Atheism vs. Religion Dead Horse Beating Round 473!

Remove all ads!

In general I would say joking about killing a coworker is a bad idea. Granted you know your coworkers better than I and may be in a better position to judge.

If the jokes were meant as half-serious then that would be a problem for me. But if it was just jokes it is a judgement call based on the situation. Some people have friends that they insult and receive replies in kind. They are still friends and it would be very different if someone else said similar things.

If a muslim is friends with a gay person then I don't see that as hypocrisy because that particular muslim may see nothing wrong with being gay. Note many Christians (including me) are similar.

If the guy makes jokes and then cannot take one then he is being a hypocrite in social interactions.

There is a difference between a ill-formed joke and embracing bigotry. It is also a judgement call but I would say look for patterns rather than single incidents. Though bigotry can come in the form of jokes so don't dismiss them out of hand.

The racism-card can be played to a level that is untrue and/or obnoxious. It can also be used in attempts to excuse bad behavior. On the other hand there is still real racism going on and despite the fact that it has been in retreat (thankfully) it hasn't disappeared.

 

Absolutely. Pulling the racism card when it's unwarranted, only serves to increase racial tensions, and I disapprove of people who do this. I'm just wondering if Ali intentionally pulled the 'religious insult' card in order to discredit me.

If I were to look for patterns, I would say that Ali was the most difficult karate teacher to get along with. This isn't the first time that he's corrected me for 'percieved inappropriateness'. I've always tried to get along with him, but *perhaps* he was being difficult. If that's the case, then good riddance, he's gone now.

I made the point about his gay foster parents mainly to support my claim that he can be hypocritical. It's definitely not wrong for a muslim to be friends with a gay, on the contrary. I'm just surprised how tolerant he can be if he wants, and how intolerant he can be. If he wants to be.

 

Coin, it is possible that, while Ali is seen as a joker and his threats were taken in a joking manner, you aren't seen as such, and thus your joke about the Devil wasn't taken as one. It also may simply be that you hit a particularly sensitive area. Whether you're joking or not, if you made an insulting crack about Jesus, I'd be offended. Ali may have responded similarly. Without knowing the people in question, I can't really say.

 

I've only been with the group since january, so maybe I'm not granted the same amount of 'leeway' as he is (10 years vs. 8 months). But still, it's hard for me to imagine that my remark could be interpreted as anything other than a (bad) joke.

But knowing you, NOG, I know I shouldn't make remarks like "The devil has a special place for you if [let's not finish that sentence]."
You take your religion very seriously, it's clear in your signature, and even your name. So knowing that, I try to take that in consideration when discussing stuff. But I've never had any reason to suspect that Ali felt this strongly about his religion. The whole karate group seemed very open-minded and robust. They know I like to make jokes too. What they think of my usual jokes though, I can't say. But like I said, it was obvious that my remark was 100% joke.

 

Actually, I'd have no problem with you making that statement to me. Well, the sheer density of theological misconceptions would make me cringe, but that's an intellectual thing, not a religious one.

And yes, 10 years can give a guy a little leeway that 8 months doesn't.

 

Talk about bait

 

Jesus Christ, just what the hell is going on here! (@ NOG -- that was my SF's favorite saying...).

 

... So, does that count as baiting?

 

More bait from Bill Cosby....

 

I still have this one! On a record. It goes without saying, of course, that Bill Cosby has never once in his life told a joke as succinctly as T2's retelling.

 

Per BTA's request in the "Prayer in Schools" debate, I'm moving my responses here:

I think you're missing my point, and playing with words. I accept atheism is not a belief system, but rather a category of belief. As I said, the idea that there is no god (not that you don't recognize any gods, but that you specificlaly believe no such thing exists) is a belief. If you believe it, it is your belief. That's the definition of the word 'belief': something that is believed. Any concrete or definite statement on any topic, even one of "they don't exist", is a belief. If you say "There are no volleyballs on Mars", it is also a belief. It's one backed by a lot of evidence, but it is a belief. That's not philosophy or ideology that defines that, it's the definition of the word.

You seem to be presenting atheism as a self-evident fact. That's just plain stupid. If it were, there wouldn't be such a vast number of theists and undecideds around the world. Self-evident facts are things that can be observed. You can't present an unobservable, unprovable idea as a self-evident fact. Neither atheism nor theism are self-evident (to us at the moment at least).

Don't project your own offense onto me. I'm not offended by your belief. I'm offended by blatantly illogical statements such as "What I believe isn't a belief."

The only reason I'm trying to categorize things is so that they can be talked about. So that, when I say 'atheists', you and I both think of the same group. It's only to avoid confusion.

Agreed, to a point. Peope who aren't satisfied with any existing belief systems have been known to make their own out of their own beliefs (both theism/atheism and other things like morality, the after-life, the nature of the world, etc). Atheism really only lends itself to a few general belief systems being built around it, which is probably why I see most atheists believing the same things and using the same arguements.

I think you misunderstand. What I call 'scientism' isn't a simple belief in science. I believe in science, in the Big Bang, and in some form of evolution (details may differ, but that's something else). What I call 'scientism' is science turned into a pseudo-religion, science as the sole, only Great Truth. If it can't be proven by science, it doesn't exist and can't exist. That is what I call 'scientism', and it's what I tend to see in *those who believe no gods exist*. By denying the supernatural, the natural is all that exists, thus science is the Ultimate Truth. It's a logical process, but it's also a belief system (and you're right, that's more than just atheism, that's something built on atheism, just like religions are built on theism). Some are willing to admit science doesn't now everything (yet) and can even be wrong from time to time. Most are more iffy on those two.

There's your problem!! I'm not talking about what should be proven or not. I'm not talking abut atheism being wrong. I'm just trying to categorize it according to types of thought. And, accordingly, both it and theism are beliefs. It doesn't matter whether they can be proven or not. It matters what type of thought they are.

But don't you see? It doesn't matter if it's more than a belief. It doesn't matter that it's a belief and. All that matters is that it is a belief. It is something that is believed. Yes, it may be provable or not, or even proven, but it's still a belief.

I think you're making a mistake here. Simply to believe something does not mean accepting it as fact. Accepting an unproven statement as fact is an assumption. Think about it. For centuries, people believed there was life on Mars. The result? They went to confirm it. They tested the idea. If they had assumed there was life on Mars, they likely would have sent a manned probe there without sufficient supplies to last once it reached Mars, based on the assumption that they would find what they needed. It is assumptions you want to avoid, not beliefs.

Excuse me? When did this happen? I'm sorry, but I didn't see that proof.

 

See this is where I think your entire argument is completely falling apart. On the one hand you're trying to categorise types of thought, which in itself is fine. On the other hand, accorind to everything you've said in response to me, Drew, Coin and T2, everything is a belief. Every single thought. "God exists" is a belief, "No volleyballs on Mars" is a belief, "I am typing this post" is a belief... in this case what is the point of categorising? You categorise if something is belief, something else is fact, and so on. If you have things that are different and you don't want to lump together, you keep them separate - that's what categories are for! If every single human thought is belief (and it's very, very easy to push your definition of belief as applying to every single human thought imaginable) then why does it matter what type of thought theism or atheism are? Why even bother with building an argument using belief? It's like trying to do taxonomy by creating a single category for all living being. It makes for a very convenient system, but again what's the point?

Bad example. Even if people had assumed there was life on Mars, the logical thing to do would have been to send an unmanned probe first, then a manned one after confirming there were supplies on Mars. By the way you forget that by the time we could even think about sending anything into space (never mind Mars) it was already pretty well established that there was in fact no life on Mars. Oh and I think you switched around the meanings of belief and assumption. Belief is what you firmly think is true without any proof. An assumption is something that you think may be true. The latter has a much better chance of actually being checked for confirmation because it at least allows space for error, whether a belief is unshakable and doesn't need or want proof (and in most cases cannot be proven or disproven). There's a reason science works on assumptions and not beliefs.

 

No, Ziad. On both counts. One, only thoughts that assert claims about the absolute universe are beliefs. I'm typing is a belief. Peanutbutter is tasty is an opinion. Fear is an emotion. Tiredness is a sensation. There are many types of thought, and belief is one of them. As for fact, that's outside of the realm of thought. Something is a fact whether anyone believes it or not. Facts relate to reality. Now, thoughts can reflect facts, but that's a different factor of the thought.

On the point of assumptions vs beliefs, I again have to disagree with you. An assumption is an unproven idea on which you base decisions. You may recognize it as unproven, and even questionable, but you still make 'decisions' as if it were true (often to test the assumptions, but you still act as if they were accepted to be true). Beliefs, on the other hand, may be acted on or not. They may be certain or questionable. Shakable or unshakable. For a better example, look at extraterrestrial life. There are plenty of scientists that believe there is extraterrestrial life somewhere in the universe. There are also plenty that believe there isn't such life. (By the way, this is also a good analogy for theism/atheism: the belief in a lack is still a belief. Also, both the claim that they do exist and that they don't exist are equally extreme. It's uncertainty that is non-extreme and non-belief.) If we ever reach the point of manned interstellar travel (and assuming the question isn't answered first), both sides will probably want weapons on those crafts just in case. Whereas, if someone assumed that such life didn't exist, then such weapons would be pointless and a waste of valuable space.

 

I think you're somehow reversing the definitions of belief and assumption, NOG. An assumption is a preliminary conclusion, and the evidence it is based on determines its validity. The assumption that there would be life on Mars, was clearly based on little or no evidence. An invalid assumption counts as a belief, NOG. The main difference is, that beliefs make an unwarranted claim to truth. Assumptions only appeal to likelihood, but reserve any judgement as to the truth of things. The Scientific Method, in its strictest sense, cannot determine truth absolutely. It can only establish when hypotheses and beliefs are false.
As for disproving religion, it has been demonstrated so many times, to those who accept the rational criteria for testing such a thing. Religious people simply set the bar too high, making it absolutely impossible to disprove it in their eyes. Disproving the christian God concept is quite easy; simply use biology, geology, or astronomy to establish that widespread claims made in the bible can't be truthful. Christians then insist that the non-existance of any god must be proven, which science cannot do unless certain realities are assumed: There are basic assumptions derived from philosophy that form the base of the scientific method - namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. These assumptions from methodological naturalism form the basis on which science is grounded.

 

NOG,

I think the problem here is you are basing your arguments (such as atheism being a belief system) on your personalized definition of belief, which no one else here happens to agree with. While there is certainly an Merrian Webster definition of belief, and word usages certainly evolve over time, I feel that your definition goes quite beyond what most people would agree with. I view knowledge, assumptions, and beliefs as three very different things, which are often times mutually exclusive.

Perhaps this can be better explained by an example, and I'll use one of yours:

"There are no volleyballs on Mars."

You call this a belief - and I disagree. It is a fact. Through direct observation and the two rovers we have landed on Mars we have ruled out the possibility of intelligent life on Mars. Volleyballs do not spring into existence - they must be made. Since there is no intelligent life to make the volleyballs we conclude (not assume) that there are no volleyballs on Mars.

Or perhaps more to the point:

And I think just about everyone disagrees with you there. Once something is proven it ceases to be a belief. If God were proven to exist, we wouldn't believe this to be true, we'd know it to be true.

To use a real-life corrolary, I don't believe I have a two year old son, I know I do. You on the other hand, do not know I have a two year old son, you believe I do.

 

From merriam-webster:

The only one that seems valid is 5a: taking a statement for granted (i.e. assuming it to be true).

And:

Now, there are several definitions there that can be useful, but two of them state it as less than firm (#3 and second #2). While the only suitable definition of assumption stated it as taking a given statement or fact for granted (i.e. accepting it to be true), the various definitions for believe take it as anything from assumed to be true to a somewhat possibility.

For another example, look at your scientific experiments. When you list an assumption in your experiment, you do so because you are basing decisions on the idea that that assumption is true. You may assume that heat flow into the system is negligable, or that ambient radiation won't make a significant difference. You then conduct your experiment and process the results as if that were proven to be true, even when it isn't. If the results don't make any sense, then you may go back and question your assumptions. On the other hand, you may believe the results will be X, yet not believe it certainly enough to make a bet on it. In that case, you aren't treating the belief as certain, but rather as a 'most likely possibility'.

Care to define those criteria?

Again, care to give any examples? Short of Genesis 1 (which has about 50,000 different translations and interpretations, at least one of which matches all relevant scientific fact), I can't think of any evidence the Bible is wrong. And yes, different translations and interpretations do matter if you're trying to disprove a text that's thousands of years old in a dead language.

No, no, no. You're missing it. We (or at least any Christian I've met) only insist you prove that no gods exist when you claim that no gods exist.

Yeah, that was a bad example. Use extraterrestrial life is better, since it more closely mirrors atheism/theism.

The problem there is what do you do when a 'known' fact is disproven? For millenia, people thought the world was flat. It was obvious, all you had to do was look around. It was proven. The same thing with the Earth being the center of the universe. Just look up into the sky, you can see that everything revolves around us. It's proven. Turns out, those were wrong. Did people not know those things back then, but only believe them? If so, then knowledge is based on absolute reality, and then we can't really be sure we know anything. After all, what if there's a hidden sub-terranian civilization on Mars that loves to play volleyball? It is impossible to absolutely, 100% prove anything. That means that defining knowledge based on accuracy (i.e. it's only knowledge if it's right) is useless in any debate where uncertainty is an issue.

As for atheism only being a belief by my definitions, I'm pretty sure it fits at least some of the following definitions in all our minds:

1 b : to accept as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>
3 : to hold an opinion : think <I believe so>

1 a : to consider to be true or honest <believe the reports> <you wouldn't believe how long it took> b : to accept the word or evidence of <I believe you> <couldn't believe my ears>

 

Unfortunately the Merriam-Webster dictionary will report about all known uses of the terms assumption and believe. Widespread misuse of the words in language simply create a new validity, and give birth to a new possible definition. Perhaps you'll have better luck if you look up the term belief instead of believe.

That reality is real, etc. Read the last part of my previous post.

Many texts are open to interpretation and mistranslation, but these claims are very widespread, basic and clear:
1) God created the heavens and the earth. The universe is clearly emergent, not established. It took way more than 7 days for the universe to get where it is today, and it definitely wasn't 'ready' after 7 days in the microwave.
2) The earth is thousands of years old. Vast amounts of evidence point to the earth being billions of years old, not thousands.
3) God created everything for a purpose. Lots of aspects of nature are self-serving, or have no discernable purpose atall.
4) God has a plan. My personal favourite of course: The chaotic, goalless nature of life itself is well-documented by the theory of Evolution. The bible makes this claim (of plan and purpose) hundreds if not thousands of times; it defines the very essence of the book. By any rational standard, the whole basis of the religion should come crumbling down. Any hypotheses based on the word of the bible are disproven by their own definitions.

It was a valid assumption based on the available evidence at the time. However when the churches incorporated it into their doctrine, making claims and assurances as to its truthfulness, that's when problems arose. Funny though, since this example seems to point out that the Scientific Method isn't some alien thought concept, but is actually an expression of how the human mind thinks rationally (even before it was written!). Quite interesting, thank you for this example.

What, who, huh? Did I miss something important on the news?

 

As Carl Sagan once said, "Superior intelligence is no guarantee against being dead wrong." (as a reply to one of his theories being disproven)

Knowledge expands with time, and even when something is discovered, it doesn't mean that everyone automatically knows it. Your example of the earth being flat is a case in point. Europeans during the Middle Ages believed the Earth was flat, even though Greek mathematicians had proven using geometry that the Earth was spherical one thousand years previously.

That said, I'm not sure where you're going with this question. I never claimed that human knowledge was infallible. And I do not see how this helps us get any closer to differentiating between knowledge and belief. You can "know" something and be wrong, and you can "believe" something and be wrong.

I disagree on both points. I can prove with 100% certainty that I have a son. I can prove with 100% certainty that the sun did not explode eight minutes ago. I can prove with 100% certainty that I own a silver Honda Accord.

As for knowledge only really being knowledge if it's right - didn't you just type a paragraph showing that you can know something and be wrong, and didn't I just agree with you?

It is by your definitions, and it certainly fits some of the dictionary definitions. I don't think anyone was arguing otherwise. I think what people were arguing was that they didn't agree with your definition, and that cherry picking specific definitions from a dictionary is unlikely to change their philisophical world view.

 

You quoted the definition for believe, now let's look at belief:

None of these apply to atheism. Atheism is, in it's purest sense, the lack of belief and the antithesis of the above definition. There may be people who prescribe to specific beliefs that are atheists, but atheism itself is none of the above.

You must have missed the "IMO" even though you had it in the quote. For me, it is self-evident. It is not self-evident for others -- nor does it need to be.