Atheism vs. Religion Dead Horse Beating Round 473!

Remove all ads!

So which am I? Am I ignorant, willfully stupid (what does that mean, exactly), or desperate for meaning?

Basic law of physics: neither matter nor energy can ever be created or destroyed (within the current system). The universe could not have created itself. At the same time, thanks to entropy, we know the universe cannot be infinitely old. Therefore, we know the universe has a finite age, thus must have been created at some point, and could not have created itself. That means something else must have created it. Now, of course, once we're out of the current system (the universe), neither the limitation on creation nor the finite age of anything is guaranteed. This Creator could, theoretically, have spontaneously come into existence. At the same time, insomuch as time has any meaning outside of our space-time, this creator could be infinitely old and have never been created to begin with. Christianity claims the latter. This is consistent with the current scientific understanding of existence (which is rather limited in this respect, but doesn't contradict anything so far).

Joacqin, what kind of human holds any interest in a mold that will be destroyed in the casting process? The answer: any that are at all interested in what is being cast. People spend their lives carefully crafting every detail of molds that will only ever be used once. They ruin their eyes working on fine elements of them. The results are some of the finest pieces of artwork in the world today, and the crafters' names go down in history. Again, it is not logic that has limited you, but your own willingness to see.

Actually, if you look at Christianity, He often spoke to multitudes at once, and the entire Bible forms one coherant system, shaping an evolution of the human psyche and spirit over thousands of years. But, of course, you don't want to believe so you simply belittle it.

Tass, we're all capable of lying. If you're going to not trust someone simply because it's possible that they might someday lie to you, then you are officially the most paranoid person on Earth. They have medications for that.

She may just be playing Devil's Advocate. That can be a valuable tool for furthering a debate.

T2, I beleive the definition of this word well pre-dates this board, and even the creation of the internet.

So, what part of this discussion further enlightened you to the nature of the universe? I mean, if you've decided that gods definitely don't exist (forgive me, but that seems to be how you're using atheism now), that means somewhere along the way here, you found some kind of conclusive proof (if only for yourself). Care to share?

 

I know I'm dropping in on your comment to NOG but that is basically admitting you thought it was ok to drop tolerance from your POV. It is embracing a level of bigotry.

Actually religious intolerance has a long and bloody history. Bigotry is bigotry to be regardless of if it is based on skin color or, in this case, religious beliefs.

Saying someone is a moron just because they disagree with you is lacking of respect for that person.

I think racists are wrong because they set themselves above other people with some pretty weak, but still self serving excuses. I also recognize racism has lead to/help further the bad treatment, enslavement, and murder of many people within the nation I live in.

Thus I have at least 2 reasons to be against racism.

Again dismissing the notion that rational people can disagree. As well as putting ourself above others.

Are you saying when most people come out of a church, temple, or whatever they want to go hurt someone? That is a state of mind-but not one I've found in most religious people I've met Christian or not.

Saying religious is dangerous also ignores how dangerous atheism has been. Men, women, and children have been killed because a group of atheists took over and wanted to wipe out religion.

The real danger comes from people who set themselves above others and decide it is acceptable to use deadly force to wipe out them and their ideas.

You've already said you think of religious people as a morons. White racism taught that black people were morons, thieves, and lazy. Both are the same in that they are self-serving and prop one group of people up above another.

I never said it did. Granted I do think that it probably has one but I never said it has needs to have one.

And some people agree with that notion. They believe God (or some other being) created the universe and then just decided to let it run on by itself.

Though I could argue along a different line of thinking that if such a creator exists and creating stars and planets aren't subjects of difficulty. Then the is paying attention to basically tiny things already anyway (even if they seem massive in scale to us). For also if there is a being that can watch everything in the universe at once then why not pay attention to individual humans walking around as well as solar systems. Opting not to would be like turning off a TV channel you can watch and not replacing it with another.

The same way many people do when given a decision with many options to choose from. You make your best guess. If you can make it an educated guess all the better. People do it all the time when deciding what food to eat or purchase, what TV or radio channel to watch/listen to, what book to read, and so on.

People, likely including you, have been making guesses for a very long time.

Do you fail to see how this is intolerance? You seemed to say you for intolerance then against it. Replace the first 3 words with "black people are" to better see how this is.

Also there are a decent number of very intelligent and highly educated people including doctors, professors, authors, and so on who it would be foolish (at the very least) to call "stupid" or "morons" and you have because you disagree with them on one issue.

Do you see why I would argue bigotry, including religious, is irrational/illogical?

 

Terrible analogy. Saying that "religious faith is stupid" is distinctly different from saying that religious people are stupid, which is what you get if you replace the first 2 words with "black people". There are certain things that I believe or do that some people might say are stupid, but that does mean that they think that I am stupid in general.

 

If you read joacqin's past few comments you may notice he said he feels that way about both the people and the ideas.

 

First off, I was addressing your analogy, not joacqin's remarks. My comment still stands.

Secondly, while I can't be entirely sure, I think joaqin might have been saying that religious people are stupid for believing in god, not that they are stupid in general. For example:

But I suppose it's better to let joaqin speak for himself.

 

Wow! Project much? I admit it was a smart-arsed comment, but it wasn't intended to be arrogant. Nowhere did I say or imply that I thought you were a moron or mentally deficient. Come on NOG. You know I really don't think that Santa is real or is more likely to exist than God. If you couldn't see that sarcastic comment for the obvious wise-crack that it was (there was nothing subtle about it), then I really think you need to take a step back and consider that you may be taking yourself a little too seriously.

 

"Project much?"

 

Over the years I drifted away from a more "radical" atheism to something closer to Vonnegut's agnosticism, except I tend to add a little something to make this:

If God exists, he doesn't care. Neither do I.​

Wikipedia calls it "apathetic agnosticism" and it's as good a label as any.

 

Splunge, this is joacqin speaking for himself.

He thinks religious people are "stupid" and "morons" even if he doesn't say it.

My analogy was about his remarks and what they show.

Also to say someone is stupid for having a given opinion (and in this case one that learned people have discussed for years and years) is to ignore the possibility rational people can disagree and still be rational (a point I've made several times).

Plus he also went into (lightly, but clearly) the religion is "dangerous" mantra while not heeding that many atheists have killed others in cause of atheism. That is not only hypocritical but selective history (something else that is part of propaganda and generating intolerance-I've referred to it before as increasing ethnic tensions in the former Yugoslavia).

In sum, not only is joacqin dismissing the possibility others could rationally disagree but his comments are part of a larger social problem that has manifested before.


I can appreciate what Ziad said because he is talking about what he thinks without, it seems, the claim he is better than others in some fashion.

 

Oh, I know what you mean about joacqin's comments, pplr. That's why I said I wasn't sure. But that doesn't take away from the fact that equating “religious faith is stupid” with “black people are stupid” (which is what you did) doesn’t make a lot of sense, and doesn’t really do much to further your position.

 

I have a difficult time believing that. While I fully acknowledge an atheist can kill (just as a religious person can), there is no doctrine which suggest for an atheist to kill any "believer" (or a person who chooses a 'different brand' of atheism). I believe, at the core, that greed or revenge is to blame for such killings -- the same could be said of most religious based killings as well.

 

Atheism is at its core a non-statement, which has been pointed out time and time and time and time again in this thread. I strongly lack belief in something, I do not strongly believe something. I still reject the idea that barely anyone has been killed by someone who strongly lacked a belief in something. The things you bring up again and again and again were committed in the name of communism. An ideology with as fervent and zealous followers as any religion, part of the doctrine was atheism but heck that is one of the few positive points to communism.

As for your talk of bigotry, again, come on. We are talking about opinions if we can't discriminate people even in our own heads due to the opinions they hold then we are all bigots. The main thing though, I think religious faith is stupid. I do believe NOG is stupid (or more probably ignorant and it is had been ingrained in him for such a long time that it is very hard to get rid off. Most of our opinions and beliefs are shaped at a very young age and it is hard to break free from them even when they don't make sense) and I do believe he is a moron for having a strong religious faith and also delusional as he claims to have had more or less direct contact with god. Other than that he seems to be an ok chap, he is reasonably eloquent, friendly and I probably wouldn't mind having a beer with him. I do not think I could form a close lasting friendship with him as our religious and to some extent political views are too divergent but I have nothing against him as a person and a human being.

Oh and NOG, I can go on but everytime I or someone else does you get locked in a discussion about Christian doctrine which is the completely wrong level to hold such a discussion seeing as when you do I as an atheist have already tacitly conceded all the fundamental points and stooped to discuss pointless (albeit equally contradictory and irrational) details. You are free to explain to me how you get from a mysterious, eternal, ur-creator to a flaming bush somewhere in the middle eastern desert.

 

Splunge

Maybe I could have worded/said it better. But I'm glad you can see what I mean.

T2Bruno

I appreciate that you're trying to be consistent with how you treat each group of people with that comment. I'll agree with you to the point that some actions that occurred that appear to be under the guise of intolerance when they were actually the organizers using it for the sake of their own greed. But I think intolerance is an unfortunate and negative force within society that can act and stand on its own. I tend to think of religious groups that went after each other (or "heretics" and so on) as intolerance in action.

The major times (large scale) I think of as atheists killing believers occurred in France, Russia, (arguably with the Cultural Revolution) China, and Cambodia.

You could say that these were authoritarian governments being as ruthless as authoritarians often are/can be. But a the was an aspect of not letting others think differently (about religion) and believing that they did it was a reasonable idea to use suppression-even in a brutal or murderous form.

Plus there has been so much racism that is done/felt in spite of the fact that it doesn't benefit someone in a different way (such as financial) that I do think it has been able to stand on its own. I've seen bigotry on an individual level in both "racial" (really skin color/ethnic) and religious/not grounds. Other things can give it a boost (organized greed) when tied into it but aren't necessary for intolerance to exist.

But I'll thank you again for trying to treat different groups consistently with your last comment.

joacqin

Most of the (if not every) times you've said that I've pointed out that I thought it was flat out wrong and explained why. Repeating something that I think is inaccurate doesn't convince. In this particular case you don't strongly lack, you strongly think or feel something.

Communism at an ideological and practical level included atheism and fits under the broad title of atheism in a fashion similar to how Lutheranism fits under religion.

I can and have disagreed with people without thinking they were stupid or bigots. I based a good part of my response based on what you in particular had said/feel.

And the people who said what they did (some of which could be called hate speech) on the other website weren't doing it in the name of communism. Atheism can and does have followers "as fervent and zealous" as "any religion".

 

Sorry pplr, but evil is not caused by religious beliefs or non-religious beliefs. Differences may fuel distrust and prejudice, but the cause of murders and violence is always personal. Leaders may want to quiet a dissenting voice or take property from a group of people (these two things alone account for the vast majority of mass murders). Revenge is a huge motivator in any civil rebellion (pick any revolution where the people overthrew a monarch). Generations of hatred can build and cause violence to break out (Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, Cambodia) but that violence is nearly always spurred on by greedy leaders.

 

T2Bruno

I think we agree and disagree.

I'm not saying a religion or atheism is a cause of evil-we agree there.

I think either (or a subgroup of either) determining it is superior to the others can be a bad thing and is especially so when using force to express that superiority.

Where we disagree is on if hate/intolerance can stand on its own power.

The KKK was against black people (a skin color/ethnic group), Catholics (a religious group), and Jews (this could apply to members of either a ethnic or religious group-sometimes both). I'm sure someone made some money via the KKK but many didn't-especially dues paying members. I see the intolerance that motivated them as a problem in itself.

But as I said before, in spite of the fact that I disagree with you on the 2nd point I appreciate that you treat both of the broad groups in the 1st point consistently.

 

I'm not talking about people lying, I'm talking about god himself (herself?) lying.

Yes, I should take meds for being skeptical of people telling me their religion is the be all and end all of everything, and everything about said religion is absolute truth.

 

Lol, sorry. I was responding to both you and Joacqin and things got jumbled. My mistake.

Oh, sure there is. The doctrine that religion is a mental illness and religious people are dangerous and destructive to society. Now, that's not standard atheist doctrine, but it isn't exactly uncommon, either. Hell, we've even heard people on these boards state it (Joacqin, and I think Coin once or twice as well). Mind you, going from that doctrine to actually killing people is yet another step, but it's a step in the same direction.

It's been presented, but not agreed to. Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

This is a bald-faced lie. You have repeatedly said that you believe gods do not exist, that you believe anyone who does believe in them is somehow mentally deficient, and I believe you've even said you believe religion is dangerous and destructive to society. Those are all beliefs. They're beliefs that oppose the existince of something, but they're still beliefs.

So, you think I am ignorant, meaning you believe I don't know enough about the topic? Mind you, I know plenty of physics, chemisty, biology, math, quantum physics, and I'm even familiar with things like Dark Energy and the Big Bang. Wow, yeah, I guess I'm really undereducated on the topic.

And I'm a moron, too. So I'm now mentally retarded? Wow, I didn't know mentally retarded people could easily earn Master's degrees in Aerospace Engineering! ODU must really have low standards.

Joacqin, what you fail to accept (and it has to be an acceptance problem since I've shown it on these boards many times) is that I am familiar with the scientific description of the development of our universe, I am conversant on the topic of the Big Bang, I'm familiar with at least some elements of M-Theory (which may even explain the origin of the Big Bang, though that's iffy), and none of these contradict my faith. And my faith doesn't contradict any of them, either. I'm not 'ignorant', I'm just unconvinced.

And as for your claim that I'm delusional, that's the definition of circular reasoning: He's delusional because there is no God so it couldn't have happened, and we know there is no God because no one's ever seen Him, and we know no one's ever seen Him because everyone who claims to have is delusional.... Am I the only one who sees a problem?

The problem with not debating doctrine is that you are making a claim about that doctrine. You are claiming that it is blatantly illogical and wrong. That claim cannot even be discussed, on either side, without talking doctrine. It's like saying 'you can't prove that water is H2O, oh, but don't start talking chemistry to me'. You have to either delve into doctrinal issues or abandon the point as undefendable.

 

Funny you should mention that, as I'm beginning to see this first hand. My Aunt just sent us a "Birth of Christ" DVD (she doesn't know that we've become heathen unbelievers yet or, come to think of it, maybe she has -- and that's why she sent the DVD), and I decided to do a little experiment. I asked my son to read the cover. Jacob puzzled at it for a while, and finally said "Then birth of.....Christ?" except he was asking a question, not making a statement, and that isn't how he pronounced it. He pronounced it "Chris_t." After correcting his pronunciation, he asked "Who's Christ?" and I informed him that some people think Christ is the son of God.

My 5 year old, who had been watching the entire exchange intently, then asked me "who's God?"

 

Ehrmm, well I may have said that christians/theists base a large part of reality on unfounded beliefs, and even converse with faith-based/imaginary beings. By the common definitions, this can be classified as delusional. Theists could then argue, that this phenomenon being encouraged and confirmed by a group, changes the circumstances. And they would be right.
As for theism being dangerous, that's another matter, deserving some nuance. Read below.
At first I couldn't remember advocating killing atheists, but then I remembered this old statement of mine in the Global Warming thread:

Environmentalists vs. polluters may seem totally different from atheism vs. theism, but that's where the nuancing comes in:
Religious people are told, and believe, that this life is just temporary, serving as a test to establish your worth for the afterlife, which is eternal. It's similar to viewing this existance as a rental car, with your sole purpose being to achieve a driver's license. The state that you leave the car in after you're done with it, is of no consequence to the examiner.
The environment becomes totally ignored, because people are taught to view other issues as more important. Like opposing gay marriage, banning abortion, promoting religion, praying to the Lord, going to church and donating.
If you spend too much time making this world sustainable, then it's a waste of effort. Pollution is not a sin, so saving the environment won't earn you piety-points up in heaven.
This is merely an example of how I feel religion distorts people's view of reality, which can and does lead to harmful (in)actions.

 

Now that was an insane and dangerous leap.

Edit: There is no such doctrine and to assume such a doctrine exists is "insane and dangerous."