The Fall of Theism

For millennia, humans have been subjected to the whims of many kinds of powerful individuals and organizations.  Of these people and organizations, none has caused such devastation with immunity to criticism as religious leaders and their corresponding organizations.  Fortunately, the increasing number of educated individuals in the world in addition to the great access to information the Internet provides has led to a Renaissance of rationalism.  In the coming years, the chokehold of theism on the minds of the masses will slowly come undone.

The result of this Renaissance will be manifold, however, of fundamental importance are two key areas of improvement: a spur in scientific and technological development – no longer held back by superstitious beliefs – and a higher level of morality among the vast majority of the world’s population.

 

 As even those with a minute knowledge of history understand that time and time again, organized theistic religions have hampered or completely blocked scientific and technological development. From the case of Galileo, being forced to recant his findings that the solar system is heliocentric and not – as the church believed then, geocentric – to the more recent criticism of stem cell research, to numerous other examples, theistic religious organizations have continuously impeded the advancement of science and technology throughout history.  Without organized religion, science will prosper for two reasons contemporarily.  First, religious organizations will no longer sponsor political parties (financially and otherwise) in order to influence party politics.  The examples of the fundamentalist Christian movement in America and the fundamentalist Islamic movement in numerous Arab countries demonstrate the strong influence of religious organizations have on political parties to this day.  Obviously, these religious organizations demand certain restrictions on science, such as stem cell research and – according to the Catholic Church’s recently released Seven Modern Deadly Sins – genetic modification. Second, if organized religions disappear, more people who would have lived under the haze of religious may go into scientific fields that their science would have previously discouraged.  The sheer number of people who alter their understanding of the world according to their religion is exceedingly large.  This untapped human capital will only help the development of science and technology in the future.

Additionally, non-religious people are simply more moral than religious people.  Of course, this statement is provocative, and extremely hard to believe by religious people; however, it is true.  As Christopher Hitchens often asks, “Name one thing that a religious person would do that a non-religious person wouldn’t” – that is name one noble act that a religious person does that a non-religious person would never do.  Unfortunately, for theists, there is no answer to that question because humans are fundamentally moral with or without religion.  Further, Hitchens follows up this question with another: “Name something that a non-religious person would never do that a religious person would do”.  Unfortunately for religious people again, this question is quite easily answered: suicide bombers, covering up pedophilia scandals in the Catholic Church, female genital mutilation, circumcision of infants or young children, knocking on peoples doors in an attempt to change said people’s beliefs, and the list goes on.   Thus, in a future without organized religion, people will no longer go against their natural morality in order to fulfil the artificial morality of their religion.

Sadly, people often dismiss this idea with the belief that more deaths occurred in the 20th century from atheism or secularism than religion.  The argument states that because Hitler, Stalin, and others were not religious, the reason they killed or allowed people to die was because of their atheism.  However, this is a non sequitur because there is no connection between these leaders’ atheism and the crimes they committed.  Hitler killed Jews because he hated Jews, not because he was an atheist; Stalin starved millions because he was blindly and callously committed to a political ideology, not because he was an atheist.  At no point did either of these leaders say that they were killing on behalf of atheism.  In fact, during the Nazi era, the Catholic Church sided with the Nazi regime.  Therefore, if a theist wants to argue that Hitler went to war and exterminated Jews because he was an atheist, then they must also accept that the Catholic Church agreed with the idea of Hitler going to war and killing Jews.   Further, any religious organization that had a Holy War of any sort is not in a position to criticize other war criminals without first looking in the mirror.

For these reasons, I look forward to a future without religion – hopefully a near future.

< Detainee says he lied to CIA in harsh interrogations | Osama bin Laden Is a Dead Man >

Poll

Would the world be a better place without organized religions?
Yes. 85%
No. 14%

Votes: 28
Results | Other Polls
 Display:
The problem is that people live in fear of things that they don't understand and will turn to damned near anything for comfort.  They'll use mind-altering chemicals, sex, thrill-seeking behaviors, and/or religion all in an effort to distract themselves from their fears of, among other things, the ultimate end that we all must face.

We can learn that unanswerable questions can be fun things to have around and that not all questions have to be answered.  We can learn that, whatever happens after death, how we feel about it now won't last so we might as well live in the present.  And we can learn that loving others is a wonderful way to experience love without having to worry about being punished by some creature in the sky.

But I'm just an old hippie.  What do I know?  Religious people are going to keep on killing each other for many years, and there's probably not much we can do to stop them.

Yet.

Oh, well.  Live and learn, I guess.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/17/2009 08:21:08 AM EST

No doubt people will always try to shelter themselves from the harsh realities of life; however, that wasn't my argument.  My main point is that, due to the advent of the internet and the increasing numbers of educated people around the world, organized religion will decline, and this will be a positive change for humanity.

 I don't think all forms of religion will disappear, nor do I think organized religion will be completely eradicated; however, I do think that the extremely hard to believe aspects of all modern organized religions will limit the number of adherents to those religions.

 Sure, people will have their own personal religions, and of course people will use other methods to answer unanswerable questinos, but these are much less harmful to humanity.

In short, optimistically, I say, we are moving in the right direction.

by DaeguBill on 06/17/2009 08:29:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't have enough data to agree or disagree with that.  For all I know, the proportion of people who use religion to people who don't has remained relatively constant over time.  I just don't know.

I think you're talking about "faith", which is something in which I place no value.  I think that making decisions based on faith without adequate research in order to alleviate the need for faith is a bad idea.  I much prefer knowledge to faith, because we can know things.  We can learn.  We can prove that some ideas are true and that others are false.  And if I don't have enough information then I'll leave the question open.  I do not want to try to fill in the blanks with unjustified conclusions based on some baseless faith.  I would rather admit that "I don't know".  That's more honest that faith.  I place much more value on honesty than I do on faith.

Sure, people are free to have any religion that you want.  And I'm free to judge them as dishonest, ignorant, and nuts.  (But don't worry.  I probably won't, as long as they don't let their beliefs take any of my time.)


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/17/2009 09:44:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Well, I don't actually have any data proving the rise of atheism or the decline of theism.  I suppose I could do some research, but it's late where I am right now and I'm kinda tired :) The reason I wrote the initial blog was because I've been hearing a lot about atheists being the fastest growing minority in America currently, but like I say, I don't have the stats to back that up for now...

Maybe tomorrow :)

by DaeguBill on 06/17/2009 12:34:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Personally, I'm not an atheist, although I'm not a theist, either.  Nor am I an agnostic.  I am a nontheist.  However, I think that some definitions of "God" are synonyms for "Universe", i.e., the object that contains the universal set of everything (including the empty set) and, in those cases, I can't really deny the existence of God, can I?

I'll concede that the ideas of atheism certainly seem to be "on the rise".  But that may be only because the social stigma with giving voice to those ideas is on the wane.  Religious people seem to be a bit more tolerant of atheists.  They're not trying to pass laws against atheism so much anymore.  And with so many TV preachers giving voice to really crazy ideas, it's no wonder that atheism is tolerated more.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/17/2009 03:08:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I think you're splitting hairs where you don't have to.  I imagine that you might have some subtle distinction in mind, but I actually think that such distinctions are counterproductive. 

If you go around saying that you're a "nontheist" and not an "atheist", then you're implying that "atheism" entails something more than "lack of belief in God."  This leads to nothing but strawmen arguments and distractions when it comes to debates about the existence of God.

by BlueRondo on 06/17/2009 07:30:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't deny the existence of "God".  "God" can be defined in such a way that its existence can be proven beyond any doubt.  I'm just saying that it matters only to the person doing the defining.  I, on the other hand, chose to not define "God" other than by using every definition of God.  And that's where set theory comes in handy.  But I'm just a lay nontheist.  You should ask our priests if you need more information.

I should note that I've been accused of being a member of The Church of God The Utterly Indifferent.  I'm not.  I don't like their rituals.

Atheists also must be distinguished from antitheists, but that's another subject altogether.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/17/2009 08:20:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't deny the existence of "God".  "God" can be defined in such a way that its existence can be proven beyond any doubt.  

Given that this is a thread about theism - i.e.: conceiving of God as a "person" or "mind" of some sort - I don't see why all definitions of God are relevant to the present discussion.

by BlueRondo on 06/17/2009 09:21:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You brought it up.  You accused me of splitting hairs where I didn't have to.  I tried to show that it wasn't one hair that got split.  It was really two different hairs.

I was just following your lead.  If you don't like where you led us, you're welcome to turn this wagon around.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/17/2009 09:43:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I do like personal religion. People should be free to and encouraged to decide for themselves. Not forced into anything. Which is also why I dislike the anti-religion people. Bashing people for not being smart enough to know what you know is not going to change anyone's belief.

by mattish on 06/17/2009 09:08:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Religion is just another set of ideas, and it should be as open to criticism as any set of ideas.  If you believe something that is contradicted by everything around you, you can expect to be criticized.  For instance, if you believe that a virgin can become pregnant without the benefit of sperm, people who think that you're bat-shit crazy are justified in that opinion as much as they would be if you claimed that the earth is flat.

At some point, when religions deny what we have learned, they must be vigorously criticized.  Unfortunately, our First Amendment has been used to protect people who believe ridiculous things at the expense of others.

For instance, as an employer, I want to hire people who can reason and employ logic.  But when someone comes through my door who belongs to a religion that says that some God they've devised forbids the use of birth control, I may have to hire that person...

...even though I manufacture birth control devices.

Sure, go ahead and believe what you want.  But if you believe things that contradict reason, logic, and science, and you communicate your beliefs to others then you must expect criticism.  Those of us who have learned how to learn aren't going to put up with religious bullshit when it gets too obnoxious.

And it always does.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/17/2009 09:26:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]

proving my point. I never said I had any religion and you started attacking me and anyone else that does have a religion for not being able to use reason or logic. Never mind all the scientists in the world that believe in a god and still seem to function just fine.

 People like you are just as bad as the religious nuts. Anything that goes against what you say is a sign of stupidity because you said so.

 And did you just argue that science proved there is no god? It sounds like that is what you are getting at.

 I am not religious and I a don't like organized religion. Just like I don't like organized thought. Bandwagon thinking almost always results in bad things happening.

 

by mattish on 06/17/2009 11:25:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]


I'm sorry if I erroneously assumed that you like personal religion.  As for your feeling of being "attacked", I deny responsibility for that.

Show me a religion with logic as its basis rather than some inflexible demand to accept a set of unsubstantiated beliefs and I'll reconsider my view of that particular ideology.

And if someone has some belief in a "God" of some definition, the definition of that God would seem to be relevant, wouldn't it?

Define "God".  Then we'll talk.  Until you do, I have no idea what you're talking about.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/17/2009 02:54:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Deists believe that god created the world, and then put into place a set of natural laws that can never be broken.  

They think that there had to be a creator, because of their premises: The world had a beginning, and the world is too complicated to be just a coincidence.

Note: The author does not necessarily subscribe to the views, he is only describing them.

by birdboy1 on 06/17/2009 03:10:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Assume that the universe was uniform and in a steady state.  Then something happened to disturb that state, an event which we call "The Big Bang".

What caused that disturbance?  "God?"  I guess you might as well call it that.  That name fits as well as any other.  "Creator?"  Absolutely.

I don't have a problem with any of that until someone who thinks they know something starts assigning attributes to "God", the "Creator".  I am convinced that it is a impossible for humans to know what caused that disturbance.  I might be wrong, but I think we'd have to know what came "before" there was time.

I like unanswerable questions.  I avoid trying to answer them.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/17/2009 03:37:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The First Cause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/First_cause) is a common argument for the existence of a creator deity.  I don't remember the argument against it (I think it has something to do with saying that having a first cause is not a necessary condition).  There is a great book if this kind of thing interests you called Atheism Explained.  

http://www.amazon.com/Athei sm-Explained-Folly-Philosop hy-Ideas/dp/0812696379/ref= sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books& amp;qid=1245270996&sr=1 -3

The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars. -Carl Sagan

by aidbo on 06/17/2009 04:45:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You can have a "creator" without having a deity.  My argument is that we have no idea what the creator was and that assigning "deity status" to it is dishonest.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/17/2009 05:00:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Aidbo,

The argument against the first cause "evidence" of a creator, according to Richard Dawkins, is that in order for there to be a "prime mover" -- what people want to call God -- the prime mover had to have existed before this first cause.  Or at the very least, had to be created at the same time as the first cause. But then the question arises, "Who created the creator?"

There is no answer to this, nor, most likely, will there ever be.

by DaeguBill on 06/18/2009 12:24:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Unfortunately, a lot of religionists simply don't recognize them.  They'll say, "No one created the Creator!  God just always was!"  And, given their definition of God, that statement makes perfect sense.

The real challenge is in getting them to recognize that their faith in the truth of that statement is actually dishonesty, since we can never prove whether it's true or false.  Supplying an answer to an unanswerable question is an act of dishonesty.

The real beauty and mystery is in the simple existence of the question "what happened before?"  But it's a question that they will never let stand unanswered.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/18/2009 12:44:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I think Richard Dawkins puts it best when he insists that it is much more interesting to not know something and to have to work hard to try to understand it (and possibly NEVER understand it) than to say, "I just know" and be done with it.

by DaeguBill on 06/18/2009 01:01:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
...more Richard Dawkins.  Got any suggestions?


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/18/2009 02:10:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Generally, anything by Dawkins is good, and highly scientific.  The primary origin of most of my concepts posed here come from, as you might expect, "The God Delusion".  This book is much less focused on science, more focused on history, but equally brilliant.

 For a more biting criticism of religion, check out Christopher Hitchen's "God is not great: how religion poisons everything."  Personally, I preferred this one. It's basically atheism with balls.

by DaeguBill on 06/18/2009 03:24:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]
He wasn't attacking you.  He didn't say anything about you.  He said that everything is open to criticism if it is vocalized.

Never mind all the scientists in the world that believe in a god and still seem to function just fine.

He didn't say anything about them.  You seem to be equating religion to fundamentalist christianity.  Which is wrong.
  So if you were hiring an archaeology team for a dig of hominid fossils, and someone came up to you and said they wanted the job, they knew their history, and another person wanted the job who believed that the world was 6000 years old and insists that there is no evolution, who would you hire?

Yes, there are religious scientists, but they are not fundamentalists.  Remember, Darwin was trying to become a priest.

And did you just argue that science proved there is no god? It sounds like that is what you are getting at.
No, he didn't.  I have no idea where you came up with that.

by birdboy1 on 06/17/2009 12:21:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
EveningStar can be a little abrasive sometimes.  Don't jump to the conclusion that he/(she?) was attacking you.

One thing that I did notice in your post though (and this is not an attack, I'm just pointing out something that you might not have noticed before) is that you anthropomorphized science.  I've done it before too.  We have to remember that science is not a person, it does not have whims, it doesn't make decisions.  It is also not a system of beliefs, which is how some other people seem to think of it.  It is a tool, nothing more.  If used correctly (and there are plenty of people who do not use it correctly) it can be used to learn some truly amazing things.  Because of this I think our human nature is to approach it with some kind of awe.  But we must remember that science (or more specifically the scientific method) was "created" by humans (so was religion!).  It was brought about by people as a way to apply reason and logic to try to come up with rules/concepts/theories to explain phenomena in the natural world.

I believe this is also how religion began.  Some ancient tribe sees some lightning one night strike a tree near their camp.  They didn't have the tools to figure out what that phenomenon represented.  So they invent a deity (individually or by fiat) that must have done it, and pretty soon you have Zeus.  Then along comes other un-explainable phenomena and you get other deities, like Helios, Yaweh, Allah, etc.

Where these two ways of looking at the natural world differ however is their approach to learning the truth.  With religion, generally the truth is just made up.  It works better if it is self-consistent with the other beliefs, but this is not a requirement because of the nature of deities.  If you apply science to learn the truth about a phenomenon, you don't have that luxury and if it isn't consistent with your other scientific beliefs, thats a big red-flag.  You make a theory (a best guess using what you already know about the natural world) and then devise a way to test that theory.  You say to yourself, "I think A is caused by B".  Then apply logic, "If A is caused by B, then I would expect C if I looked here".  Then if you do not find C when doing your experiment, this means your theory was probably flawed (or your experiment) you should consider your findings and come up with a new theory.  If you do find C however, this does not mean that you have come up with the truth, you have just come up with a good way to describe the truth.

A great example of this is Gravity.  Newton's theory on gravity lasted quite a long time, and it does an excellent job of describing most phenomena that have something to do with gravity.  Then along came Einstein and he proposed a theory for how gravity worked that got the same results as Newton's theory in most cases.  So why is Einstein's theory better?  Because his was able to explain the natural world better.  Among other things, his theory said that light's path would be bent by the gravity of a star, Newton's didn't.  They were able to do an experiment, and Einstein's theory was supported (not proved) so his theory is said to better represent reallity.  We have to remember that this is still just a theory, not THE TRUTH.

Well I've done it again, I've put the entire forum to sleep with my long-winded ramblings.  In conclusion, I'll just say that I see religion as something like wisdom teeth in people.  It was useful for what it did in the ancient past, but we have gotten to the point where we don't need it anymore.

The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars. -Carl Sagan

by aidbo on 06/17/2009 02:37:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I know it sounds like semantics, but what you described when you said,

" You make a theory (a best guess using what you already know about the natural world) and then devise a way to test that theory"

that is called a hypothesis not a theory. A theory is, to quote the dictionary

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

 

There is a diffrence in the way the term "theory" is used by the general public and the scientific community. A theory is not a blind guess in the dark, It is an accumulation of facts and proven hypothesis' that has been rigorously tested by peer review, subsequent publication of your theory in a scientific journal and duplication and even more tests by other scientist.

That's not to say that theories are infalable, if they don't fit right into other known theories, can't be duplicated, or other theories come along that fit better then the old theory eventualy loses credibility and acceptance.

by cowpacino on 06/17/2009 04:05:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes I should have writte hypothesis, my bad.

The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars. -Carl Sagan

by aidbo on 06/17/2009 04:29:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm still wide awake.  I like this particular rambling, because it is true.  

one thing you forgot to mention though, the beginning of organized religion was just a way to keep order.  Look at all of the ancient civilizations.  Just to name a few- Egypt, Huang He river valley, Indus River valley, mesopotamia.  3 out of 4 of those civilizations saw their leader as a deity or some sort of divine form.  Now look at the incas.  Their leader was supposed to be a descendant of the sun god.  If the people believed that the leader had some sort of divine power, they would be more likely to comply with the society.

by birdboy1 on 06/17/2009 03:19:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
But if I started to consider organized religion, I'd have to go even deeper.  I'd have to point out how entities or groups that are started by humans seem to somehow also take on a life of their own.  Organized religions like Catholicism, Mormonism, Islam, heck even Scientology (gawd, don't get me started on Scientology) have properties in common with bureaucracies, corporations, political parties, and governments.  Once they get a certain amount of power, they seem to have the will (and now I'm anthropomorphizing again) to retain or increase that power.  This will comes from the collective wills of the people involved in the group, and sometimes a charismatic leader.  But what is interesting is that the really strong organizations survive even after that charismatic leader has left the game.  I can't think of good individual examples right now, but I'm sure you can think of some.

Some people tend to view these groups with suspicion, which is healthy.  They can be responsible for the most horrible atrocities (holocausts, genocides, terrorism).  But they can also be responsible for some great (in the full sense of the word) things that advance the human race (democracy, science-based medicine, public education).

The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars. -Carl Sagan

by aidbo on 06/17/2009 04:27:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I saw nothing in his response that I would consider an attack. (although this might actually be one)

 Why do religious nuts always seem to assume an attack when you point out facts? I think it's because they know (way down in the depths of there subconscious) that they are trying to defend fairy tails with no evidence to support them, so when an atheist comes at there beliefs with the big stick of logic, and all they have is naked belief, they see it as an attack.

Would you say I was attacking a flat earthier when I give the evidence why I believe the earth is round? Would you say I was attacking someone who believed that the stork brought babies instead of fertilization?

by cowpacino on 06/17/2009 04:19:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You might not want to stand too close to me if you hear thunder.

I did, in fact, "attack" religion.  I think my description of people who believe one of the fundamental tenets of Christian ideology -- the so-called "virgin birth" -- as "bat-shit crazy" could be fairly characterized as an attack.  However, it was not my intent to personally attack mattish.  I don't know if mattish is a Christian.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/17/2009 05:10:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
today, I woke to a thunderstorm that was right over my house.  

So the obvious reason for that is that you were standing too close to my house.

by birdboy1 on 06/18/2009 07:56:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Whew!  Sorry about that.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/18/2009 07:59:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I especially like your dig at the end :)

by DaeguBill on 06/17/2009 12:28:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]

BUT, if they decide to believe something foolish, I have every right to say anything I want about that foolish belief -- including saying "That's foolish".

 

If I started a cult, and my cult said that all my followers must drink glasses of apple juice and imagine that apple juice is my urine, and my urine is a part of me and by drinking it my followers become one with me, EVERYONE will call me crazy and evil and every other slander.  Yet, if an ORGANIZED religion does the same thing with, say, wine being the blood of Christ... well now, that's understandable and you can't make fun of that.

 This is a contradiction. To be fair, either you should not be allowed to criticize anybody or you should be allowed to criticize everybody. I'm for the latter.

by DaeguBill on 06/17/2009 12:25:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Urine of Christ vs. The Blood of Christ.  Apple juice vs. wine.

I'm an alcoholic, so I'd probably have to go for the former.

Where do I go to sign up for indoctrination?


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/17/2009 03:16:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Cenk spoke about this group of Hindu fundamentalists in India who are putting out a soft drink with the main ingredient of cow urine.  People will do some bat-shit crazy nutso stuff because of their irrational beliefs.

The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars. -Carl Sagan

by aidbo on 06/17/2009 05:26:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
But I guess it's healthier than cyanide kool-aid.

by birdboy1 on 06/17/2009 05:35:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
...you might wish that it had been cyanide kool-aid.

Sheesh!  Cow-urine kool-aid!  This is a crazy world.

Hey!  Do you think my new hair style will help me attract more girls?  The girl at the shop said it would.

And I believe it!


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/17/2009 06:39:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
EveningStarNM - The problem is that people live in fear of things that they don't understand and will turn to damned near anything for comfort.  They'll use mind-altering chemicals, sex, thrill-seeking behaviors, and/or religion all in an effort to distract themselves from their fears of, among other things, the ultimate end that we all must face.

You're absolutely right, people will use anything they can to forget about the harsh reality of life even just for a moment. But the difference between thrill seeking behavior, drugs, or sex, is that those things don't force you to conform to set of beliefs that fly in the face of the facts. They don't force you to adopt certain principles at risk of "being eternally damned to hell". If I use drugs, I couldn't care less if others used them or about "enlightening or saving their souls" if they don't do as I do, whereas religion says all non-believers are going to a bad place and thus if you love them you will make them join us.

Look, we all need to look past the strawman argument that the fundamentalist intelligent design advocates try to push, that is that Darwin vs God, Religion vs Science whole thing. Thats NOT the case AT ALL. There IS NO CONTROVERSY. I don't believe in science so much as simply accept it. If Jesus popped out of the ground and walked on water tomorrow, I would admit that Jesus exists, he has the divine capability to defy the laws of physics, and that there really is a god. But so far, the evidence proves to the contrary. There are plenty of scientists and smart people (such as Ken Miller) who are religious. The difference is that they can focus on their work without worrying about contradicting what the pastor said, or what it says in the bible. The same kind of christians who don't mind gay people or gay marriage, thats what we're really against here, the fundamentalists who want to force their own belief system onto everyone.

by wohodude100 on 06/18/2009 10:56:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]

I'd still be skeptical if Jesus popped out of the ground and started preforming miracles. I mean, maybe he's not really the son of god, he's really an alien with super advanced technology that lets him preform "miracles?"

 

Ever watched Stargate?

by cowpacino on 06/18/2009 04:03:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I agree with the first post. In fact, it was very well put. I especially like the argument that more people invested in the real, physical world, it would make them more interested in science, so bright minds would have fewer barriers between them and the big discoveries. And thank the fates for a world with fewer damned priests! 

I also agree we shouldn't be too optimistic. People are inherently slightly insane, and different groups will always develop silly ideas. However, organized religion is just that - organized. If the village idiot, or a village of idiots, believe in fairies or ghosts - I should add that one can believe in these things without being an idiot, I'm just making an example - it's usually a small problem for the rest of society, and it is a belief that might easily soften given new perspectives. However, when people go to a special house every week and tell each other all about how much they love the fairies and fear the ghosts, and they then set up similar houses in other villages and convert them one village idiot at a time, you start having problems.

Either way. I think it's of immense importance for atheists, agnostics, and anyone who believes in what you might call the material world, to do two things:
First, be visible. Don't be afraid to talk about your ideas, especially when someone is justifying something on the basis of their belief or generally demeaning those who don't believe as they do.
Secondly, be sensible. Don't try to convert people if it means harassing them, and try to keep any feelings of tribalism on the shelf. Try to like religious people, even outspoken religious people, as long as they like you. The best way to work for a better world is by showing your peers that atheists aren't dogmatic, but reasonable and amiable. Besides, if *you* can't even be tolerant, why blame the religious for intolerance?

by Sorenzo on 06/18/2009 10:19:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It's just a lot of hot air with pretty lights to make you think something important is going on.  And I'd believe in the quantum world except that the damned thing keeps changing every time I look at it.

The only world I'm really sure of is Mind, but who the hell knows what's in it?


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/18/2009 11:02:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]

 http://en.wikipedia.o rg/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_re ligious_beliefs

Although this mistake has been corrected so many times in so many places it has become maddening, I am obligated to point out for factual accuracy that HITLER WAS NOT NECESSARILY AN ATHEIST.  I can't really blame anyone too much for perpetuating this because Christians love to distance themselves from him and have been repeating this line for a while.  This matter is very much under dispute.  However, it is clear as day that Hitler used Christianity pretty much whenever possible to help justify his beliefs and actions to his people.  Don't take my word for it, check the link at the top of my post. 

Unlike many religious people, I am not trying to distance my atheism from bad people who happened to be atheist.  I'm just pointing out some facts.  I'll readily admit there is a fairly clear consensus that Stalin was indeed an atheist and he is responsible for more deaths than Hitler.  The real common factor that links these two people is not atheism.  The relevant commonality is that they were maniacs in one way or another.

For the record, I realize it was not the intention of the original poster to play this association game that many other people try to play.  I dislike the association game and I hate it even more when people lie to make the associations in the first place.  Furthermore, if the "association game" absolutely has to be played than religion in general definitely comes out looking horrible and the clear loser.

  I would definitely say that organized religion is the most dangerous tool in manipulating the masses to do or support abhorrent deeds because it gives the impression that these deeds have a divine mandate or approval.  For many people, this trumps all logic and reason.

P.S.  This is my first post on the TYT forums.  For some reason or another my attempts to register here at the site have been unsuccessful for some time.  For some reason, the email account I had been trying to use has never received an account verification/activation email.  I finally decided to make another email address that I will never use again because I couldn't resist this topic.

by marklar1 on 06/17/2009 09:42:53 PM EST

My link is broken......try this

 http://en.wikipedia.o rg/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_re ligious_beliefs

by marklar1 on 06/17/2009 09:44:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Just go to wiki and enter "Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs" into the search field.

 Sry

by marklar1 on 06/17/2009 09:46:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
it looks like an 8 sideways.  If you click on it, it will make the link for you.  Alternatively, you could turn your WYSIWYG Editor off in My Preferences: Interface and use the tag "a" if you know html

by birdboy1 on 06/17/2009 10:08:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Well, I'm flattered that you found my topic so irresistable :)


On the idea that Hitler wasn't an atheist: I knew that, but I didn't want the conversation to devolve into a debate about Hitler's religion. In short, you are exactly right, but whenever I hear Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins m ention that Hitler was a Christian, Christians fire-back: "that' s debatable" or "he wasn't a true Christian" (as if anyone has ever been a true Christian) or simply "that's a lie!"

The crux of my argument is, it is irrelevant if Hitler was or was not an atheist, atheism or non-belief of any sort, was not his motivation for going to war or creating a Holocaust. This was just an attempt to block die-hard Christians from using this argument against me.

by DaeguBill on 06/18/2009 12:38:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]

I agree that the religion or lack thereof of these people is irrelevant.  If that is not how I came across, I will have to be clearer in the future.

What is important to me in the debate over religion and whether or not it is harmful or helpful is not the particular religion of people who do bad things.  What concerns me is its power to blind people to reality and objective morality.  People are taught from early childhood that their religion and holy books are absolute truth and that to question anything about them is wrong and even evil.  As a former student of childhood psychological development, I know that all this indoctrination takes place during one of if not the absolute most impressionable years of a person's life.  This is when people develop their "moral compass" so to speak and it usually stays with them with little change for the rest of their lives.  This would not be such an issue if religious morality corresponded 100% with secular, common sense morality.  Unfortunately, it does not.  It inserts all of these arbitrary rules that are necessary for propping up a religious society as well as ones that reflect the personal prejudices and hangups of the original clergy.  This is taken even further by the clergy members who end up taking their places who insert their own unfounded beliefs.  Then we end up with legislation or attempts at legislation that are totally unnecessary for the function and progress of a secular society and often to the direct detriment.  Some examples would be abstinence only education, efforts to outlaw any abortions, gay marriage bans, denial of evolution, and teaching of creationism/intelligent design (I don't care what anyone may have been told, intelligent design is just creationism in a white lab coat).  Often times these policies directly infringe on personal freedoms.  The Bible in particular has even been used in the past as a means to justify slavery.  In my home state of Connecticut, as well as some others, I can't even buy a six pack of beer on Sunday.  I think most TYT fans are savvy enough to figure out where laws like that came from.  Why is it necessary to "keep holy the sabbath" in order for a society to maintain law and order?

Given all this, I would still not argue for a ban of religion whether it be personal or organized because I believe in personal freedom.  Of course, I am referring to the freedom to act in any way that does not harm or infringe upon the rights of others.  Unfortunately, many religious people do not uphold that same ideal.  In many cases, I only get to have freedom within the dogma of their beliefs that are not founded upon any substantial fact.  Those unfounded beliefs infringe upon my rights and I cannot be silent in the face of that.

I will continue to rail against organized religion for the rest of my life because of this.  I can only stop if they start minding their own business.

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."--Thomas Jefferson

by marklar1 on 06/18/2009 02:23:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
WARNING: Sharp Curve Ahead

      -- or --

I'm hijacking this thread.  Do what I say and nobody will get hurt.

"Objective morality": more dangerous words have never been spoken.

Religionists usually speak in terms of absolutes (if they don't, you should check your wallet. They're trying to get away with something).  There may be some things upon which we all agree are either good or bad, behavior-wise.  But we also know that those judgments are subject to analysis of the situation at hand.  Yes, I'm talking about that ideological realm that right-wingers hate above all others, situational ethics.

We might agree that "Torture is always bad."  Still, the hypocrites have a point when they suggest that torturing someone might be a good idea if it can save lots of lives.  Fortunately, situational ethics makes it clear that torturing people is never a good idea.  Besides, we have generally agreed that "torture is always bad."  I move that we revisit the question only on a vote with a 2/3 majority.

We might agree that killing a baby is always bad.  But that mother whose baby's crying is endangering a group of people who are hiding from an enemy who wants to kill them may smother her baby to save the lives of the others.  She'll suffer terribly for the rest of her life.  But amidst her doubts, she'll believe that she did the right thing -- and her opinion is and was the only one that matters.  Could anyone be qualified to judge her?

Is there objective beauty?  Is there objective morality?  Philosophers have been arguing about that forever.  My thinking is that since they haven't been able to prove their existence yet, they probably don't exist.  Show me someone who is ugly and I'll show you their beauty -- you can start with Hitler, if you like:  He really did want Eva Braun to be happy.  That's love.

But I hadn't heard that quote from good ol' Tom.  Thanks for providing it.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/18/2009 03:11:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]

I suppose I should not have used the term objective morality and stuck to the other term I used, secular morality.  Either that or stressed objective morality people can agree upon.  For example, I think we can all agree that killing someone just because they disagree with you is not a moral action.  Stealing someone's car simply because it is more preferable to your car is not a moral action.  Stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family is certainly a different situation if you can't work for, beg, or borrow the money required to buy it honestly.  I don't think I would be in favor of punishing that person assuming that particular situation.  Really, my main point is that a piece of legislation should be based on better reasoning than the fact that a religious text or authority demands it.  I believe that some if not all of the examples I provided in my previous post illustrate that. 

I will rehash the example I used of abstinence only sex education.  We have no facts to back up the effectiveness of these types of programs.  They were forced into school curriculums based on certain Christian beliefs that sex before marriage is wrong and various forms of contraception are wrong.  We have blown large amounts of tax dollars from many different religions or schools of thought on this when the effectiveness of these programs have not been demonstrated.  Also of importance is the fact that many religions and many people without a specific religion do not agree that sex before marriage or contraception is wrong in all cases.  This is an example of legislation based on religion and it is unacceptable.  If these programs had been shown to be more effective than programs stressing safe sex my complaints would be invalid regardless of where the idea for abstinence only came from.  But they are not effective and they do come from religious thought.  Therefore, the legislation reeks of religious dogma and is an example of religion harming society.

by marklar1 on 06/18/2009 04:28:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"I think we can all agree that killing someone just because they disagree with you is not a moral action."

I'll have to get back to you on that one.

But as far as abstinence-only education is concerned, all we have to do is to look at the incidence of teen pregnancies in areas where abstinence-only education is used to the exclusion of everything else.  The abstinence-only approach is a failure.

Bristol Palin should be adequate proof of that.

Oh.  Okay.  I'll stop killing people just because they disagree with me.  Sheesh!  You're taking all the fun out of debate!


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/18/2009 08:17:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
when you can have a crusade?  Think about it; your own little genocide on any religion you want!  Don't like atheists?  Shoot up the church of the flying spaghetti monster!  They'll be sorry they ever mocked you when they go to hell with their socialized medicine.  But I recommend the more classy approach: the war against liberals!  I, for one, am tired of their snide remarks and sarcastic imitations of us fundamentalists.  I'm tired of their science, which I don't understand anyway. I'm tired of their "logic"(who needs logic anyway, when you have faith.)  I'm tired of their promotion of equal rights.  First they forced me get rid of my slaves, and then they tell me I can't beat my wife, and now they're gonna make it illegal for me to shoot the gay couple down the street.  And then they tell me that abortion is right!  Who cares about the woman's life;  there could be a boy in her belly and everyone knows that's why the baby's life is so much more important than the mother's.
I'm sorry for rambling; my point is, Tired of those annoying liberals?  Join me in my crusade against anything liberal!

by birdboy1 on 06/18/2009 08:34:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I forgot to tell you that the views expressed in the previous comment are not necessarily the views of the author.

Because you obviously couldn't tell

by birdboy1 on 06/18/2009 08:44:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
that yes you obviously could tell, I was joking again

by birdboy1 on 06/18/2009 10:26:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/18/2009 03:36:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
As destructive as I think religion is, I also cherish freedom of thought.  If we're not free to let our minds wander down any path of our choosing, how will our species keep coming up with new ideas?  Besides, if someone is free to preach religion, that means that I'm free to ridicule them.

I'm also against passing laws defining "hate" crimes.  Punish people for what they do, not for what they think, because I might want to hate someone who commits a hate crime, and I hate thinking of myself as a hateful hypocrite.


...um...

Please accept my apologies for that last sentence.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/18/2009 03:39:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Freedom of thought is fine, if applied to self-determined adults (let's be honest: not everyone is, teabagging comes to mind). Children on the other hand cannot decide what is true or fake, so they believe anything they are being told, they don't have the opportunity to wander down any path of their choosing, that's how education works and that's arguably beneficial in many ways. Even the religious indoctrination had purpose and necessity once in our history.

But I strongly believe humankind or at least the apex of humankind has overcome the need for religious indoctrination. What's more important: if the children were given all the available facts and not forced into a belief system, they would all become agnostics, the most spiritual would be deists or pantheists (except the schizophrenics, but most schizophrenics are already secular anyway).

As I strongly believe (lol) that, I think of religious indoctrination as mental child abuse! I cannot think of anything worse than intentionally lead an innocent human being to believe the most absurd, far-fetched and very often confused and hateful things like christianity and islam (among others) do. But then most of the parents were raised to believe the same bs and are victims themselves.
As much as I like making fun of believers myself, I feel pity almost all of the time and I'd rather make fun of something more harmless, like eating habits or clothing or something like that.

Btw: you are absolutely right on hate crimes. OTOH: I'd consider the hate(ful thoughts) that accompanied the criminal action as a mental condition that needs to be addressed.
And tolerance of intolerance is.. uh, forgot, but it's bad ;).

by eborujion on 06/18/2009 08:48:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I agree with you to a point.  But we do tell our children "fairy tales" which they soon learn are untrue, and those fairy tales are often good teaching tools.

The real problem is when the adults truly believe the fairy tales that they tell their kids.  That's when correcting the child's beliefs becomes more difficult.

This line of thought always leads me to the conclusion that our species needs a few hundred more years to evolve mentally before we can make significant inroads against this problem.  We're talking about interfering with how people raise their children, a very touchy subject.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/18/2009 10:53:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I have yet to rear my own off-spring but I will take the risk and raise them bs-free (that means NO fairy tale presented as real; fables and cautionary tales are just that, the kids will figure out that they're allegorical) and try to break the cycle (already started with my family's and friends' children and spreading the meme of atheism).

Mental evolution is imho just wishful thinking... Look how far everything in technology and philosophy and sciences etc. has developped so far, but the general human mindset has not changed a bit since the very beginning. It's all about tradition and education. And education always is coercion persuasion to some extent. Of course some memetic framework helps.

by eborujion on 06/18/2009 05:33:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I doubt that many people were concerned with mental health at the end of the 1800s (except, of course, for Freud and a handful of others).  In fact, almost no one knew that such a concept even existed.

But now we're aware that mental health exists and can be measured, and (for the most part) we're interested in having good mental health.  We can even tell, in a general sense, what it looks like.

This is because of education.  As a species, we possess much more knowledge than we did a hundred years ago, and we've used that knowledge to change not only our environment but also to change ourselves.

That is evolution.  Just because we sometimes choose the direction in which we wish to evolve (toward better mental health, for instance) doesn't mean that is isn't still evolution.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/18/2009 07:52:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]

You mentioned Freud for a moment there.  I just wanted to mention that Freud wrote a book way back in 1927 called 'The Future of an Illusion".  I read this book about a month ago and would definitely recommend it to anyone interested in religion and psychology.  It is considered to be Freud's "indictment" of religion.  Throughout his adult life, Freud often referred to himself as a "godless Jew" which I can't help but find amusing.  This is not the only book he wrote on religion but it is the only one I have read and can recommend.  Also, its fairly short and you don't have to be well versed in psychology at all to understand it.


by marklar1 on 06/18/2009 09:50:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]

 we were talking about different issues. What I was referring to was the evolution/development towards the "adulthood of humankind", where most of the people would have grown out of their petty wants and basic animal sentiments that seem to determine the course of almost all human action and interaction and act responsibly for the benefit of society and humankind as a whole.

Of course the knoledge even in the so called social fields has multiplied, but still this knowledge has not permeated our society and does not influence human conduct at all.

In evolutionary terms: some advanced traits occur in the population but they are not prevalent and sure as hell they are not dominant or advantageous over more primal behavior. Sex, fear and sapidity are the dominating forces dictating the masses' behavior (imo that has nothing to do with intelligence, even the most intelligent people act stupid in masses).

What mental health concerns I pretty much agree even if I do not know of a generally accepted definition of good mental health, I think of it more as of a threshold.

by eborujion on 06/19/2009 10:05:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
If humankind will ever have an "adulthood", it appears to be a long, long way off.  But "good mental health" might include being free of identifiable illnesses and disorders.  In addition, as we learn more, we'll be able to more readily identify the disorders of the right-wing.

(I just hope OneHitKill doesn't see this comment.  He hates armchair "psychologists".)


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/19/2009 01:43:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
is not a personality disorder.  It's just a state of being un-educated and un-educateable.  It's also very hard to educate their kids because the people unable to use logic will teach their kids the same stuff.  

The willful ignorance that is the right wing is going to stick around for a long time, and there isn't much anyone can do about it.

by birdboy1 on 06/19/2009 03:15:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It's not even a defect.  The time has long passed when one person can possess all human knowledge.  Ben Franklin was probably the last person capable of that.  Ignorance is unavoidable.  It's most often better to describe someone's ignorance without criticizing it, and then only when a person's ignorance is relevant.  I have no need, for instance, of knowledge about how to split the strands of a DNA molecule, and spending the time required to learn it would not be beneficial to me or to society since it would take time away from my continued investment in knowledge that I already possess.  But if I run across an article about DNA and have the time, I read it.

On the other hand, when you can employ logic but deny it anyway, there's something wrong.  And willful ignorance may be a sign of deeper problems.  Since the "normal" (yeah, I know) preference of humans is for more knowledge, and since more knowledge is beneficial not only for individuals but for our species, the deliberate denial or avoidance of knowledge might be considered to be a danger to the individual and to society requiring treatment.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/19/2009 03:57:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Was when people are unable to use logic.  They have been taught one thing and if that thing is wrong, then their whole reality turns itself upside down.   That inability to use logic is not a disorder.  It's the way these people have been taught.  

The only way to fix it is to hope irrational people don't reproduce.(that was a joke, don't kill the idiot down the street)

by birdboy1 on 06/19/2009 04:19:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/19/2009 06:07:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]

What amazes me most is the inability for these people to just learn and adapt in this area.  I was raised Roman Catholic and went to a Catholic school from K-8th grade.  Before I even left that place I had already adapted the standard dogma a bit to help myself reconcile the beliefs with the reality of the outside world.  Before I received my Confirmation somewhere around sophomore year of high school I was already an Agnostic as my knowledge of the outside world and the realization of the silliness of my parish's teachings grew.  I don't really remember when exactly, but it was not long after that I was a full blown Atheist.  

I'm not suggesting everyone should be going the full godless route that I went, but it shouldn't take much critical thought to realize that even if your specific deity is real the holy books are at least a perversion of the true deity's message/identity.  I think you really have to continuously lie to yourself to take most of these stories literally.  Take what you have learned of the outside world and do what you have always done.  Just say god must have done it!  Evolution?  God did it!  Abiogenesis?  God did it!  So on and so forth. 

by marklar1 on 06/19/2009 06:21:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Evolution doesn't exist.  I don't see anything in the bible saying anything about evolution.  So it must not exist.  But I see socialism.  
All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
(Acts 2:44-45)

Socialism is the only way to be a real christian.

Note: the views portrayed in this comment are not necessarily the views of the author.

by birdboy1 on 06/19/2009 08:49:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'll have to break that passage out next time I'm debating a religious conservative.  Of course, the blinders will already be on and they won't acknowledge it.

by marklar1 on 06/19/2009 09:09:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Any time you're debating a religious conservative, just tell me.  I've got plenty of quotes showing how hypocritical the religious right are.

chief among them,

Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. - 1 Tim 2

by birdboy1 on 06/20/2009 01:49:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Nononononono... It's only socialism, if a) the other guy's do it and b) one of them is black. And especially if they don't share the goods. Christianity has nothing to do with money, it's all about fucking, er, not fucking!

by eborujion on 06/19/2009 09:14:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
the world is "Nuckin Futs"

by birdboy1 on 06/19/2009 04:30:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I've really enjoyed your article and the discussion.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/18/2009 12:46:21 AM EST

Thank you for you comments and compliment EveningStar. I thought you contributed nicely to this conversation.

 

One question I have to everyone reading this, however, is: "Why isn't anyone disagreeing with me?"  I mean, I wrote this in order to be as provocative to religious people as possible! :) I even said that  religious people are immoral. What else do I have to do?? Is everyone reading this a non-believer, a deist or a cowardly religious person?

by DaeguBill on 06/18/2009 01:05:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Its just that I have my fingers in my ears and I bought 2 eyepatches to cover both my eyes.  I fear that if I was able to read your atheist darwinist satanist words, my delicate little mind would be immediately impure and I would automatically receive a one-way ticket to the lowest level of hell.

Note: The views expressed in this comment are not necessarily the views of the author.

by birdboy1 on 06/18/2009 01:09:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]

What happens in the lowest level of Hell?

Is that the one where you have to sing hymns about God for the rest of eternity.... oh wait, that's heaven, my bad :)

by DaeguBill on 06/18/2009 01:23:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
the lowest level of hell is where socialism runs rampant: there is healthcare for everybody, everyone gets food, shelter, and CEO's of companies only make 500,000 a year!  It's ABSOLUTELY AWFUL!

Gay people are allowed to get married, people are allowed to choose whether to have an abortion or not.  

I certainly would not want to have to go THERE.

I would prefer to go to heaven where we are at such high altitudes where we are constantly not able to breathe, but we can't die either.  So we are in eternal pain of trying to inhale, but not getting any oxygen.

by birdboy1 on 06/18/2009 01:31:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
That's it!  That's why they seem so insane!  They keep trying to climb to such lofty heights that their brains stop working from lack of oxygen.

Brilliant, birdboy1!


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/18/2009 02:18:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Nice point about the oxygen depletion.

But according to my Awake! pamphlet, heaven looks like an expansive rural estate where children of all races will play with happy polar bears & kangaroos while listening to Creed & Jars of Clay.

by NikoliV on 06/18/2009 02:47:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I want some of that!  I want to play with polar bears and kangaroos, too!

(I always get a kick out of those Awake! pamphlets  :)


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/18/2009 03:28:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yeah, often, when I saw an Awake!-pamphlet with that silly-happy plains of forcefully smiling people playing with feral animals and living such blissful yet unboring lives, I thought: "How about if I go about and smack everyone in the mouth, will they still be smiling? Or what would they do, if I train the lions to feed on little Witnesses? Wouldn't it be an awe-inspiring sight, if there was a fire in the obligatory barn and everyone was running around and screaming and cursing?"
Just look around in any church or any other religious institutions and ask yourself: "Really? Eternity with these people? Thank God I'm an atheist!"

by eborujion on 06/18/2009 08:06:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/18/2009 02:14:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
he does it in 100% of his posts

And was that pun intended?

by birdboy1 on 06/18/2009 07:29:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I would never commit such an offense against nature!  I have always maintained that puns are the only crimes worthy of the death penalty!


Oh.


Oops.





Never mind.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/18/2009 08:24:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
the funniest pun I've ever seen in my life, actually.  I'm not even joking.

For those of you who didn't get it, I was talking about how the words in this were satanist words, and then he said I was good at playing "devil's advocate"

by birdboy1 on 06/18/2009 08:38:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Is everyone reading this a non-believer, a deist or a cowardly religious person? No!

It's a tired argument. Circular logic from all sides. Faith by definition is a firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

You either believe in a higher meaning to life beyond propagation of the species or you don't.

I don't feel compelled to defend my beliefs every time someone comes out with an oh so smug and condescending argument just to provoke a response and prove how clever they are. Not that that's what you did here.

I readily admit I don't have all the answers but there have been many greater minds than mine who believed and pondered the meaning of life and concluded it was something more meaningful than random chance.

Plato, Socrates, Spinoza, Hegel, Nietzsche, Kant, just to name a few are minds that came to different conclusions but all believed that there was more meaning to life than life.

The problem with threads like this is before you can begin a conversation the participants must agree on the Dialectic, and that will never happen with so many diverse individuals many who have never heard of the concept.

So to answer your question no I'm not a non-believer, a deist, or a COWARD. I just have other things to occupy my time than justify my belief system to people I suspect haven't bothered to read even the cliff notes of people like Augustine, Aquinas, Kant, or Sartre, yet pontificate at great lengths as to why their opinions are deep and meaningful, when their very philosophy of non belief indicates the subject is beneath contempt and should be ridiculed or ignored and kept out of sight like the crazy aunt families hid e in the attic.

Hope that clears things up.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 06/19/2009 11:42:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Plato, Socrates, Spinoza, Hegel, Nietzsche, Kant, just to name a few are minds that came to different conclusions but all believed that there was more meaning to life than life.

Sorry, don't want to engage in a debate, but pretty much the essence of Nietzsche's philosophy was that the meaning of life is to live life here on Earth. You can interpret the Übermensch as a meaning but that certainly is no otherworldly or metaphysical assigned meaning. Just thought I'd clarify.

I readily admit I don't have all the answers but there have been many greater minds than mine who believed and pondered the meaning of life and concluded it was something more meaningful than random chance.

Typical Christian strawman, sorry. Noone in their right mind attributes anything to random chance (after Planck-time, I suppose). Even if that were the case, why would that rule out a meaning? Or the other way round: why would a meaning rule out random chance?

IMO, beliefs AND faith should be open to ridicule and contempt. That does not mean that you can and should defend or alter your beliefs as you correctly stated that is an exercise in futility.

by eborujion on 06/20/2009 12:39:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"Nietzsche's philosophy was that the meaning of life is to live life here on Earth."

A simplistic view of Nietzsche, and I would respectfully disagree. Will to power is a bit more complicated than just live life here on Earth, and Thus Spoke Zarathustra indicates he thought man was merely a bridge to a higher intelligence.

I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him? [...] All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood, and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is ape to man? A laughing stock or painful embarrassment. And man shall be that to overman: a laughingstock or painful embarrassment. You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape...The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth...Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman--a rope over an abyss...what is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end..."

But I digress, I will stand by my assertion that Nietzsche and others believed in a higher meaning to life, and the comment was to frame my argument of diverse views of the meaning of life and the character of God.

Typical Christian strawman, sorry. Noone in their right mind attributes anything to random chance (after Planck-time, I suppose). Even if that were the case, why would that rule out a meaning? Or the other way round: why would a meaning rule out random chance.

Have you been paying attention? The vast majority of the people who attack people of faith use the god of science to justify their beliefs and ultimately big bang is mere random chance of a set of molecules coming together in a random fashion to form life.

Circular logic from all sides.
please point that out to me, I might be a little slow at seeing the circular reasoning.

When arguing “faith” all arguments ultimately are circular. Start with a supposition and then prove it.
Basically persons of faith use
1.God is the greatest possible being.
2.It is greater to exist than not to exist.
3.God exists.

People who don’t believe basically argue
1. If something exist Science can prove it.
2. Science cannot prove God exist.
3. God does not exist.

Both sides have a belief system and base the outcome on that belief, by definition Circular arguments.

And you seem to make it pretty clear that you think that there is a higher meaning to life or something like that.  I don't know how to say this without offending you, but could you please explain that?

No offence taken but not in the limited time and space that is a forum. I have my belief system, it works for me. I have examined a wide variety of beliefs. and am comfortable in my beliefs, I’m not preachy about it and the only reason I responded was because DaeguBill asked “Is everyone reading this a non-believer, a deist or a cowardly religious person?”

I dislike being called cowardly.

I do not speak for everyone here, but I think most of us don't really care to hear what your justification for your beliefs are except maybe the OP. 

I refer you to DaeguBill posts.It may be a tired argument to many people, but as you may have noticed here it is not tired to many others.

I said it in the context of why “cowardly religious person’s” hadn’t bothered to respond. To people like me it's a tired argument that never accomplishes anything. It usually ends up in an attempt at people to show how clever they are and general comes across as smug insufferable intolerance on both sides.

The other is your mention of the concept of Dialectic.  You may not have meant to, but to me the manner in which it was mentioned came off as "oh so smug and condescending".  I feel like you were implying that it is such a complicated concept that many of us just wouldn't understand if you explained it to us or we looked it up ourselves. 

I wasn’t trying to be condescending, Read what I said again. I said The problem with threads like this is before you can begin a conversation the participants must agree on the Dialectic, and that will never happen with so many diverse individuals many who have never heard of the concept. I would suggest again that in a forum this size many people never heard of the concept of the Dialectic. Of course they can always Google it and learn the basics, or feign outrage that I would try to imply that they didn't understand it, and others who have heard of it but haven’t defined the meanings and principles of inference.

The perfect example of this is the following paragraph.
You do not need a religion, organized or personal, to believe your life means more than propagation of the species.  My life means many things to me that do not include reproducing.  Being happy and attempting to make others happy both directly and through the betterment of society as a whole are among those meanings.

We are obviously not talking about the same thing here, rendering further discussion pointless and unconstructive.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 06/20/2009 02:04:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]

A simplistic view of Nietzsche, and I would respectfully disagree. Will to power is a bit more complicated than just live life here on Earth, and Thus Spoke Zarathustra indicates he thought man was merely a bridge to a higher intelligence.

[...]

But I digress, I will stand by my assertion that Nietzsche and others believed in a higher meaning to life, and the comment was to frame my argument of diverse views of the meaning of life and the character of God.

Where does Nietzsche suggest that the "higher intelligence" is otherworldly? That was all I was stating (here on this Earth or the materialistic universe as opposed to metaphysical realms), I just dumbed it down a little so you could not complain about a "smug and condescending argument". How has a meaning of life anything to do with god or other metaphysical entities anyway?

Have you been paying attention? The vast majority of the people who attack people of faith use the god of science to justify their beliefs and ultimately big bang is mere random chance of a set of molecules coming together in a random fashion to form life.

What is "the god of science"? Such a thing does not exist, not even hypothetically, another christian strawman, that -like many other- derives from the ignorant position that "those people must have a god, too". Maybe some people will argue that in the Planck time random chance ruled, but the more sophisticated view is that we simply don't know and that we cannot attribute cause and effect, but that does not automatically constitute random chance! After Planck time it's all probability. What you state about the randomness of a set of molecules coming together is REALLY hilarious. You don't know shit about it, right? So you make blatant assumptions from ignorance... So what exactly elevates you above the level of creationists, let alone well educated atheists? I would suggest you do a little research on some scientific principles, but OTOH: what good would it do if you google some of the terms and read a wikipedia entry or two, if you don't even agree with the basic premises?

And btw: you posting that you're tired of hearing smug and condescending opinions by both sides but then making ignorant statements in a smug and arrogant fashion makes you a hypocrite. You obviously don't understand basic concepts of science, which means that you can shove your dialectic method! So you think people in this forum are generally below your level of intellectual discourse? Why don't you then just stay away from the discussion and stfu? Oh, I forgot: someone called you a coward and you were forced to defend your pride... Isn't pride one of the seven deadly dwarfs?

by eborujion on 06/21/2009 09:22:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
 You don't know shit about it, right? 

you posting that you're tired of hearing smug and condescending opinions by both sides but then making ignorant statements in a smug and arrogant fashion makes you a hypocrite.

I didn't attack you yet you attack me.

Why don't you then just stay away from the discussion and stfu? Oh, I forgot: someone called you a coward and you were forced to defend your pride... Isn't pride one of the seven deadly dwarfs?

 Way to win the argument, I'm convinced YOU WIN!

You keep harping on Nietzsche to try and discredit my argument, and I would suggest that like a good conservative you have taken one thing out of context of the a statement to try and prove a point. Nietzsche, like the other philosophers I mentioned were trying to discern the meaning of life, which is ultimately what all conversations about god's comes down to.

So you think people in this forum are generally below your level of intellectual discourse? 

No, again that isn't what I said. There is a difference between intelligence and knowledge. My argument was that to have a conversation about any form of spirituality, God or the meaning of life requires an agreement of meanings and principles of inference. That doesn't happen in a diverse a group as this causing the general name calling you exhibited above.

If I come across as condescending perhaps you are reading more into my comments than is there, which is your issue not mine. Sometimes we see ourselves in others.

I was just trying to have a conversation and answer a question without attacking an individual in the process by calling them names and telling them to STFU.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 06/21/2009 05:09:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I didn't attack you yet you attack me.

Yeah, I did. For being a hypocrite.

You keep harping on Nietzsche to try and discredit my argument, and I would suggest that like a good conservative you have taken one thing out of context of the a statement to try and prove a point. Nietzsche, like the other philosophers I mentioned were trying to discern the meaning of life, which is ultimately what all conversations about god's comes down to.

What, me, conservative? Rofltrotzki. Just because I dissent from you, does not make me a conservative (what do I want to conserve exactly?). All I wanted you to do was take Nietzsche from that group of theist philosophers you listed, because he does not belong there. I was not picking out of context, just because that was the only issue I wanted to address.

All conversations about gods come down to the meaning of life (for humans?)? Er, no, they don't! Even if that were the case, it is certainly not the other way round. See, atheists may also search for a meaning in life, they usually neither start nor end with a god.

No, again that isn't what I said. There is a difference between intelligence and knowledge. My argument was that to have a conversation about any form of spirituality, God or the meaning of life requires an agreement of meanings and principles of inference. That doesn't happen in a diverse a group as this causing the general name calling you exhibited above.

And you pointed out that even if someone with no prior knowledge would look it up, they would not understand it, which pretty much questions their intelligence. And what you obviously still cannot grasp: there is no inherent connection between spirituality, god and a meaning of life. And you don't really need the metaphysical realm for anything except philosophical circle-jerking!


If I come across as condescending perhaps you are reading more into my comments than is there, which is your issue not mine. Sometimes we see ourselves in others.

OK, so the recipient is to blame, right, right... tell that to David Letterman! And did you just say: "Yes, I know, but what are you?"?

I was just trying to have a conversation and answer a question without attacking an individual in the process by calling them names and telling them to STFU.

As you stated you did not want to participate in the discussion because it was below you (the subject line is somewhat part of the post and making fun of the thread does not make your opinion less condescending).

Sorry, if I have offended you by telling you to stfu, I thought you can take it, being a smart-ass and all, you must hear that a lot. But by calling you a hypocrite, I just stated the obvious! Next time I get the velvet gloves, maybe.
But I won't, if you spout ignorant statements, claim superior knowledge in an unrelated (or not necessarily related) field and connect them by magic while saying that the discussion is silly.

by eborujion on 06/21/2009 09:00:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
OK, so the recipient is to blame, right, right...

Yeah if your too fucking stupid to comprehend what I was saying even after I try to clarify it.

I didn't come looking for a fight with you, and I couldn't give a rat's ass what you think, but you're the one that comes across as a condescending prick.

You obviously have real issues with trying to prove how smart you are.

Unfortunately you have real issues putting everything together. For example I didn't call you a conservative, I said your picking one thing out of the context of the totality of a comment is a well known conservative tactic. SEE THE DIFFEREINCE SPARKY? No you probably don't your too busy trying to prove how fucking clever, and what a heavy weight intellectual you are to bother to try and understand what I'm saying.

I do find it ironic that in another thread you wrote "A new language has to be invented (or an existing modified ;) and common definitions have to be found and put in use, so that all kinds of people with different backgrounds can express their respective experiences." which sounds remarkably like dialectic. I merely believe that it is near impossible to achieve in large numbers among so many diverse groups.

As to the Google comment, stick around and try to comprehend some of the things you read and you will understand why I made that joke. Google makes everyone think they are an expert. Not that I'm saying that's what you would ever do, I'm sure you are a world renowned philosopher, neurosurgeon, aerospace engineer, poet, graphic designer, and all around renaissance man.

So if you don't like what I say I would say perhaps you can take your own advise and just STFU.

Oh just so you'll know the "I hate being called a coward" comment was a joke, but humor doesn't appear to be your strong point either.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 06/22/2009 10:11:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I didn't come looking for a fight with you, and I couldn't give a rat's ass what you think, but you're the one that comes across as a condescending prick.

You obviously have real issues with trying to prove how smart you are.

[...]

No you probably don't your too busy trying to prove how fucking clever, and what a heavy weight intellectual you are to bother to try and understand what I'm saying.

A wise person once said:
"If I come across as condescending perhaps you are reading more into my comments than is there, which is your issue not mine. Sometimes we see ourselves in others." by Hubble on 06/21/2009 05:09:42 PM EST

[...] Not that I'm saying that's what you would ever do, I'm sure you are a world renowned philosopher, neurosurgeon, aerospace engineer, poet, graphic designer, and all around renaissance man.

Close, world-renowned infamous internet forum participant that is!

[...]but humor doesn't appear to be your strong point either.

True, at least you got THAT right... ;)

by eborujion on 06/22/2009 05:21:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
A wise man once said I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.

I don't fancy myself as to having great knowledge, I have opinions. This is still a silly thread because whether you believe in God and a higher meaning to life, or feel that " Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"  You are operating on faith that you are right, because it can't be proven one way or the other.

Science still can't agree on the nature of the universe which is why we have so many theories to explain the physical universe. String theory being the latest in vogue theory to explain everything, which requires us to except alternate dimensions. We can't prove it yet, but it has a growing following.

world-renowned infamous internet forum participant that is!

Why thank you for noticing!

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 06/22/2009 05:49:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sure, sure, sure... Socrates is 3000 years dead (if he existed), Shakespeare some 500, let them rest. Listen to Daegubill pointing out why a fallacy from authority is not really an argument.

[...]This is still a silly thread because whether you believe in God and a higher meaning to life, or feel that

This is still a silly statement. You seem to be oblivious or ignorant that this thread is about the fall of theism and its implications for the future of society and mankind. You only joined because someone noted that no non-atheists opined so far but only to not give your opinion on the suject by pointing out how silly the discussion is.

But still if it were a discussion about wether theism or atheism makes more sense, it would not be silly! Futile maybe, silly no. Topic recognition skills: FAIL!

Science still can't agree on the nature of the universe which is why we have so many theories to explain the physical universe. String theory being the latest in vogue theory to explain everything, which requires us to except alternate dimensions. We can't prove it yet, but it has a growing following.

If science can't explain everything, so what? That doesn't mean that there is justification to make shit up out of thin air. What if there are different approaches to unify all occuring phenomena in the materialistic universe? Did Einstein proof Newton wrong? (Hint: no). Even if science has not all the answers yet (or might never have them), that does not change how we perceive and understand the universe so far if we adhere to a coherent and consistent explanation. And, yes, it might change substantially over the course of a lifetime and still be consistent with all we had known before!

You are operating on faith that you are right, because it can't be proven one way or the other.

Everything you do, think or belief requires a leap of faith, so what? The best you can do (and thankfully for you, your brain does it automatically most of the time) is go with the probabilities. And the physical universe is really much more probable than magic! Sorry, if your old buddies, the philosophers of long past, were not vested with all the science and other tools to get a better estimation of what is actually going on. They might have gotten some things right but they were (sometimes admittedly) just sitting in a cave and looking at the shadows.

But btw: string theory has been around for years now and is not the latest in vogue, what you describe as alternate dimensions are actually dimensions as in height, width or time. What you probably are referring to is the multiverse theory, which features what one might call classic sci-fi alternate dimensions (realities, i.e. universes). Sorry, renaissance man, remember?

by eborujion on 06/23/2009 05:43:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
So what do you consider yourself to be?  I'm not trying to argue with you, just trying to have a rational discussion.

Circular logic from all sides.
please point that out to me, I might be a little slow at seeing the circular reasoning.

And you seem to make it pretty clear that you think that there is a higher meaning to life or something like that.  I don't know how to say this without offending you, but could you please explain that?

by birdboy1 on 06/20/2009 01:57:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]

I do not speak for everyone here, but I think most of us don't really care to hear what your justification for your beliefs are except maybe the OP.  I only want to hear it if you are in the process of attempting to impose said beliefs upon me or are spewing some hate Westboro Baptist Church style.  I'm going to need some real evidence in those cases before I even begin to think about entertaining an argument.  That is something I have not seen you try to do so far, so whatever floats your boat.

I do have to take issue with 2 things you wrote though.  It may be a tired argument to many people, but as you may have noticed here it is not tired to many others.  The other is your mention of the concept of Dialectic.  You may not have meant to, but to me the manner in which it was mentioned came off as "oh so smug and condescending".  I feel like you were implying that it is such a complicated concept that many of us just wouldn't understand if you explained it to us or we looked it up ourselves.  I agree that in a real debate it is necessary.  If we can't agree on a few  presuppositions about reality and perhaps some definitions, we might as well be speaking different languages to each other.  Hey, maybe you didn't mean it that way.  If not, sorry.  Its entirely possible that I misinterpreted and I have been dealing with too many "oh so smug and condescending" theists lately who judge me to be an ignorant sinner and other such nonsense.

 Okay, I take issue with one more thing.  We may be hitting the wall of the previously mentioned unestablished Dialectic here. 

"You either believe in a higher meaning to life beyond propagation of the species or you don't."

Is your definition of a higher meaning restricted to belief in a deity?  If not, that is utter horseshit my friend.  You do not need a religion, organized or personal, to believe your life means more than propagation of the species.  My life means many things to me that do not include reproducing.  Being happy and attempting to make others happy both directly and through the betterment of society as a whole are among those meanings.

by marklar1 on 06/20/2009 02:27:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I think that the more honest approach is to admit that we want to assign a "higher meaning" to our lives than mere reproduction.  There's certainly nothing wrong with that and, quite possibly, a lot that's Good (with a capital "G") about it, even though, when you get right down to it, it basically serves to enhance our ability to reproduce.


The world is a strange place, but that makes it really fun to watch. -- bfaul

by EveningStarNM on 06/20/2009 11:58:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]

I completely moved on beyond this post a while ago, only to notice that about 40 more posts had been made since I last checked it out.

 

I find it quite amusing how utterly you were personally offended by my general QUESTION if the reason no theists were posting was because they were cowardly.  If you had an ounce of logic, you'd realise that by responding you actually countered that assertion -- i.e. you wrote back and therefore are not a cowardly theist. Quite funny to see you get into a huff about it nonetheless :)

 

As for the illogical statements you've made, sorry I'll have to deal with those later, it's late and I have to go to work tomorrow.

 

Stay tuned :)

by DaeguBill on 06/22/2009 11:21:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]

I will address some of your most egregious logical fallacies; however, I don't have the time or patience to address all of them.

 

First,

 

Ok, even though not everyone above agrees with it, I will grant you that Plato, Socrates, Spinoza, Hegel, Nietzsche, and Kant believed that there was "more meaning to life than life" (A suspiciously vague statement... was that intentional? If so, that's not fair because it blurs your argument and makes it difficult to argue against since you can continuously change the meaning of your statement. For the purpose of this response, I will assume you mean God or a supernatural power).

Well, Emma Goldman, Richard Dawkins, Alan Turing, Karl Marx, Simone de Beauvoir, Albert Camus, Noam Chomsky, John Stuart Mill and Bertrand Russell were and are all intelligent atheists. My list is longer than yours; therefore, atheism is the correct answer. Right? Wrong.

Therein lies the fallacy of your argument. Just because intelligent people believe or believed something, doesn't make that something correct.   Many intelligent people have agreed with many things that we now know are definitely false. Does this mean we shoud be open-minded about whether or not the Earth is flat because an ancient philosopher believed to to be so? Of course not. There is no point in mentioning the support of theists to the question of God because it cannot be supported one way or the other. My list of atheists and your list of believers are both irrelevant.

 

Second,

 

By trying to bring in a discussion of the Dialectic you are (and you may appreciate this metaphor -- considering how interested you seem to be in Nietzsche) simply muddying your own waters. That's right, it's obfuscation. Perhaps some people don't know the basics of an argument, but why are you discussing this in the middle of your response? If someone makes a mistake or argues in an unacceptable way, you should highlight that mistake specifically. Just assuming that you're the only one that knows how to argue is extremely condescending and, in fact, inaccurate.

Ironically, you blame others for being condescending, yet you make statements like the following:

"I just have other things to occupy my time than justify my belief system to people I suspect haven't bothered to read even the cliff notes of people like Augustine, Aquinas, Kant, or Sartre"

Sorry if the incompetence of the rest of the world is wasting your time.

 

Third,

 

Your explanation of circular logic is illogical. You stated:

 

When arguing “faith” all arguments ultimately are circular. Start with a supposition and then prove it.
Basically persons of faith use

1.God is the greatest possible being.
2.It is greater to exist than not to exist.
3.God exists.

People who don’t believe basically argue
1. If something exist
[sic] Science can prove it.
2. Science cannot prove God exist.
[sic]
3. God does not exist.
 

First, there is no logical connection between 1, 2, and 3 of  the "faith" argument that you postulated. I don't disagree that there can be a logic to faith, but that is not it. I would fix it, but I can't even figure out what you're trying to express.

Second, in the "people who don't believe" argument, there is no logical connection between 2 and 3. Just because science cannot prove God does not exist does not mean God does not exist. It means we don't have the tools or knowledge to know how to test God's existence. Seriously, did you just make these two arguments up on the spot? They're pretty lame.

 

That's all for now, hope this clears things up :)

Cheers

by DaeguBill on 06/23/2009 12:52:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 06/18/2009 12:52:15 PM EST

 Display: