Atheism vs. Religion Dead Horse Beating Round 473!

Remove all ads!

NOG -- when a teacher decides to teach their own opinions it is wrong. The school or school district are not teaching atheism (or any religious affiliation), it is a personal choice by an individual to violate rules and that person should be held accountable. When the school district has a policy which requires such teachings, then every parent should take that district to task.

It's not a plot or a conspiracy, it's a crime.

 

Actually joacqin let me point out why you don't have to conclude that. You could view it as a different, but sincere understanding of how the current reality is.

Prior to us knowing how common black holes were (it seems at least at the center of each galaxy) someone who said he/she thought there were many wouldn't be proven but he/she wouldn't be a liar just as someone who honestly disagreed wouldn't be.

When you assume rational people cannot disagree and be honest that is a big, and I would say wrong, assumption.

Also not saying it out loud is often like hiding an assumption or bias rather than being "polite". Think of white racists waiting till a black person is out of the room before they start openly expressing their bias. Not a kind comparison but there is a big difference between recognizing people can disagree and assuming dishonesty.


EDIT (added because I had only read joacqin's comment when first responding):

T2Bruno

Actually I suspect that what teachers said in the former Soviet Union about religion was mandated rather than just expressing their views. The teacher trying to promote a given ideology/idea is only illegal if the place in question makes it a crime and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that in a Soviet state it was a crime (even if it was a minor one that just cost him/her the job) not for a teacher to promote atheism.

 

But you see pplr when a person claim faith in a god or religion I find it pointless to discuss with them. By declaring that they have shown that their views are so far from mine and so alien that there is no common base for discussion. I do it here online cause I do find it quite enjoyable and I am interested in how people can come to such outrageous conclusions about how the universe works but I pretty much lose any respect I could have for any person when they out themselves as religious. I have expressed my views more eloquently in previous threads but basically I am of the opinion that people with religious faith are either extremely ignorant, willfully stupid or so desperate for meaning that they accept any gibberish that might dampen their anxiety.

I am not hiding this opinion as you seem to think, I meant when I said I do not express it all the time to be polite. Calling a whole bunch of people morons just isnt polite and I do try to be polite and I also try not to force my personal beliefs on others. If someone asks I am more than willing to share but I am not in the habit of going up to religious people and calling them stupid even if that is what I think.

 

If someone says they are a ____ that isn't forcing their views on anyone. But it is bias to assume they are "morons" because they are one.

Not is isn't polite to call people morons but you are basically hiding a level of disrespect until they aren't around when you decide someone is a moron just for disagreeing with you.

Also, I'm sure you've been in more than one discussion with someone on a topic-politics, food, entertainment, and so on. Would you call someone alien to your views when they disagree with you on one of those topics?

 

What was taught in the former Soviet Union is moot.

 

As someone who pays attention to history I deeply disagree with you.

Also when a claim is made that X has not been done in the name of atheism, Christianity, Islam, and so on it is important to know examine history to prove or disprove the claim.

 

I am not hiding anything but I have no intention of running around and telling every person I meet with faith that I find them stupid. If they ask me about my views I am happy to share but my views are my own and as I said I see no point in expressing them unless I am asked.

I do not understand your talk about bias, of course it is bias. Why wouldnt it be? I am of course biased towards my own views just as you are biased to your views. Why is that something worth bringing up? It is quite natural for someone to favour their opinion seeing as the reason you have reached that opinion is that you think it is the most correct one and thus better than others.

Religion isn't about food or entertainment, it is about how we fundamentally view the universe and ourselves. There is a difference. I do not come to the conclusion that I find a person to be a moron because they disagree with me, then I would find pretty much everyone to be morons and I dont. I do find a lot of people to be morons though but that has nothing to do with them disagreeing with me, I can respect someone who holds a differing opinion to mine if it makes sense and they have reached it through rational thought and discussion. That is not possible with religion. I believe the term religionists themselves use is "leap of faith" and I think that pretty much sums it up. Anything that requires a leap of faith is not worth believing in and if you do your thought process is so alien to mine that we have very little common ground and I will label you as mentally deficient or at least suffering from some kind of mental disorder sadly often caused by brain washing since a tender age by well meaning and equally brain washed parents.

My point is, as I see it religious people refuse to live in the real world and instead prefer to live in a world of make believe and fairy tales. It is often harmless but as I like to say, would you respect a grown man who jumps up and down out of excitement on Christmas eve in expectation of a visit from Santa Claus?

 

You are calling a huge number of people morons for disagreeing with you.

Religion is a big issue that many people disagree about, just like politics. But that doesn't mean it isn't something that can be rationally disagreed about.

Yes people have a lot of personal bias, but you've hit one of the more extreme ends in that you honestly (even if you keep it private) demean someone's intellect because they disagree with you on one issue.

You assume that there is not any rational way that people can disagree-even if you limit it to the topic of religion.

There are a lot of people who feel the decision to be religious is an educated guess. That isn't irrational, and you appear to assume it is.

 

That describes me perfectly. I don't really consider myself an atheist, because no god occupies any portion of my thought process. I did not wake up yesterday (on Sunday morning) and decide to not go to church - church never even entered my mind at all.

Actually, I'd say there is more reason to believe in Santa Claus. If your childhood was at all like mine there were several Christmas mornings where I woke up to presents under the tree, and whole-heartedly believed Santa had visited my house.

 

You did not answer my question.

Edited in: Quick replies, my above one was to pplr just so there is no confusion. Oh and good call on there being more basis on a belief in Santa Claus. I at one point in my life believed so wholeheartedly that I jumped into my mother's lap and screamed in terror when the bearded man lumbered through our door. I needed lots of presents to calm down.

 

I would question if something was wrong with him. And I would expect for him to be mentally retarded or so on-which would reflect on a lot on what I would expect from him in relation to the rest of the world.

If those expectations weren't met I may take a closer look at him (figuratively).

If he really would give me an explanation for why he felt that way I would, unless I was in a hurry, give him the chance to explain himself. If he actually gave a sound reason (and I admit I'd approach it with some doubts) for doing so (even if I still came to a different conclusion) I would let him go.

For the Santa comparison, my parents were pretty honest in my life that one of them got the presents from "Santa" & wrapped by them. So I wouldn't expect Santa to be real based on the evidence I've come across (I even was awake one of the times my mother tried to slip a coin under my pillow for comparison to other traditions/fairy tales-thinking of the tooth fairy for those with a different traditional reference).

What I have not come across is proof God doesn't exist or that the bulk of people claiming to act in accordance with their understanding of him, her, and so on are actually faking it.

Also you note that one of the things I did come across and asked about in what became a discussion that got this thread separated from another is some atheists using illogical arguments.

Yet I don't assume that all atheists are as illogical, even abusive/bullying on top of that, as they are & were.


Edit

And T2Bruno, as I was just asked to answer a question. I remembered that you haven't addressed one of mine yet.

 

pplr, you had a few questions which I either thought were rhetorical or were directed at the boards in general. Please restate the question you want me to answer.

The issue of what was taught in the Soviet Union is moot when compared to teaching in the US and Canada (which is what was brought up). The Soviet Union was trying to minimize the control organized religions had on their populace. While the lesson is important to remember on a historical basis it really does not apply to countries where religion flourishes and is a guaranteed right.

While some of the "religious right" may see parallels, there really are not. A teacher who promotes atheism in his or her classroom is violating basic rights of the student, just as the teacher who promotes Mormonism or Islam. Teachers are in the classroom to teach, not validate their opinions and beliefs. Such violations are generally considered serious by school districts and the teacher will find themselves out a job quickly (as they should).

Some parents believe the subject of evolution is evil and atheistic. It can be when taught incorrectly. I prefer to call this teaching the "Religion of Evolution." When taught correctly (which is basically evolution is a process of change) it explains a lot of what we see around us. It can be used to conjecture what happened in the past, but the teacher needs to understand such conjecture is opinion, not fact (albeit very popular opinion in many circles). Once a teacher goes on the limb and teaches opinion as fact, they have fallen into the Religion of Evolution and are wrong for doing so.

What you will generally find is that teachers, schools, and even school districts have overstepped their authority on both sides this issue. Once that has happened, legal action follows. This is much different than a teacher in the former Soviet Union being direct to teach atheism.

 

I asked why the fuss over calling atheism a idea, school of thought, and so on?

That may have been a rhetorical to an extent but it was also a question. If you saw it as rhetorical then I can understand why you didn't answer it before.

Also I had been thinking about teaching in general, not limited to US or Canada, which is why I felt it was fine to include someone who wasn't initially taught in just these 2 nations. And the Soviets may well have been trying to do that but the means was then promoting a counter idea rather then letting students come to their own conclusions-the latter of which is something that I think we agree (judging on your commentary) teachers are generally supposed to promote rather than hinder.

About teaching you're right in that sometimes a teacher tries to indoctrinate students but I'm not sure how often it is caught (I can think of someone who told me that one of her high school teachers was a libertarian and managed to get the students to join that political perspective for the year-not indoctrination of along a pro/anti religious line but still promoting a ideology). Thank you for mentioning all that as it made me think about something not directly related to this discussion by the way.

As a side note I don't generally have a problem with the theory of evolution, (I think I've said this before) only when someone says it cannot be agreed to as well as at least some religious beliefs.... I think there may have been a thread where this was talked about somewhere.

 

I've stated my position several times. Atheism is not an idea so much as a rejection of an idea. There are two basic statements to define atheism:

1. The belief that there is no God.
2. The absence of belief in the existence of deities.

The first definition was determined by theists, the second by atheists. There is a subtle difference between the two (besides the God vs. deities portion). The first implies a belief system (or school of thought as you are using it), the second implies a rejection of a belief system. The few atheists I know (most are on these boards) prefer the second.

My basic argument is the same as it is with Mormonism (I was a Mormon for a large portion of my life). I disagree when non-Mormons incorrectly describe the Mormon church (and some Mormons, which is why Gnarff and I got into so many arguments). I also disagree when "believers" decide to categorize atheists using religious terminology -- such a description is not accurate.

In my opinion, the group in question should be allowed to define themselves or state their own beliefs (for Mormons it is the Articles of Faith).

 

Aren't we all born atheists? We only become theists when someone teaches us about deities - and we believe them.

Anyway. There's no point believing or disbelieving for me, it's pretty irrelevant.

 

It's a crime in the US, but not in all nations. In some nations, it's the law.

And I see you as intentionally limiting yourself to the strictures of logic and rationality. Not everything in our world makes sense to us currently, and not everything is based on a logical and rational development. Fingerprints and iris patters appear to be completely random, within some very complex parameters. It is impossible, from knowing other data about a person, to come to any logical or rational conclusion about the shapes and patterns present in that person's fingerprints and iris patterns.

Looking for something larger to the world, something more than just the surface rules that it operates by, is not alien to the human condition, and calling those that claim to have found something 'suffering from a mental disorder' is flat out dishonest.

Incidentally, I would like to point out that the conclusion that no such things exist is, also, a 'leap of faith'. There's no proof that they don't exist (and if you're going to claim it as true then you do need to provide proof), so basing an entire perception of reality off that belief requires quite a leap of faith.

The failing there is quite simple: Santa Claus can be and has been disproven. Every adult should know and understand that. God, on the other hand, hasn't been. Not even close. Far from it for some of us, He has been quite thoroughly proven. To claim that someone is a moron or mentally deficient for believing in a plausible, internally consistent, and purportedly evidenced conclusion that you yourself don't believe in is, at best, arrogant.

I would remind you that for a very long time, ball lightning was seen similarly. It was a theoretically possible atmospheric phenomenon that many scientists said never actually happened, but many non-scientists (and a few scientists) claimed to have seen themselves. Since science couldn't reproduce the conditions it had happened under, and there were no video cameras, it was left up for debate. Today, we know it really does happen.

I think you'll have to defend that conclusion a little. Where did you get the idea that the first was defined by theists while the second was defined by atheists?

More on that topic, I again ask what you would like to call the first group, if not atheism? Since it is a distinct and significant belief, it does warrant it's own name.

The problem with that is that, in order to do that, you have to first define the group. IF atheism is first defined as #1, but then a bunch of other people (#2) want to be called atheists as well, should they be added and the definition changed just because they want to be called that?


All in all, I find positions like Joacqin's very sad, and not something to encourage. You (Joacqin) have not only assumed that your belief is correct, you have assumed it to be so obviously so that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow mentally impared. There are two instances where I could see someone coming to that conclusion about religious people:
1.) Honestly, all your experiences with religious people have fit one of those categories, without a single exception. I think we can safely say that isn't the case for anyone who's spend some time on these boards.
2.) You came to that conclusion to support your own beliefs, and then try to pidgeon-hole every religious person you meet as one of those categories of 'mentally impared' (ignorant, willfully stupid, or desperate for meaning).
Both of those are sad things, but at least one accepts the possibility of correction if new, contradictory information is presented.

 

Actually, I wonder if the 2nd was only defined by some (not all) modern atheists who get emotionally upset over the words "belief" or "believe".

I could say "I believe the room light is burned out" and it wouldn't be religious.

I'm starting to think this is improper English use because either using English properly means ignoring some part a persecution complex (religious people/theists writing the dictionary against you) or a desire to avoid key words because of illogical and linguistically improper but emotional reasons.

The comment "using religious terminology" strikes me as both inaccurate in many cases but also emotionally tinged.

I have no problem with stating one's beliefs in general, but there are some exceptions. I don't like going along with propaganda like reasons. And I also start having a problem when someone claims to be the "only" truly rational, Christian, Muslim, and so on type of individual.

That is self-serving, discriminatory, and often (if not always) untrue.


What Joacqin said bothers me more because (and I'm not sure he realizes it) that is a level of bigotry. And when I thought about it more it reminded me of one of the lies (one off of a list) given to justify slavery in the USA.

The gist of this particular lie/claim was that black people were mentally deficient so that it would be better for them to do manual labor and white people to run things because the (supposedly) smarter people should be in charge.

Both self-serving and very untrue.




I'm not sure Joacqin realizes it but I'm glad he mentioned what he did because I think it is similar to some white people admitting they feel uncomfortable when a black person gets into an elevator with them. He just didn't realize that what he said is inaccurate as well as impolite.

 

@NOG, it is my experiences on these boards that have pushed my opinions into this "extreme". Before I was exposed to the religionists that have roamed these boards throughout the years I was quite a bit more open minded and tolerant. Experience have shown me that there is nothing to be open minded and tolerant about. Religious faith is wrong, I am as convinced of that as it is possible for a human being to be convinced of anything. I can have some compassion for people of faith but I will not, I can not respect their faith. It is childish.

pplr, your attempts to draw comparisions to racism are laughable and really quite undeserving of a reply but I am quite bored at work so I will. I do not lack respect for religionists due to what they are, I lack respect for them to their beliefs and opinions. It is more like not respecting racists than it is to being a racist. I view racists pretty much the same as view religionists, it is an alien, stupid and certainly when it comes to racism but also religion a negative and dangerous state of mind. I reject religious people not of what they are and can not change (like skin colour), I reject them due to the silly opinions they hold.

Why would the universe need a creator? If something needs a creator to exist doesn't that creator exist and thus need a creator? The basic fundamental principle of religion ends in a never ending loop.

IF such a creator somehow managed to exist any way what kind of being (which I assume is eternal) would hold any interest in the beings who exists for a very brief period of time on a planet which exists for a very brief time in a universe which for most practical purposes holds an infinite amount of planets? Sounds like a pretty petty creator in my ears.

Not only does this eternal being care about a tiny planet's tiny inhabitants it has spoken to specific individuals, alone of course since no one was around and given them rules on how to live their lives. Not only did it speak to one person but to several, saying different things. Or wait, maybe it didnt say different things maybe there are several eternal creators who care about the inhabitants on our little flyspeck of a planet? Or wait, this guy really spoke to god but that guy didn't. How do I decide which dude is a lying or delusional person and who truly spoke to the petty eternal creator?

I can go on and on and on, religious faith is stupid.

 

To take this further, you can't trust this "god" either. Anything which is capable of creating the universe (and assuming he is not a very nice deity) is also fully capable of lying to its creations.

 

pplr, I don't believe I've seen any solid basis for your arguments. Have you taken a stance at anything yet? Thus far I think everything you have put forth has simply been contradictory to whatever point is being made. I feel like I'm in a Monty Python sketch here. An argument is a statement of your position and another persons position -- you make points to validate your position in the hopes that your will either reach a compromise or at least an understanding of both sides. At times all you end up reaching is an impass ... which brings me to ....

NOG, I believe every atheistic member of the boards has expressed their opinion as the second definition. However, if you can find a group of atheists who prefer the first definition we can revisit the issue.

I must admit the past few weeks have been enlightening to me. At the beginning of this I would have described my beliefs as a "Vonnegut agnostic" -- his Sirens of Titan had the statement of:

If God exists, he doesn't care.​

which I felt was pretty accurate. I fully understood where the atheists were coming from in that they have no belief and that atheism is at the core a lack of belief in the divine. Over the course of these arguments I have found myself moving further away from agnosticism to atheism. The believers here have done a great job spreading "The Word."