoned discussion with point and counter point. The difference lies I suppose, in the motivation/emotions of the person doing it. If I am in a debate on weather or not god exists, that hardly equates me to attempting to convert the person, we are just having a discussion
ya but its not ok for dumb people to be condescending a debate and an argument are the same thing, one just has a more aggressive connotation. you are attempting to prove that you are right and the person you're talking to is wrong. they serve the same purpose, have the same outcomes, for all intents and purposes they are indeed the same. either you agree with atheists promoting their views or you dont. dont really know which, since youve espoused both positions within the last 2 pages.
I also belief that by teaching people how to think critically, and then provide them with empirical evidences, they will come to the conclusion that there is no god. This way, I will not be imposing my atheist belief on my students, whatever conclusion they come up with is their own.
First of all, yes you are because they're "thinking critically" in the form that you're imposing on them.
Second, it's incorrect to assume people that believe in God do not think critically. A great deal of them acknowledge there is no logical basis for God, yet they do anyways. Arguing against faith gets you nowhere.
I also belief that by teaching people how to think critically, and then provide them with empirical evidences, they will come to the conclusion that there is no god. This way, I will not be imposing my atheist belief on my students, whatever conclusion they come up with is their own.
First of all, yes you are because they're "thinking critically" in the form that you're imposing on them.
Second, it's incorrect to assume people that believe in God do not think critically. A great deal of them acknowledge there is no logical basis for God, yet they do anyways. Arguing against faith gets you nowhere.
I have provided an example on what i mean by not imposing the teacher's believes on the students, in my previous post edited Critical thinking refers to people's metacognitive ability. Most college students have this ability developed, however, some can only apply this ability in academic environment. A example of how to engage and develop student's metacognition or critical thinking kills: i'm teaching history from an American Text book (U.S. government's point of views), and then teach that same history again from other people's point of views (example: Takaki's book and his works). The students will then compel to question which version of these same events are what really happened? They will ask the question on why, how, and what. The students will not take whatever they read for granted, they will have their own reasoning and logic behind everything they learn. The teacher is not imposing anything on the students' believes, they just facilitate their learning.
and ya, it is incorrect to assume people that believe in god do not think critically, as Dawkins himself debated with a PHd in biology about religion vs atheism, which he proved the illogical conclusion of the god believer at the end, and ya it got him no where.
Edit: moved it here so you don't miss it jibba @Jibba, I am referring to the fact that teaching evolution is not teaching atheism. Evolution is a theory it doesn't even talk about whether or not it should have an god. But the students who learn evolution and able to connect the dots on what they have learn from their bible study for example, they will come to the conclusion on their own that the bible is all a lie. In this sense, atheism is not taught, the theory of evolution is taught, atheism beliefs of the student after he study evolution is a logical deduction by the student alone. The teacher did not impose he/her beliefs into the teaching.
Ken Miller is the molecular biologist who destroyed Intelligent Design in the Pennsylvania court system and continues to do so in tours, lectures, and books. I have met him personally and he is very, very, very intelligent and very, very sharp. He is as strong a proponent of evolution as you will find, and he is also Roman Catholic and he believes in God
You're making a terrible assumption that believing in religion = believing in creationism or any number of other extremely fundamentalist beliefs. There are millions of pluralists out there who have no problem accepting other religions, theories such as evolution and will likely maintain that their belief in God is irrational, as Professor Miller does. Faith is irrational.
@jibba I wrote this last night, i guess you missed it. and I tried to quote just now, and I fucked up on clicking edit and I screwed up my post. But here I agree with you 100% that there are many people who believe in religion yet does not believe in creationism.
Quote from last night: There are many god-dis-believing people who go to church or some form of religious social gatherings. It is simply a necessity for most of them, because people usually do not isolate themselves from their friends just because they have different believes, for them it has nothing to do with the god in whatever religion them and their friends are worshiping. They consider themselves to be part of that religion, but they just don't belief in the "God" part. For example, these people will not kneel down and start praying to god and ask for help when shits go seriously wrong, because they know it is useless, and totally waste of time. I belief these people are Atheist too, even they claim they are part of whatever religion they are in. Many of my friends, all my relatives are god-dis-believing religious people.
edit: in case you miss my edit on previous post Jibba I need to make my claim about critical thinking more clear.
Critical thinking refers to people's metacognitive ability. Most college students have this ability developed, however, some can only apply this ability in academic environment. A example in non sciences nor religion related issues. How to engage and develop student's metacognition or critical thinking kills: let's suppose a teacher is teaching history from an American Text book (U.S. government's point of views), and then teach that same history again from other people's point of views (example: Takaki's book and his works). The students will then compel to question which version of these same events are what really happened? They will ask the question on why, how, and what. The students will not take whatever they read for granted, they will have their own reasoning and logic behind everything they learn. The teacher is not imposing anything on the students' believes, they just facilitate their learning.
PS. I guess we woke up about the same time hahahaha
I also belief that by teaching people how to think critically, and then provide them with empirical evidences, they will come to the conclusion that there is no god. This way, I will not be imposing my atheist belief on my students, whatever conclusion they come up with is their own.
First of all, yes you are because they're "thinking critically" in the form that you're imposing on them.
Second, it's incorrect to assume people that believe in God do not think critically. A great deal of them acknowledge there is no logical basis for God, yet they do anyways. Arguing against faith gets you nowhere.
On February 01 2009 16:50 Dazed_Spy wrote: lol, hell, I've gone from being an atheist and back again my self more than like...4 times.
Since you are sleep typing, would you mind sharing what exactly it is that convinces you to become a theist again? Is it always to the same religion? Have you dabbled with Wotan and Thor at all or is it always back to the Judeo-Christian deities?
lol, I wasn't sleep typing, I just went to bed a few minutes later. My family has been agnostic as far back as I can remember, so I've never had a particular religion. I "found" god on my own, and rejected him on my own as well. I don't have a religion.
On February 02 2009 02:51 koreasilver wrote: The general mass of any school of thought are fools, unfortunately.
Intelligence lies in the individual, not their school of thought.
true intelligence of each individual is different, it is the teacher's job to help all the students to think critically, and realize their intelligence instead of just feed on the text books and take them as granted. By teaching students how to think critically, and develop their metacognitive abilities, a teacher is teaching students how to learn instead of "learn this or you fail", hence, the students can apply those skills in whatever subject they are interest in. It is like that saying, you feed them a fish, they are good for a day, but you teach them how to fish, they are set for live.
I belief teaching how to learn is so much more important than feeding students with merely content knowledge. Because if they choose to, they can learn anything they like later on in their life without any teacher assistance. Not all students are motivated to learn whatever content a teacher is trying to teach, but once the student have self-motivation in learning whatever they want to learn in the future, they can rely on their metacognitive abilities.
There are many many teachers who teach in this facilitating manner. and there are many who thinks their job is to teach whatever subject the course requires, assuming the students already acquired critical thinking skillz.(usually college level)
The thing is, most education systems are based around on just feeding text and forcing memorization rather than understanding. You don't necessarily need to be intelligent to do well in school; you only need to understand and work with the system.
Learning how to learn and think on your own is most definitely the best thing you can learn, but education systems don't truly engage in teaching this sort of thing most of the time. It is only a handful of individuals out of the swarming mass that truly gain significant insight and understanding and by no means are atheists the only ones that become these few.
Your argument of using these post-secondary institutions as a model is flawed because textbooks are often critically biased and the professors are even more so. The slight biases may have an effect upon a student's beliefs. One is able to pass through without much critical thinking at all. For a great deal of assignments one only really needs to use the proper form and use simple reasoning to get a decent grade. For the knowledge you must know, you only really need to memorize, not truly understand. It is fully possible to get your bachelors degree by being dedicated and punctual; you don't really have to truly understand the intricacies of the material. Education systems don't really gauge a students intelligence but more of how dedicated they are, although the very top of the chain harbor those that are both intelligent and dedicated.
Your argument of using these post-secondary institutions as a model is flawed because textbooks are often critically biased and the professors are even more so.
actually Dawkins' argument uses ppl who have phd in various scientific fields, and he was outrage due to the fact that there are 2% of them belief in creationism. And I refuse to belief you can get by without critical thinking and metacognition and achieve phds in any field of sciences.
ya, the argument you are making, and my argument is different, because the target samples are BS degree and phd degrees.
my previous post, that I consider atheist = people who came to the conclusion of god does not exist base on empirical evidence. Therefore, in this definition there are people who consider themselves to be religious yet disbeliever of creationism. and by this definition, in the same time excludes all those who think they are atheist just because it is popular, they just tag along with whomever they consider to be cool and happened to be atheist.
What does one person's opinion have to do with the entirety of mankind? It depend on how many people share that same opinion, and how many people they can infect with his/her believes. Hilter is an example. Einstien is also another example.
Belief in creationism is not required to believe in a god, and so I have no idea why you think that not believing in creationism automatically makes you an atheist. Not believing in creationism does not make you not believe in a god.
You are also narrowing the definition of "atheist" to a standard that you believe should be the definition of "atheist" and so you are distorting the argument. A religious individual may simply counter that by saying that "I'll exclude all those except 'true believers' for my standard of 'religious'".
Using Dawkin's ideals as an argument is flawed as one person's view does not constitute as the absolute truth nor do they reflect the sentimentality of all of his colleagues.
On February 02 2009 03:31 koreasilver wrote: The thing is, most education systems are based around on just feeding text and forcing memorization rather than understanding. You don't necessarily need to be intelligent to do well in school; you only need to understand and work with the system.
Learning how to learn and think on your own is most definitely the best thing you can learn, but education systems don't truly engage in teaching this sort of thing most of the time. It is only a handful of individuals out of the swarming mass that truly gain significant insight and understanding and by no means are atheists the only ones that become these few.
Your argument of using these post-secondary institutions as a model is flawed because textbooks are often critically biased and the professors are even more so. The slight biases may have an effect upon a student's beliefs. One is able to pass through without much critical thinking at all. For a great deal of assignments one only really needs to use the proper form and use simple reasoning to get a decent grade. For the knowledge you must know, you only really need to memorize, not truly understand. It is fully possible to get your bachelors degree by being dedicated and punctual; you don't really have to truly understand the intricacies of the material. Education systems don't really gauge a students intelligence but more of how dedicated they are, although the very top of the chain harbor those that are both intelligent and dedicated.
This exact argument is applied again and again in various contexts, it is arrogant, condecending and leads nowhere. The only thing I learned reading your post is that you believe most people are stupid and incapable of critical thinking. " It is only a handful of individuals out of the swarming mass that truly gain significant insight and understanding" If you by "significant understanding" simply mean "more understanding than most people" then your statement is both trivial and circular. That leads me to assume that you actually believe most people to be "less than intelligent" or "stupid". This is ignorant. It is easy to dismiss out of hand that which we do not understand and few things are so difficult to grasp as another person's mind. Your aversion for the modern education system is interesting. How exactly is anyone supposed to "understand" something which they don't know in the first place? Not to mention that no bridges would ever be built if each new engineer had to create their own system of mathematics from ground up, had to derive the classical models of motion for themselves and so on. Instead they are taught an already existing framework within which to operate and to expand upon if they are able to. That is efficiency. That is also something that separates us from cats. Finally: Originally people used faith as a basis to understand the world; An electrostatic discharge across the sky "Thor is taking a ride". A spontaneous mutation within several crucial DNA fragments causes cancer and death "He angered Apollo with his words" and so on. In general our models are more statisfying now, at the very least they are more useful. An atheist then would be someone that choses an all throughout rational world view.
I also belief that by teaching people how to think critically, and then provide them with empirical evidences, they will come to the conclusion that there is no god. This way, I will not be imposing my atheist belief on my students, whatever conclusion they come up with is their own.
First of all, yes you are because they're "thinking critically" in the form that you're imposing on them.
Second, it's incorrect to assume people that believe in God do not think critically. A great deal of them acknowledge there is no logical basis for God, yet they do anyways. Arguing against faith gets you nowhere.
fideism
+
On February 02 2009 04:37 koreasilver wrote: Belief in creationism is not required to believe in a god, and so I have no idea why you think that not believing in creationism automatically makes you an atheist. Not believing in creationism does not make you not believe in a god.
You are also narrowing the definition of "atheist" to a standard that you believe should be the definition of "atheist" and so you are distorting the argument. A religious individual may simply counter that by saying that "I'll exclude all those except 'true believers' for my standard of 'religious'".
Using Dawkin's ideals as an argument is flawed as one person's view does not constitute as the absolute truth nor do they reflect the sentimentality of all of his colleagues.
Your arguments are fallacious.
rei, as a secular humanist and someone who has read from Dawkins to Hitchens to Harris to Russell, I think your arguments suck.
On February 02 2009 04:37 koreasilver wrote: Belief in creationism is not required to believe in a god, and so I have no idea why you think that not believing in creationism automatically makes you an atheist. Not believing in creationism does not make you not believe in a god.
You are also narrowing the definition of "atheist" to a standard that you believe should be the definition of "atheist" and so you are distorting the argument. A religious individual may simply counter that by saying that "I'll exclude all those except 'true believers' for my standard of 'religious'".
Using Dawkin's ideals as an argument is flawed as one person's view does not constitute as the absolute truth nor do they reflect the sentimentality of all of his colleagues.
Your arguments are fallacious.
I need you to try to make a distinction between my argument and my belief. I make my argument base on my belief. and the argument is supported by evidence. My belief leads me to narrowing the definition of atheist after you inform me there are people out there call themselves atheist but did not derive the logic by themselves.
i belief you can be atheist while be a part of religion, as empirical evidences(your mom for example) support this claim. in wiki's definition "Atheists are persons who either affirm belief in the nonexistence of a god or gods[1] or reject belief in a god.[2] When defined more broadly, atheists are those without a belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism." this definition specifically target "deities, god or gods" it did not say anything about religion at all, ya you can argue that the god or gods is part of the religion.
If you want to attempt to destroy my belief i will not even try to waste my time.
However, if you want to prove my argument is fallacious, you need to not attack my beliefs, rather, you need to attack my argument below.
My argument is that people who are highly educated, process the ability to think critically, and informed with empirical evidences are more likely to be atheists.
and in defense of what you said "Using Dawkin's ideals as an argument is flawed as one person's view does not constitute as the absolute truth nor do they reflect the sentimentality of all of his colleagues." Dawkin's argument i'm quoting here is not one person's view, you did not know how many samples he used in his study, and yes it is true that 2% out of all the people in his study believed in creationism, but 98% of his colleagues in his study turns out to be non-god-believers, his study did not ask rather or not they are part of a religion, many could be part of a religion for all we know. if i recall this correctly, it was very specific about creationism
and as we are on the topic, why don't you give us your argument in this matter of atheist vs creationism and let us try to pick it apart?
On February 02 2009 06:10 Jibba wrote: rei, as a secular humanist and someone who has read from Dawkins to Hitchens to Harris to Russell, I think your arguments suck.
teach me jibba, offer us your argument please, it's only worth my time if i learn something new.
On January 31 2009 03:41 Hazz wrote: Anyone who writes or speaks in absolutes is an idiot
Anyone who truly thinks less of someone for having a set of belifs is even dumber
Fixed you narrow minded retard ^_^
Belifs? nice
whos the retard now
Anyway I spoke in absolutes because its much quicker than writing page upon pages proving god isn't real when its not going to change anyones opinion (That's the whole idea behind "faith" - confidently believing in something without proof.)
Also I still agree with the "fixed" second point and my own; I don't see how believing that anyone who thinks less of someone for being an atheist is dumb implies that thinking less of someone for having a set of beliefs is alright.
I already have, twice. You're making an extraneous leap between creationism and theism, and you're using logic to disprove something that they say doesn't operate within the realm of logic, and as John Hick (Rational Theistic Belief Without Proof) argues becomes even greater when believed without the use of logic. Faith is private, subjective, experiential and illogical, but it can still be rational. One could even make the move to say that empirical "truths" such as our five senses are similar, yet we quickly assume them to be true.
Personally, I like to counter with W.K. Clifford's Ethics of Belief and use the ship captain example to show that private, subjective belief without proof is immoral. If a ship captain sets sail believing his ship to be seaworthy based on a gut instinct, without actual proof, and the vessel sinks, it is the captain who is at fault for everyone's death. Even if everyone lives, he is still at fault for putting their lives at risk, and so the same can be said any time that your unproven beliefs affect other people, such as when you're talking or posting on internet forums.
Still, we all commit that error on a fairly regular basis and they could still contest that there are no empirical truths either, or pull something crazy like Batshit Spinoza.
Again, you can't argue with someone else's faith. They've "experienced" it and you haven't. I suppose you could ask them why they believe in X instead of Y, and the obvious answer will be their upbringing, but if they're a pluralist then they might say Y would have been just as suitable.
And if they're someone that is ok with pluralism and accepts the use of logic for all things besides personal faith, and are ethical (whether because of their religion or not) then they're probably a pretty decent human being anyways and there's no pressing reason to force them to change or be a dick to them. You don't believe in Heaven and Hell so you don't have to "save" people.
@Jibba, i see, there are exceptional people who can be logical in all matters except when it comes to creationism and argue that how do we know our five senses project the truth. An example would be people who say whatever scientific advancement we make is by god's will. Thanks for this new information which I did not take in to account for as I construct my argument.
I wonder how they deal with the contradiction between their logic and beliefs.
As for everybody else who base their beliefs on logic, my argument would hold true. People who, process the ability to think critically, and informed with empirical evidences are more likely to be atheists. it just happens that most people with phds fits into the category of critical thinker and informed with empirical evidence.
On February 02 2009 04:37 koreasilver wrote: Belief in creationism is not required to believe in a god, and so I have no idea why you think that not believing in creationism automatically makes you an atheist. Not believing in creationism does not make you not believe in a god.
You are also narrowing the definition of "atheist" to a standard that you believe should be the definition of "atheist" and so you are distorting the argument. A religious individual may simply counter that by saying that "I'll exclude all those except 'true believers' for my standard of 'religious'".
Using Dawkin's ideals as an argument is flawed as one person's view does not constitute as the absolute truth nor do they reflect the sentimentality of all of his colleagues.
Your arguments are fallacious.
creationism comes from the word create which requires a creator. so you have to believe in a god if you believe in creationism.
anyways this thread is getting heavily derailed. like i said before, if you guys want me to make another post in the general section surrounded by another atheist scholar just let me know; because right now this topic has very little to do with arguing against Jehovah witnesses and.
On February 02 2009 04:37 koreasilver wrote: Belief in creationism is not required to believe in a god, and so I have no idea why you think that not believing in creationism automatically makes you an atheist. Not believing in creationism does not make you not believe in a god.
You are also narrowing the definition of "atheist" to a standard that you believe should be the definition of "atheist" and so you are distorting the argument. A religious individual may simply counter that by saying that "I'll exclude all those except 'true believers' for my standard of 'religious'".
Using Dawkin's ideals as an argument is flawed as one person's view does not constitute as the absolute truth nor do they reflect the sentimentality of all of his colleagues.
Your arguments are fallacious.
creationism comes from the word create which requires a creator. so you have to believe in a god if you believe in creationism.
You need to believe in a god to believe in creationism.
You don't need to believe in creationism to believe in a god.
A square is a rectangle, but that does not mean that all rectangles are squares.
You need to believe in a god to believe in creationism.
You don't need to believe in creationism to believe in a god.
A square is a rectangle, but that does not mean that all rectangles are squares.
"You don't need to believe in creationism to believe in a god. " are you referring to people who don't believe in creationism because of logic and empirical evidences. But in the same time these people believe in god disregarding same very logic that they use to derive their disbelief in creationism?
@Jibba thanks, here is the new question then "You don't need to believe in creationism to believe in a god. " Are you referring to people who don't believe in creationism because of logic and empirical evidences, but in the same time these people believe in god disregarding the need to use logic and empirical evidences to prove this god exist?
Yes. The first is a negative proof, the second is a lack of proof, so they base it on personal sensation. You know what it feels like to get a boner and you don't need visual evidence each time. They claim to have sensory evidence.
You need to believe in a god to believe in creationism.
You don't need to believe in creationism to believe in a god.
A square is a rectangle, but that does not mean that all rectangles are squares.
"You don't need to believe in creationism to believe in a god. " are you referring to people who don't believe in creationism because of logic and empirical evidences. But in the same time these people believe in god disregarding same very logic that they use to derive their disbelief in creationism?
obv we were made by an alien species who themselves arose by evolution. duh.
You need to believe in a god to believe in creationism.
You don't need to believe in creationism to believe in a god.
A square is a rectangle, but that does not mean that all rectangles are squares.
"You don't need to believe in creationism to believe in a god. " are you referring to people who don't believe in creationism because of logic and empirical evidences. But in the same time these people believe in god disregarding same very logic that they use to derive their disbelief in creationism?
obv we were made by an alien species who themselves arose by evolution. duh.
On February 02 2009 04:37 koreasilver wrote: Belief in creationism is not required to believe in a god, and so I have no idea why you think that not believing in creationism automatically makes you an atheist. Not believing in creationism does not make you not believe in a god.
You are also narrowing the definition of "atheist" to a standard that you believe should be the definition of "atheist" and so you are distorting the argument. A religious individual may simply counter that by saying that "I'll exclude all those except 'true believers' for my standard of 'religious'".
Using Dawkin's ideals as an argument is flawed as one person's view does not constitute as the absolute truth nor do they reflect the sentimentality of all of his colleagues.
Your arguments are fallacious.
creationism comes from the word create which requires a creator. so you have to believe in a god if you believe in creationism.
Creationism is commonly taken to mean a belief that the earth was created 7000 years ago over the course of 6 days. It's very possible to be religious and not believe that. Now if you want to argue semantics, sure, go there
You can think our universe was created by alien life forms or even human jackasses with futuristic-higher technology but not think those aliens / people are particularly god-like. In a sense, everyone that believes in the conservation of energy / mass is a creationist because they think that every status quo that has existed has been influenced in someway by a previous moment (and time may also be cyclical).
On January 30 2009 21:58 IdrA wrote: i think what he meant was that since its impossible to actually disprove that god exists theres still a leap of faith to be an atheist (to say that god absolutely does not exist) and so its more logical to be an agnostic. the mistake alot of people make is thinking that being agnostic means you think its 50/50 whether god exists or not. you can think the chances of god existing are the same as the spaghetti monster and everything else, still agnostic because you're not absolutely sure he doesnt.
Well said.
I was raised Catholic, then went through the whole Atheism phase in high school where I was constantly trying to find "truth", and now I guess I'm a "lenient" Catholic. only reason i keep the catholic faith is because I am very patriotic and being polish and catholic goes hand in hand (at least it used to be like that, i don't know how it is with this generation) I feel like since it's impossible to ever find out this "truth" that I was looking for, I've resorted to a much simpler outlook on life. Good people go to a better place. I feel like if I lead a good life where I made an overall positive impact on this earth, then that's enough for me. And honestly, it's not for the whole heaven or hell thing for me that drives me. In the end, that won't matter 'cause we'll never know if they exist 100% certain, so might as well enjoy my life here and not be so occupied with what's ahead. And I don't find "enjoying life" to be a life where I use women, do hard drugs, and overall leave a bad impact on this place. I feel sorry for people like Richard Dawlkens (sp?) who spends so many hours in writing books for the sole purpose to try to direct people away from god. I also feel bad for people like Jehovah's Witnesses who don't do anything meaningful with their lives and all they do is go door to door and try to convert random people. The people I don't feel sorry for are the priests or rabbis or atheists that go on mission trips to third world countries and try to help people that are less fortunate. They are the ones whose first intent is to make a better place for us all. Even people who just live a day to day life, trying to provide a bright future for their families and loved ones; those are the people whom I respect.
simple as that, i'm happy and it works for me
edit:tl;dr In the end, it doesn't matter what religion you are or even if you believe in god, as long as you are a good person and leave this world a little better off than before. that's all that counts.
2nd Edit: Tasteless- Good luck in gom season 3! Season 2 was some awesome commentating. Can't wait til sunday at 4am
i found it pretty interesting when i learned that bacteria already existed a few hundred million years after the earth itself formed.
it's still unexplained as to how life basically existed a nanosecond after the earth itself was created. especially considering bacteria are complex enough that you'd think life would require a bit more runway to evolve to that stage than a few hundred million years.
that in and of itself doesn't necessarily mean life was created instantly, from what i've read it seems like the most likely theory is that earth's original bacteria got here from asteroids/comets etc. which still poses the question of where the asteroids got their life from, but yeah.
if anyone wants to correct/debate points i said here feel free to
On March 28 2009 09:02 Wotans_Fire wrote: Here you go:
athiests believe in reasons, just not divine ones. if you're going to be so cynical at least know what you're talking about.
in other news the Jehovah witnesses came back, two of them this time. i had dissected the creationist book they gave me pointing out that most of the scientists in it were in fact atheist or agnostic making their arguments quite weak. i also pointed out the creator logical fallacy since we still don't know who created the creator. i got them to agree that you don't need to be religious to be a good person which then forced them to conclude that i don't need the bible to guide my life. Their final rebuttal was that i will be unable to goto heaven if i die if i don't accept this and said they would come back in a few weeks.
i'm going to buy the god delusion in korean and just give it to them next time.
On March 28 2009 09:02 Wotans_Fire wrote: Here you go: Atheism is {the pic he posted}
Let me put you on the spot Wotans_Fire. Do you agree with that definition of Atheism you posted?
Well, I don't know what do atheists believe would have triggered the spark? what do atheists believe that there was once nothing and it was triggered by scientific reasons alone? please enlighten me on how I am going to rot in the ground for eternity.
Atheists say they do not believe or disbelieve anything, because there is simply no reason/evidence to compel them to ask the question in the first place. However, the simultaneous and completely independent appearance of religion throughout all of history in every region of the globe brings up legitimate questions. While different religions contradict each other in their details, the same themes recur. So I don't think the answer is as simple as an obvious logical fallacy. Assuming we can even comprehend what we are talking about, it may disprove a specific interpretation of God. But I don't think that implies atheism. Not to mention that I highly doubt people become atheists because of the logical arguments or their objectivity. I think, in general, people believe what they believe from psychological experiences, from their experiences in childhood, and in general other non-rational means. For example, they may see examples of religious hypocrites. A hypocrite or bigot doesn't change the validity of an idea in the slightest.
On March 28 2009 09:02 Wotans_Fire wrote: Here you go: Atheism is {the pic he posted}
Let me put you on the spot Wotans_Fire. Do you agree with that definition of Atheism you posted?
Well, I don't know what do atheists believe would have triggered the spark? what do atheists believe that there was once nothing and it was triggered by scientific reasons alone? please enlighten me on how I am going to rot in the ground for eternity.
Do you really think introducing God would solve this problem? It's hard to conceive of something as existing eternally, but I would rather believe in a condensed clump of matter existing forever until it exploded than an omniscient, omnipotent God? Which do you think is more probable?
To reply to both of the above I believe the notion of you can't prove god exists and I can't prove that he exists would be considered agnostic not atheist, but I may be wrong. Either way I don't like to classify to a set of beliefs, although there are decent theories like deism. So in other words I believe god is nature. This condensed clump of matter to become everything would be an extraordinary coincidence following my set of logic.
On March 29 2009 22:54 Wotans_Fire wrote: To reply to both of the above I believe the notion of you can't prove god exists and I can't prove that he exists would be considered agnostic not atheist, but I may be wrong. Either way I don't like to classify to a set of beliefs, although there are decent theories like deism. So in other words I believe god is nature. This condensed clump of matter to become everything would be an extraordinary coincidence following my set of logic.
I think atheists would agree that this is an extraordinary coincidence? I don't see how deism would offer a better solution to the problem you referred to? By the way, I think most educated atheists would prefer to describe themselves as 'agnostic atheists', this meaning that although you can never know for sure, it is incredibly unlikely that there is any kind of god, so they don't believe in one.
On March 28 2009 09:02 Wotans_Fire wrote: Here you go: Atheism is {the pic he posted}
Since you avoided answering the question, let me rewind so we can move forward and not end up with a long line of wondering monologues. So here it goes again:
"Do you agree with that definition of Atheism you posted?"
Or let me phrase it another way. Is that your own definition of atheism too? Let me put it yet another way: do you think that definition you posted is what the general consensus is for that word? Let's try yet another way: is that definition the one you will find, lets say in the best philosophy schools or theology schools? Or lets take a gamble here, is that the definition you will find in your average dictionary?
On March 28 2009 09:02 Wotans_Fire wrote: Here you go: Atheism is {the pic he posted}
Since you avoided answering the question, let me rewind so we can move forward and not end up with a long line of wondering monologues. So here it goes again:
"Do you agree with that definition of Atheism you posted?"
Or let me phrase it another way. Is that your own definition of atheism too? Let me put it yet another way: do you think that definition you posted is what the general consensus is for that word? Let's try yet another way: is that definition the one you will find, lets say in the best philosophy schools or theology schools? Or lets take a gamble here, is that the definition you will find in your average dictionary?
Even a simple "yes" or a "no" would do.
I was reading the op and that poster came to mind because I thought it was funny and he was specifically asking for something to hand out. No I do not believe that is exactly the theory of atheism. I think I am not as educated as you may be in the field. However I always wonder if atheists can explain where their 'scientific' observations may originate, this could be my feeble superstitious mind though.
On March 30 2009 03:11 Wotans_Fire wrote: No I do not believe that is exactly the theory of atheism. I think I am not as educated as you may be in the field. However I always wonder if atheists can explain where their 'scientific' observations may originate, this could be my feeble superstitious mind though.
So your answer is "no". So we agree then that picture you posted is not the definition of atheism. It is an incoherent set of false assumptions and claims. It will of course not help intelligent discourse and might lead others to think your are ignorant or dumb. I know you are neither so why not avoid adding to the confusion and propagate falsehoods? As if we humans were not confused enough : (
when it comes to something personal like religion it's not about proving that facts support ur side of the argument because once u start atcking them like that they get defensive and wont' listen to u
a truly successful argument is one in which u convince they other guy that ur side is the one he needs to believe in not try to break him down w/ logic... that shit nvr works because ppl will nvr be won over just w/ logic
so yeah it's all about acting like u r open to his position and beliefs which makes him do like wise w/ ur and then slowly edge ur belief in there and replace his... he won't noe wat hit him
In order to add some humour to this thread, I will say this, Tasteless. If I ever see you again with pink hair, your soul will certainly need saving. >
As for your problem, just simply thank them and say that you are not interested. By engaging in a religious discussion, you are simply giving them reason to try and "convert" you. By being short and to the point, they will see it is futile to waste any effort on you and they will go about their business elsewhere.
Arguing/debating against a religion that puts major stress on faith is like trying trying to destroy a city by building stronger walls around it. Even if you make much logical sense (which is expected), you will only make their faith stronger.
On March 30 2009 12:44 Tom Phoenix wrote: In order to add some humour to this thread, I will say this, Tasteless. If I ever see you again with pink hair, your soul will certainly need saving. >
As for your problem, just simply thank them and say that you are not interested. By engaging in a religious discussion, you are simply giving them reason to try and "convert" you. By being short and to the point, they will see it is futile to waste any effort on you and they will go about their business elsewhere.
actually i will probably die my hair again this year so you better star praying lol.
all nonsense aside, i would like to know one thing. please indulge me.
why is it worst to be an atheist (which is one extreme in a spectrum of beliefs) than to be a religious fanatic?( which is the other extreme)
simply because they are the 2 extremes does not in any way shape or form define them as "just as bad"
a fanatic can justify killing, or worse, through his religious beliefs. Can an Atheist? well this question i will answer for you. No, an Atheist cannot.
I would rather someone who thinks along those lines, or has stated such to answer my question, i think i know where the Atheists, and secularists stand.
so again, just to be clear, tell me why exactly is it that an Atheist is "just as bad" as a religious fanatic?
On March 30 2009 17:32 Etherone wrote: all nonsense aside, i would like to know one thing. please indulge me.
why is it worst to be an atheist (which is one extreme in a spectrum of beliefs) than to be a religious fanatic?( which is the other extreme)
It isn't.
simply because they are the 2 extremes does not in any way shape or form define them as "just as bad"
They're both similar in the way of how the more extremely you toss yourself into one side, the more arguably ignorant you become.
a fanatic can justify killing, or worse, through his religious beliefs. Can an Atheist? well this question i will answer for you. No, an Atheist cannot.
Well, that's because Atheists technically do not have "religious" beliefs. There have been instances of Atheistic governments persecuting and destroying religious organizations even if it wasn't based upon "religious" beliefs.
so again, just to be clear, tell me why exactly is it that an Atheist is "just as bad" as a religious fanatic?
On March 30 2009 17:32 Etherone wrote: all nonsense aside, i would like to know one thing. please indulge me.
why is it worst to be an atheist (which is one extreme in a spectrum of beliefs) than to be a religious fanatic?( which is the other extreme)
simply because they are the 2 extremes does not in any way shape or form define them as "just as bad"
a fanatic can justify killing, or worse, through his religious beliefs. Can an Atheist? well this question i will answer for you. No, an Atheist cannot.
I would rather someone who thinks along those lines, or has stated such to answer my question, i think i know where the Atheists, and secularists believe.
so again, just to be clear, tell me why exactly is it that an Atheist is "just as bad" as a religious fanatic?
What?
You do know Stalin, was an atheist. Also, satanists are atheists. And I would venture to say very few world leaders are religious as they may profess. They just use it to control the people to get them to do what they want. (interestingly, world leaders seem to have connections with satanism)
On March 30 2009 17:32 Etherone wrote: all nonsense aside, i would like to know one thing. please indulge me.
why is it worst to be an atheist (which is one extreme in a spectrum of beliefs) than to be a religious fanatic?( which is the other extreme)
simply because they are the 2 extremes does not in any way shape or form define them as "just as bad"
a fanatic can justify killing, or worse, through his religious beliefs. Can an Atheist? well this question i will answer for you. No, an Atheist cannot.
I would rather someone who thinks along those lines, or has stated such to answer my question, i think i know where the Atheists, and secularists believe.
so again, just to be clear, tell me why exactly is it that an Atheist is "just as bad" as a religious fanatic?
What?
You do know Stalin, was an atheist. Also, satanists are atheists. And I would venture to say very few world leaders are religious as they may profess. They just use it to control the people to get them to do what they want. (interestingly, world leaders seem to have connections with satanism)
i thought i was very clear, i would like for someone who sees Atheists as being " as bad as" religious fanatics to explain to me the logical reasoning behind that view
Hitler was a vegetarian, Stalin was also male. I believe I've made my point.
i would love to see some of the connections with satanism these world leaders have, unless of course it is the same type of connection you made previously.
An easy modern day example would be North Korea. Their government is atheistic to the extremes and religion is not tolerated at up there; religious activity was smashed and destroyed. The Chosun Dynasty of Korea was also pretty atheistic, and they shot down Buddhism a lot at the beginning of the Dynastic rule, and when Christianity began to pick up near the end of the Dynasty, they made a lot of efforts into persecuting them.
On March 30 2009 17:32 Etherone wrote: all nonsense aside, i would like to know one thing. please indulge me.
why is it worst to be an atheist (which is one extreme in a spectrum of beliefs) than to be a religious fanatic?( which is the other extreme)
simply because they are the 2 extremes does not in any way shape or form define them as "just as bad"
a fanatic can justify killing, or worse, through his religious beliefs. Can an Atheist? well this question i will answer for you. No, an Atheist cannot.
I would rather someone who thinks along those lines, or has stated such to answer my question, i think i know where the Atheists, and secularists believe.
so again, just to be clear, tell me why exactly is it that an Atheist is "just as bad" as a religious fanatic?
What?
You do know Stalin, was an atheist. Also, satanists are atheists. And I would venture to say very few world leaders are religious as they may profess. They just use it to control the people to get them to do what they want. (interestingly, world leaders seem to have connections with satanism)
i thought i was very clear, i would like for someone who sees Atheists as being " as bad as" religious fanatics to explain to me the logical reasoning behind that view
Hitler was a vegetarian, Stalin was also male. I believe I've made my point.
i would love to see some of the connections with satanism these world leaders have, unless of course it is the same type of connection you made previously.
and which world leaders are you referring to?
Are you asking for the logical reason why an atheist would hurt another person? Because for a religious fanatic, you are saying that there are religious reasons?
I think the logic behind it is pretty clear. As has probably been pointed out a number of times, an atheist belief is pretty independent with morals. So while an atheist may have what we consider positive morals, they can just as easily care only for themselves. They can, for example, murder millions of people with no problems because those people weren't any more important than any other animal.
The reason I bring up Stalin is because it brings up communism of course. Communism was an atheist system that caused more deaths than any other ideology. So it is quite relevant. The extremists you mention kill not because of religion, but because they fight for things like land and control. Religion is just used as a means of justification for what they do. Don't forget the US was founded by religious extremists as well.
The point is an atheist generally doesn't need to justify killing because there is nothing to justify. Of course most have added morals, so they may or may not feel guilty over such an action.
As for connecting world leaders with satanism, I don't think I need to do that to prove my point. And moreover, I don't think I could present any evidence that wouldn't generate pages of discussion arguing about it so just ignore that point.
what? atheists dont need to justify killing? we're all just barbarous amoral heathens if we abandon the bible huh? how exactly did the jews make it to mount sinai while thinking it was ok to rape and kill and steal amongst themselves?
most of the communist regimes also happened to be atheistic, but theres no reasonable causal link there. just as there is no causal link between atheism itself and stalin's persecution of religion, religion is a great source of power for the people at the head of it, which means you either have to take control of it or eliminate it. you really claim that religious extremists are motivated solely by practical purposes and then try to assign blame for stalin and mao and whatnot to atheism?
im not even sure how atheism could motivate action, as it isnt actually a belief. its a lack thereof. 'militant' atheists like dawkins and harris speak out against religion, not for atheism, atheism is just the result of giving up religion. they are fighting against the effects of belief, not in defense of their own.
when a bunch of atheists start riots and kill people because someone makes a comic about the flying spaghetti monster, then you might have an argument on that front. until then, no.
Come on idra, I made it clear that morals are completely separate from atheism. I was not implying that atheists cannot be moral. In fact I wasn't even implying that the vast majority weren't moral. He asked my how it could logically be justified and I told him.
You're right, atheism doesn't motivate action. In fact I said that is how it can justify killing, etc, because it in fact does not need to be justified (again, when you add in morals which the vast majority of atheists have, then it does in fact need to be justified).
And finally, I will even say that you are right that there is not causal relationship between atheism and communism and the things that come along with it. In those cases simply allows atrocities to be justified in its own twisted way. I really doubt the state truely cares about any specific belief system anyways, they use whatever controls people (many times religion).
So in conclusion, I'm saying people will do bad things to other people regardless of their religion or lack there of.
On March 30 2009 23:17 fight_or_flight wrote: Come on idra, I made it clear that morals are completely separate from atheism. I was not implying that atheists cannot be moral. In fact I wasn't even implying that the vast majority weren't moral. He asked my how it could logically be justified and I told him.
The point is an atheist generally doesn't need to justify killing because there is nothing to justify. Of course most have added morals, so they may or may not feel guilty over such an action.
generally doesnt need to justify killing certainly implies that most atheists are amoral, which is utterly idiotic. do you stone people for working on the sabbath? you dont get your morals from the bible either.
You're right, atheism doesn't motivate action. In fact I said that is how it can justify killing, etc, because it in fact does not need to be justified (again, when you add in morals which the vast majority of atheists have, then it does in fact need to be justified).
so basically your whole point was that if atheists were amoral then this would be true, but then you say most atheists are moral so.. you have no point?
And finally, I will even say that you are right that there is not causal relationship between atheism and communism and the things that come along with it. In those cases simply allows atrocities to be justified in its own twisted way. I really doubt the state truely cares about any specific belief system anyways, they use whatever controls people (many times religion).
so basically everything you said..... was flat out wrong. nifty. how does atheism help to justify it? you just said that atheists arent generally amoral.
So in conclusion, I'm saying people will do bad things to other people regardless of their religion or lack there of.
sounds like you werent really saying anything at all
On March 30 2009 18:28 Etherone wrote: why is it worst to be an atheist (which is one extreme in a spectrum of beliefs) than to be a religious fanatic?( which is the other extreme)
simply because they are the 2 extremes does not in any way shape or form define them as "just as bad"
a fanatic can justify killing, or worse, through his religious beliefs. Can an Atheist? well this question i will answer for you. No, an Atheist cannot.
so again, just to be clear, tell me why exactly is it that an Atheist is "just as bad" as a religious fanatic?
I believe I have been arguing against this assumption statement which isn't very clear. I've been trying to show how the worst religious fanatics and the worst atheists can both easily justify their actions. I'm not making general accusations here. Thats why it is important to distinguish morals from atheism, etc.
And are you saying all religious fanatics will kill people? Arguing that atheists constitute one end of the spectrum, and "religious fanatics" are the equivalent version of the other end is a false pretense. What percentage of people who don't believe in god label themselves as an atheist? (a pretty good portion) What percentage of religious people label themselves as extremists? (very few)
So my whole argument is based on showing that the worst individuals on either spectrum have justifications to do what they do. Idra, you are right, religious people do have morals. However, do extremists? I think we can safely agree that the worst extremists and worst atheists don't have morals.
On March 30 2009 23:17 fight_or_flight wrote: Come on idra, I made it clear that morals are completely separate from atheism. I was not implying that atheists cannot be moral. In fact I wasn't even implying that the vast majority weren't moral. He asked my how it could logically be justified and I told him.
The point is an atheist generally doesn't need to justify killing because there is nothing to justify. Of course most have added morals, so they may or may not feel guilty over such an action.
generally doesnt need to justify killing certainly implies that most atheists are amoral, which is utterly idiotic. do you stone people for working on the sabbath? you dont get your morals from the bible either.
You're right, atheism doesn't motivate action. In fact I said that is how it can justify killing, etc, because it in fact does not need to be justified (again, when you add in morals which the vast majority of atheists have, then it does in fact need to be justified).
so basically your whole point was that if atheists were amoral then this would be true, but then you say most atheists are moral so.. you have no point?[/quote] The original argument was comparing to religious extremist. I'm talking about the minority who do bad things. You must agree that some atheists are amoral. Satanists are a good example of this. How many athiests are satanists? probably very few! but they do exist. This is the minority is the group I am comparing to the "religious extremists".
More mainstream examples (which could be likened to fundamentalist but not extremists religious people) would be the people who want to exterminate all humans, to eugenics, to partial birth abortion, to abortion. A cluster of cells is the amoral view of life, for example. I'm just giving a sliding scale here, try to view it objectively.
And finally, I will even say that you are right that there is not causal relationship between atheism and communism and the things that come along with it. In those cases simply allows atrocities to be justified in its own twisted way. I really doubt the state truely cares about any specific belief system anyways, they use whatever controls people (many times religion).
so basically everything you said..... was flat out wrong. nifty. how does atheism help to justify it? you just said that atheists arent generally amoral.
Atheism is simply the vehicle used because it tends to be more collectivist. It is more a worship of the state (in this circumstance I'm not saying all atheism is the same) and personality cults, which use atheism as a means to push religion out than anything else.
In this collectivist mindset, it seems much easier to get people to commit atrocities. Even ideas such as human culling are gaining ground today.
But the fact is that millions of people killed each other in that part of history, and they justified their actions. So really without understanding the collectivist mindset, you could easily say that this proves that whatever belief system they operated under allowed them, at the very least, to justify their actions. Whether it was God telling them to do it, or Father Stalin in some weird quasi-atheist mass psychosis, history should dictate to you that their belief system allowed it because (1) it was their belief system and (2) it happened on a massive scale. Me explaining to you the mechanics of how it happened should be secondary.
So in conclusion, I'm saying people will do bad things to other people regardless of their religion or lack there of.
sounds like you werent really saying anything at all
Well its what happens when you argue against an absolute statement such as thsi "a fanatic can justify killing, or worse, through his religious beliefs. Can an Atheist? well this question i will answer for you. No, an Atheist cannot."
It should be obvious that one form of mind control is no better than another. Established religions and ideologies are both forms of mind control. Spirituality and morals are not.