107 replies to this topic

[Athanasios]

stephenszpak...Yeah, many christians that I know do not follow any teachings of christ, they just do the church culture thing. I am friends with a few christians that do though. It does not seem like there is room for herd mentality if you are following the teachings.

[stephenszpak]

Without addressing anyone in particular, I think one of the reasons so
many reject Jesus, is pride. They see themselves as enlighted individuals
and Christians as, well, uneducated , to put it mildly.

Not everyone is like that though. For instance, I know quite a few Christians (I actually probably know more Christians than I do fellow Atheists.) and I don't consider most of them to be uneducated. I consider them to be misinformed on matters of religion, but only because most of them have been more or less brainwashed into following Christianity by their relatives.

For instance, we had one teacher that liked to repeatedly use the "evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics" argument, until another student (who is a Christian) spent about half a class period detailing the holes in the argument.

There are several categories I guess: uneducated, brainwashed, pressured, raised, etc.

It all goes back to the same place in them. Something like : "I am guided by logic and science while
these others are deceived by foolish superstition." It's a pride thing for many, or at least some. They
have to say something. If they don't, then they might start asking some basic questions, like "Does God
exist?"

-Stephen

[basho]

Despite my previous totally un-politically correct posting, let me add to the argument:

Claiming “atheism is like religious faith” is a fallacious argument supported somewhat by the fact that a label has been given for the absence of something, in this case the absence of belief in supernatural entity, whether it be God, Vishnu, Zeus, or fairies. Ultimately it is simply an illogical statement made to suit a dogmatic ideological agenda. “2 + 2 = 5” makes just as much sense. War is peace, citizens.

By the same argument:
- Not using heroin is an addiction.
- Not catching influenza is a disease.
- Not enjoying autoerotic asphyxiation is a fetish.

Or, as others have said,
"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby."
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."

Faith is an irrational belief in something in the absence of evidence supporting that belief and, even more so, directly in the face of evidence contrary to that belief. "Epistemology teaches us that the key point is about rationality. If a person gets wet every time he is in the rain without an umbrella, yet persists in hoping that the next time he is umbrella-less in the rain he will stay dry, then he is seriously irrational. To believe in the existence of (say) a benevolent and omnipotent deity in the face of childhood cancers and mass deaths in tsunamis and earthquakes, is exactly the same kind of serious irrationality."

Fervid atheism is usually a screen for repressed religion.

Fervent attacks on those who do not share your belief are usually a shield for a lack of faith. In this case, the particular danger posed by religion is demonstrated in this earlier quote by Elijah:

You got to understand God's point of view in the matter… If the people refuse to cooperate with His program for achieving this, He will destroy them.

There is danger in attitudes like this, the combination of dogmatic irrationality with people who think they know God’s mind and who feel the need to act on behalf of God, rather than have faith in their God to take care of things.

[samson]

QUOTE[/b] (cnorwood19)<!--QuoteEBegin]
“Fervid atheism is usually a screen for repressed religion.”

QFT, QFT...

think Wilhelm Stekel is right. Those the *believe* there is no God,
  and believe it strongly, have to express that belief. One wonders why.
  Atheism has nothing to offer by definition. With Christianity (besides it
  being the truth) there is Heaven in the next life and help even in this life.

  In general, we know from our personal lives, regardless of our beliefs,
  that some things are true, yet unprovable. If someone says "I love my wife."
  this would be an example. The man can't prove he loves his wife.

  Some things that are true can't be proven. They are still true.

On your argument of *believing* that there is no god is contradicting the whole point of atheism, I agree wholly. Reminds me of the Wired article about "New Atheism". By Jerusalem, that was like somebody laying monster-turds in your mouth and calling it a hot-dog.
On the latter term of you saying that Atheism by definition has nothing to offer, I couldn't disagree more. I mean, it's a walking controversy in it itself; why would anyone BE an atheist if it had nothing to offer?
Atheism has a load of things to offer, more than religion. Religion offers safety, atheism freedom. To me, atheism offers free thought, no thought or consept is out of 'bounds'. To me, atheism offers free morals, I do not have to condone with religious authority of what is good and what is evil, I can value anything I choose to. To me, atheism offers logic, I am free to analyze and deduce of and about the world without relying on religious dogma. To me, atheism offers objectivity, no god (including the lack of) is out of bounds of critic, I am free to reveal ALL logical fallacies and oppose them all.

Elijah, I don't think it's gonna work, but I'll meantion it. Nice beard.

The (acolyte) horrible bastard has spoken! Now begone foul stupidity, before I release my bowels of war and rape your slimy carcass to death with my steaming meat-gun!

Edited by samson, 16 December 2006 - 11:50 PM.

[stephenszpak]

basho

basho wrote> Claiming “atheism is like religious faith” is a fallacious argument supported somewhat by the fact that a label has been given for the absence of something, in this case the absence of belief in supernatural entity, whether it be God...

Stephen wrote>

Can you prove God does not exist? (No.) Since atheists can't prove it, yet
they believe it,
atheism requires faith. Saying "I don't know if God exists or not." requires no
faith.

The absence of many things can easily be proven. The absence of light in
a room, or air in a container, or money in bank account. Yet people say
that with the matter of God those that believe in Him *must* prove that He
exists. The atheists (some) want people to believe like they do, yet can't
prove God does not exist. Double standard.

-Stephen

[basho]

Can you prove God does not exist? (No.) Since atheists can't prove it, yet they believe it,  atheism requires faith. 
...
The absence of many things can easily be proven.
...
The atheists (some) want people to believe like they do, yet can't prove God does not exist. Double standard.

You're missing the falacy in that argument. Atheists are not asking people to believe in something, they are simply stating they do not have that belief.

Does a rock have faith in atheism because it does not have a particular mental state equivalent to religious belief in God?

From the link I posted previously:

People who do not believe in supernatural entities do not have a "faith" in "the non-existence of X" (where X is "fairies" or "goblins" or "gods"); what they have is a reliance on reason and observation, and a concomitant preparedness to accept the judgment of both on the principles and theories that premise their actions. The views they take about things are proportional to the evidence supporting them, and are always subject to change in the light of new or better evidence. "Faith" - specifically and precisely: the commitment to a belief in the absence of evidence supporting that belief, or even (to the greater merit of the believer) in the very teeth of evidence contrary to that belief - is a far different thing, which is why the phrase "religious thinktank" has a certain comic quality to it: for faith at its quickly-reached limit is the negation of thought.

"Formally, the burden of proof should be on the proposed idea, not the challenger of the idea. This is a crucial point of the Scientific method, that before a claim is thought to be true, it must be proven. All claims must be confirmed by observation. If the claim can not be confirmed this way, the belief must not be asserted. Not-knowing is default."

[stephenszpak]

samson

samson wrote>

Atheism has a load of things to offer, more than religion. Religion offers safety,

Stephen wrote> Say what? I'm not sure what you're talking about here.
If Christianity (that is following Jesus) or maybe any
other way (?)


Recently a Christian in Afghanistan was
sentenced to death. His "crime" was that he was a Christian.
It made world news. He was allowed to
leave the country safely only because of great pressure.

The sunni vs sheite (not sure on spelling) war in Iraq.

Numerous groups throughout history. The Jews have to
be mentioned regarding religous persecution.

"Jews settled in Europe during the time of the Roman Empire, but the rise of the Roman Catholic Church resulted in frequent expulsions and persecutions. The Crusades routinely attacked Jewish communities, and increasingly harsh laws restricted them from most economic activity and land ownership, leaving open only moneylending and a few other trades. Jews were subject to expulsions from England, France, and the Holy Roman Empire throughout the Middle Ages, with most of the population moving to Eastern Europe and especially Poland..."

http://en.wikipedia....le_Ages:_Europe

samson wrote>

To me, atheism offers free thought, no thought or consept is out of 'bounds'. To me, atheism offers free morals, I do not have to condone with religious authority of what is good and what is evil, I can value anything I choose to.

Stephen wrote> Of course it's easy. You do whatever you want.

“Which of the religions of the world gives to its followers the greatest happiness? While it lasts, the religion of worshiping oneself is best” (C.S. Lewis)

http://en.thinkexist...its/178496.html


-Stephen

[stephenszpak]

basho

basho wrote> You're missing the falacy in that argument. Atheists are not asking people to believe in something, they are simply stating they do not have that belief.

Stephen wrote> I think it depends on the atheist.

Excerpt from wikipedia here:

Atheism is the state of disbelief or non-belief[1] in the existence of a deity or deities.[2] It is commonly defined as the positive denial of theism (ie. the assertion that deities do not exist),[3] or the deliberate rejection of theism (i.e., the refusal to believe in the existence of deities).[4] However, others—including most atheistic philosophers and groups—define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities[5][6][7] (cf. nontheism), thereby designating many agnostics, and people who have never heard of gods, such as the unchurched or newborn children, as atheists as well.[8][9]

In recent years, some atheists have adopted the terms strong and weak atheism to clarify whether they consider their stance one of positive belief that no gods exist (strong atheism), or of mere absense of belief that gods exist (weak atheism).[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

I forgot what you personally said on atheism from your viewpoint.

Anyway think about it like this:

hypothetical atheist says:

"There is no evidence for the existence of God. Therefore God does not exist."

Compare with:

"There is no evidence for a civilization of intelligent organic life outside of Earth.
Therefore no civilization of intelligent organic life exists outside of Earth."

-Stephen

[stephenszpak]

jc1991

jc1991 wrote> Several of my best friends are Christians, and we regularly like to have both scientific and theological debates in our spare time. They all have a working knowledge of the sciences with detailed information on their field of interest (One of my friends is considering marine biology as a field of work.) and I've made a point of learning as much as possible about Christian theology. I see no reason not to debate theology just because I don't believe in god; it's still a very interesting topic, and it reveals quite a lot about both ancient and modern Christian/Jewish culture.

Stephen wrote> Sounds good. Hope you have a desire to get past the
history stuff. Maybe God will reveal His Son to you.
You can't just make a decision to believe that Jesus is
alive. You have to know it.

=================================================

Only today I have found a passage in a Christian writer where he recommends his own version of Christianity on the ground that "only such a faith can outlast the death of old cultures and the birth of new civilisations". You see the little rift? "Believe this, not because it is true, but for some other reason." That's the game,

Your affectionate uncle
SCREWTAPE

From Screwtape Letter XXIII

http://members.fortu...ape_letters.htm

==================================================

[william7]

hypothetical atheist says:

"There is no evidence for the existence of God. Therefore God does not exist."

Compare with:

"There is no evidence for a civilization of intelligent organic life outside of Earth.
Therefore no civilization of intelligent organic life exists outside of Earth."

Excellent point Stephen. And you know, there's probably a large number of atheist scientists looking for intelligent organic life outside of earth.

There is danger in attitudes like this, the combination of dogmatic irrationality with people who think they know God’s mind and who feel the need to act on behalf of God, rather than have faith in their God to take care of things.

Basho where do you see a dangerous tendency in what I said? Nowhere do I say I intend to take any type of violent action in God's behalf or show lack of faith in God to do what's necessary to achieve peace on earth and immortality for mankind. What I've posted says exactly the opposite. Where are your logical thinking skills? Do you know some religious organizations teach that the Bible was inspired by God so man could get an understanding of His mind?

[Athanasios]

"There is no evidence for the existence of God. Therefore God does not exist."

Compare with:

"There is no evidence for a civilization of intelligent organic life outside of Earth.
Therefore no civilization of intelligent organic life exists outside of Earth."

It is the likely-hood of each that makes all the difference.

I have yet to meet an atheist the disagrees with Dawkins. If you are interested in knowing why atheists are the way they are, Dawkins goes through a bunch of the most common questions, in the QnA part, in this talk:

http://video.google....86584&q=dawkins

It answers the proof thing, the likelyhood thing, etc.

Edit: updated link

Edited by cnorwood19, 21 December 2006 - 06:36 PM.

[siberia]

QUOTE (stephenszpak)


“Fervid atheism is usually a screen for repressed religion.”



I have seen this to be true in more than one case. I also have met quite a few where this was not the case. Even more are forced into agnosticism, because of the social dangers of being open atheist.

Heh, I'm experiencing the opposite, most people think I'm wierd for not calling myself an atheist, but an agnosticist. Quite many persons think that you choose to say that you are agnostic when you secretely are religious. Not that it is a problem. In this respect, many people really are religiuos about being atheists, figuratively speaking. If one not is completely sure that God does not exists, one should be calling oneself agnostic.

I can't prove or disprove the existence of God, but that isn't a reason for making parellels to anything else unknown, like extra-terrestial intelligience. It is still more improbable that God exists.

[stephenszpak]

cnorwood19

cnorwood19 wrote> It is the likely-hood of each that makes all the difference.

Stephen wrote> I wouldn't be concerned with the question of life out there
or not. Actually the probablities regarding the existence of
God (as stated by this or that person) are totally irrelevent.

Why? The whole matter relates to where you will spend
eternity. But fine, I'll play. If you want you can say that
the odds of God's existence are the same as winning the lottery.
So what? The rational person would search for God with these
odds *against* him.

-Stephen

[struct]

If you want you can say that
                          the odds of God's existence are the same as winning the lottery.
                          So what? The rational person would search for God with these
                          odds *against* him.

It's more like ... winning the lottery every day for the rest of your life.
I don't know what kind of lotteries are out there, but I am talking about the one, if it exists, that you may win once in our universe's time.

[basho]

You got to understand God's point of view in the matter…If the people refuse to cooperate with His program for achieving this, He will destroy them.

There is danger in attitudes like this, the combination of dogmatic irrationality with people who think they know God’s mind and who feel the need to act on behalf of God, rather than have faith in their God to take care of things.

Basho where do you see a dangerous tendency in what I said? Nowhere do I say I intend to take any type of violent action in God's behalf or show lack of faith in God to do what's necessary to achieve peace on earth and immortality for mankind. What I've posted says exactly the opposite. Where are your logical thinking skills? Do you know some religious organizations teach that the Bible was inspired by God so man could get an understanding of His mind?

Nothing against you Elijah, and apologies if I implied otherwise. I was just pointing out the danger in the fact that some people believe they *know* the mind of God and use such statements as I quoted above as justification for taking wrathful action in the name of God, especially when it comes to killing and destroying. This shows a certain lack of faith in the power of God to act on his own behalf.

[william7]

Thanks for clarifying the situation basho. No, I pose no danger to anyone as a result of my understanding of the Scriptures or God's mind. Most of the violence in God's name these days is due to the organized religions of the world and people who don't fully understand God's mind but think they do as you say.

I'm currently involved with an independant Church of God. We're very small and are more worried about financial matters necessary for survival than about taking any type of violent action. My role has been to advise the pastor to teach a vegan diet according to Genesis 1: 29-31; Isaiah 11:6-9;65:25; Hosea 2:18 and living communally, without private property or money, according to Matthew 19:21-27; Acts 2:44,45; 4:32-35; 1 Timothy 6:6-8 as a part of the peaceable way of life God wants us to live.

[stephenszpak]

If you want you can say that
                          the odds of God's existence are the same as winning the lottery.
                          So what? The rational person would search for God with these
                          odds *against* him.

It's more like ... winning the lottery every day for the rest of your life.
I don't know what kind of lotteries are out there, but I am talking about the one, if it exists, that you may win once in our universe's time.

Stephen wrote> People are always coming up with odds on stuff. The previous hurricane season
(in the U.S.) was supposed to have so many hurricanes that would hit the U.S. mainland.
I think they were far far off. People always want to know what is coming. They want
to know about tommorrow. Well, tommorrow is farther away from us than the farthest
quasars.



Either God exists or He doesn't. There aren't any probabilities involved. It would be
prudent to assume He exists and search for Him.

"...that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him,
though He is not far from each one of us;''

http://www.biblegate...r=17&version=49

If you want to speak of lotteries, what do you think are the odds of you being born? Just think about it. Go
back 3 generations ( no need to go back farther ). What is the likelyhood of your mom and dad having
intercourse on a certain night. What are the odds of a *specific* cell from her and a *specific* cell from
him coming together to form you, and not a sibling. What about their parents and their parents? I can tell
you right now, if you're into odds, that we're talking far more than 100,000,000,000,000 to 1. Easily.

-Stephen

[Athanasios]

For something to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. Since faith, by definition, is not, this path of discussion is pointless to those who have faith. It is the damages of faith, which you have said being from ones that did not know the "true" God, that atheists are worried about.

[mushman]

[samson]

I'd see to reminding that God is not the same thing as god. The first refers to christian God, the latter to either the consept of 'a' god, or a god not associated with christianity.
Just, you know, **** you. Thank you, thank you, I know, I'm a fucking genious.

[garethnelsonuk]

What are the chances of me eating this exact piece of popcorn? (I'm eating a bowl of popcorn right now)

No mattter how small, it doesn't imply anything special about that piece of popcorn, neither does the fact i'm here imply anything special about me. I am special to me because I have a very very strong bias towards my own existence being a good thing. I am special to other people who care about me because they have come across me and find me special as a result of some subjective experience.

[stephenszpak]

Many people think the odds of God existing are too small to even think about.
These same people have to acknowledge (I would hope, if they're into odds) that
their own lives, they hold so dearly are extraordinarily unlikely events.

-Stephen

[Athanasios]

Many people think the odds of God existing are too small to even think about.
  These same people have to acknowledge (I would hope, if they're into odds) that
  their own lives, they hold so dearly are extraordinarily unlikely events.
-Stephen

Yes, many atheists see the wonder of how unlikely their lives, and the exact laws of the universe that have manifested them, are. Many of them feel "religious" awe in this sense. In no way does this mean that they should put these feelings of insignificance as proof of god, either christian god, aztec god, or whatever. In fact, that is how the dawkins talk i posted starts.

Like I said earlier, I doubt atheists would even care if others believe in whatever god they would like, if it did not come with very negative consequences such as being used as a reason for war or reason to not go forward with science.

[stephenszpak]

cnorwood19

I'm not here to prove the existence of God, just to get people thinking.

Slavery is worse than war. But there are some (speaking hypothetically)
that would rather live as slaves than fight.

What if a man thought he was a god and millions believed it too? What if
he killed 1000's in a surprise attack? To me this is reason enough to go
to war.

=============================================

U.S. General Douglas MacArthur insisted that Hirohito remain Emperor. MacArthur saw him as a symbol of the continuity and cohesion of the Japanese people, along with knowing the details of the surrender events. Hirohito was not put on trial, but he was forced to explicitly reject (in the Ningen-sengen (ÈËégÐûÑÔ, Ningen-sengen?)) the traditional claim that the Emperor of Japan was divine, and a descendant of the Sun Goddess.

According to the Japanese constitution of 1889, Hirohito had a divine power over his country, which was derived from the mythology of the Japanese Imperial Family who were said to be the offspring of the creator of Japan, Amaterasu. The imperial title was thus transformed from 'imperial sovereign' to 'constitutional monarch' in 1946. Immediately after Hirohito's repudiation of divinity, he asked the occupation authorities for permission to worship the Sun Goddess. Some have seen this as an implicit reaffirmation of the claim to divine status; others have seen it as simply an expression of Hirohito's personal religious beliefs, with no political or social implications.

Although Hirohito was compelled to reject claims to his own divine status, his public position was deliberately left vague, partly because General MacArthur thought him likely to be a useful partner to get the Japanese to accept the occupation, and partly due to behind-the-scenes maneuverings by Shigeru Yoshida to thwart attempts to cast Hirohito as a European-style monarch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito

================================================

cnorwood19 wrote> "...or reason to not go forward with science.''

What's with this Christians hate science stuff? Not you necessarily, but
I've seen it before. I hope it is not generaly thought we hate techology
in general. This is not at all true.

Have you read A Brave New World ? I've read bits of it lately. Part of
the concept of the book is that the world has achieved total peace. The
price was high though.

A Brave New World (excerpt Chapter 17)

"My dear young friend," said Mustapha Mond, "civilization has absolutely no need of nobility or heroism. These things are symptoms of political inefficiency. In a properly organized society like ours, nobody has any opportunities for being noble or heroic. Conditions have got to be thoroughly unstable before the occasion can arise. Where there are wars, where there are divided allegiances, where there are temptations to be resisted, objects of love to be fought for or defended - there, obviously, nobility and heroism have some sense. But there aren't any wars nowadays. The greatest care is taken to prevent you from loving any one too much. There's no such thing as a divided allegiance; you're so conditioned that you can't help doing what you ought to do. And what you ought to do is on the whole so pleasant, so many of the natural impulses are allowed free play, that there really aren't any temptations to resist. And if ever, by some unlucky chance, anything unpleasant should somehow happen, why, there's always soma to give you a holiday from the facts. And there's always soma to calm your anger, to reconcile you to your enemies, to make you patient and long-suffering.

http://www.readprint...9/Aldous-Huxley

-Stephen

[Athanasios]

Yes, I have read a brave new world. I followed Huxley for a while when I found his enthusiasm for J. Krishnamurti and his works.

The christians hate science stuff comes from the creationists vs evolution debates, stem cell and cloning debates, etc. The government has control over scientific funding. The christians in the U.S. have so much sway over the politicians, that one can not admit to be atheist and be elected. In no way do I care to get into these debates, but it is rather obvious that religion has much impact on what science can or can not be done in this country, reasons not based on science and ethics, but religion, faith, and opinions. Talk of immortality or significant increases in lifespans must be funded in private, because it has too much potential to butt heads with religion. Some scientists mask the research they are doing by saying they are working on cancer, diabetes, or alzheimers.

[garethnelsonuk]

Many people think the odds of God existing are too small to even think about.
  These same people have to acknowledge (I would hope, if they're into odds) that
  their own lives, they hold so dearly are extraordinarily unlikely events.

-Stephen

Note that the observed laws of nature make it quite likely that people will be born. They do not make it likely at all that the universe was created by an intelligent deity. My popcorn is quite likely to pop when I put it in the microwave and heat it up, but it's also quite unlikely in a real sense to end up in my hands (out of all the millions of people who like to eat popcorn, how did this kernel end up in my bag?)

My birth was extremely unlikely, but there is precedent for it (i.e humans reproduce, organic life has been around for billions of years, so on and so on). Where is the evidence that the universe was created by a deity?

[stephenszpak]

garethnelsonuk wrote>Where is the evidence that the universe was created by a deity?

Stephen wrote> You (and anyone here) is free to believe that billions of
galaxies created themselves.
You can
even believe that time itself, created itself. I'm not here to
fight.

-Stephen

[stephenszpak]

Yes, I have read a brave new world. I followed Huxley for a while when I found his enthusiasm for J. Krishnamurti and his works.

The christians hate science stuff comes from the creationists vs evolution debates, stem cell and cloning debates, etc. The government has control over scientific funding. The christians in the U.S. have so much sway over the politicians, that one can not admit to be atheist and be elected. In no way do I care to get into these debates, but it is rather obvious that religion has much impact on what science can or can not be done in this country, reasons not based on science and ethics, but religion, faith, and opinions. Talk of immortality or significant increases in lifespans must be funded in private, because it has too much potential to butt heads with religion. Some scientists mask the research they are doing by saying they are working on cancer, diabetes, or alzheimers.

cnorwood19

Yes, I figured it was about these matters (creationists vs evolution debates, stem cell and cloning debates, etc.).
Those that are in these fields (might) think Christians hate science. There is a GE plastics plant where I grew up.
Someone just told me today they came up with a plastic that is about as strong as metal. Supposed to be used in
future cars. There is so much science and technology out there. Those that are in the fields mentioned in my
first sentence probably have a distorted view. The "religion wants to destroy science" view. No one cares what is done
with plastics, semiconductors, cars , etc etc

-Stephen

[garethnelsonuk]

garethnelsonuk wrote>Where is the evidence that the universe was created by a deity? 
 
  Stephen wrote> You (and anyone here) is free to believe that billions of
                          galaxies created themselves.
                          You can
                          even believe that time itself, created itself. I'm not here to
                          fight.

-Stephen

Who's fighting?

I'm merely responding to your claims in a section named "round table discussion" where people will express their opinions on various subjects. Who claimed that billions of galaxies "created themselves" either?

[halcyondays]

I'd rather be safe than sorry. that is probably due to my Christian fundamentalist upbringing. I don't believe that God is likely to exist, and I don't live my life as though there is some kind of God, but you never know. I'd rather not ruin my only chance at salvation if all that crap does happen. Irrational I know, but then, when have humans ever been completely rational beings?