Atheism : Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[Bubonic]

I am surprised by the fact that this thread managed to survive up to 250 posts much less have enough posts to be thread managed. I am confident This new part won't make it to 250.

 

[redhawk23]

Religion can also help you live a longer and healthier life. Which is why a lot of them outlive people like you, that are so angry all of the time, that they have to cuss in every single sentence. Not to mention bash another person's beliefs. Not going to argue with you, but this is the type of nonsense that keeps me out of threads like this.

Once again you prove yourself incapbable of showing respect to other people and their view points, even as you say you can, and accuse other of bashing your beliefs. Cussing has very little to do with religion. Its more a matter of manners. Non-religious people are angry all of the time? I can tell you that is not the case. You are the most outwardly angry person in this thread.

The link between religion and longer lives has very little to do with religion itself. Its more of a matter of social integration. While morality and even meaning in the world can come from a number of non-religious sources, non-religious folks do often miss out on a significant source of community. That is not to say they are anti-social, not at all actually, just that we don't have guaranteed gathering every Sunday. It also doesn't help that often times the communities we are a part of do not take well to or sometimes fully reject our views. In an extremely conservative small town, how well do you think someone is treated if they are open about their non-theistic beliefs? It is wrong to assume that our lives our lacking, or that we are unhappy. And even if someone is, it is not necessarilly a lack of beleif in a diety, or an eternal afterlife that makes them that way. Non-religious people value life just as much as religious people do. Why wouldn't they if they believe that is the only life they will have?

Lower social integration is what contributes to possible emotional and health problems. Forming atheistic communities on the level on integration that a religious church provides can be difficult because they come from a number of different backgrounds and dont agree with eachother much more than they might agree with anyone from any religion. Difficult, but not impossible. Atheist discussion groups, and even more congregation like groups, usually Ethical Societies, exist. Then of course theres Uniterian Universalists, who though skew more towards the religious side of the spectrum, at least in their customs, draw from a large number of sources and welcome pretty much any view point.

A devout hermit is no better off then a vehemently atheistic one.

For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.- Carl Sagan



In response to Weasley's question, though I've read up on it somewhat and watched some discovery channel documentaries, I'm not very well informed on the topic of String Theory.

Also, I'm a Sociology major. I plan on minoring in public policy.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

^^^ People like that tend to forget about the funny little thing called free will.
.

Whether or not there is a 'why' to life has nothing to do with Free Will though.

Do you believe we are all here for a reason? Do you believe in God's plan?

Because if you do then you have to accept that the all knowing God, while assigning free will in terms of what cereal we eat and which is our favourite flower, still has a plan for every creature, from ant to murderous human.

It's just like a roundabout this arguement half the time.

'God created us and we are all here for a 'reason'' - but nothing we do is his fault because nothing is actually up to him'

If he made us and we have a purpose by God's design, then some of the responsibility has to fall on him for Everything we are capable of doing.

 

[Dr.]

I'm not surprised that some people could not keep things respectful on here, but seriously...come on guys. We all have our own beliefs and should be respectful of others, no matter how much you might disagree. I know none of us are sitting face to face, but you should not openly mock anyone else's beliefs, whether that be in science or religion. Whatever happened to the phrase, "I respectfully disagree for this reason..."

In my experience, believers are somewhat quick to play the “you offended me” card.

Now, there’s a proper time and place for most things. And few would defend the practice of shouting atheistic arguments at parishioners as they leave their church. But in a thread devoted to the topic, the label gives fair warning. And it’s reasonable to expect – from both sides - the vigorous “thrust-and-parry” that characterizes debate. So enter at your own risk. This doesn’t mean you get to say something nasty about someone’s mother. But the view that god is imaginary – no different than other imaginary beings like fairies or leprechauns – is an honest and direct statement. And “you offended me” is not an allowable (or, for that matter, a particularly impressive) response.

Put another way, what is the respectful method one should use to explain to a believer that god doesn't exist?

 

[OtherwiseKnownAs]

I don't believe in God, not because I'm bitter, or because I hate Christians. I don't believe in God, because the burden of proof lies on the religious. They are making the claim that there is an invisible sky wizard who made the universe. They are. The atheists aren't. It's common logic.
"I talked to God yesterday."
"Do you have any proof?"
"You can't prove that I didn't."

 

[redhawk23]

Excuse me if I try to steer this conversation in another direction for a little while.

Has anyone here seen the film, The Invention of Lying? It is a very strange but very funny film, one that took it's premise and ran with it to some very surpising places.

In the fictional world of the film, lying does not exist. Neither does subtlety, as not only can people not lie, but they will also tell you exactly what they are thinking. Also, as there is no lying, there is also no fiction. There is no pretending. Therefore films are just good orators reading history. Ricky Gervaise's character is a history script writer who discovers the concept of lying, and becomes very famous by writing fictional history scripts, which everyone else, incapable of understanding the concept of lying, accepts as fantastic truth. As unsubtle as its characters are, oddly eases into an idea, just sort of throws it there out offhandly but then its the idea the drives the rest of the film.

Spoilers.

Along with no lying, and therfore no fiction, the world of the film has no religion. Just as there is no concept of telling anything but the truth, the people in the movie have no concept of religion. Thats a pretty major statement for a film, especially, a comedy to make and does so somewhat sneakilly. Gervaises character, while attempting to comfort his dying mother, on the spot thinks up our general concept of a God and an afterlife. As it turns out somewhat under hears him. Just like his scripts, his word is accepted as absolute truth and he inadvertantly invents religion. Much of the film is the reprecussions from that fact.

Oddly, though more or less calling out religions as lies, the film is rather even handed. It doesnt villify religion. The motivations for religious thought that it gives are rather sympathetic. However it also shows the problems of accepting things on word alone, assuming that they are true.

 

[Bubonic]

Sounds like an interesting film to watch.
It isn't completely off topic as many atheist do believe that religion is a human fabrication and this movie does it in a simple, sly and humorous why.

 

[WeasleyIsRKing]

Whether or not there is a 'why' to life has nothing to do with Free Will though.

Do you believe we are all here for a reason? Do you believe in God's plan?

Because if you do then you have to accept that the all knowing God, while assigning free will in terms of what cereal we eat and which is our favourite flower, still has a plan for every creature, from ant to murderous human.

It's just like a roundabout this arguement half the time.

'God created us and we are all here for a 'reason'' - but nothing we do is his fault because nothing is actually up to him'

If he made us and we have a purpose by God's design, then some of the responsibility has to fall on him for Everything we are capable of doing.

Exactly. Totally agree. I haven't heard a good enough response from a believer on this question. If God created us, and is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent...then I don't understand how we have Free Will. If he knows everything from the beginning of the Universe to the end, then we don't have free will. Its already predetermined from God's perspective. Maybe Christians should say that God is not omniscient? Be easier to make the Free Will argument.

 

[Franklin Richards]

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I've seen the invention of lying, and it was quite good in what it did in a way.

The above poster however, nail on the head.

 

[Fantasyartist]

has anybody heard of "Pascal's Wager"? If you wager that God doesn't exist and you win-you lose nothing, but if you wager that He does exist and that you are proved right-you win everything!

Terry

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

If God is all loving then those who wagered he wasn't real and lost would win too.

 

[Galactus123]

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Well you do loose something if you live by certain religions rules. You loose the freedom of coming to your own decisions about right and wrong. You spend your life committed to an idea and a way of life, some of which require you to do specific rituals in order to 'win'.

I'd rather live my life and risk it all, than pretend to believe in god and not live as I'd like in order to maybe 'win'.

 

[JAK®]

Pascal's wager basically tells you to live your life in fear, which is what religion is all about at it's core.

 

[bunk]

Pascal's wager basically tells you to live your life in fear, which is what religion is all about at it's core.

Basically. The fact that it can be applied to so many different concepts makes it useless.

 

[WeasleyIsRKing]

Basically. The fact that it can be applied to so many different concepts makes it useless.

Agreed. Pascal's Wager shoudn't not be used anymore. It is about using fear to motivate people into something. You shouldn't make big life decisions because of fear. Pascal's Wager is a joke, but not a funny one.

Liked the quote from Epicurus, Franklin Richards. I've heard it before, but always nice to be reminded of it. Do Christians have any answers for those questions posed by Epicurus?

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Those pictures are awesome.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

This is too funny to not post, but if there is a christian thread, they might get angry, so:

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

This is too funny to not post, but if there is a christian thread, they might get angry, so:

That's another thing that pisses me off...

Religious people, at least Christians particularly (from my experiences at least) love to go on and on about their beliefs, and aren't shy about telling you how your beliefs are wrong, but the moment you do something to express your beliefs, whether it's by telling them, or by making a post on Facebook, all of a sudden you're being insulting and offensive towards their beliefs.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Yeah, it's as though even the word Atheist is somehow offensive to them.

I was actually talking to someone the other day, and nearly said something about my atheist beliefs, but stopped myself when I remembered they were religious. I actually start some conversations with people with the question 'You aren't religious, are you?' just to make sure before I go on!

Why we should have to ***** foot around things I don't know, but that fear of aggrivating someone is definitely present.

 

[Spider-Who?]

This is too funny to not post, but if there is a christian thread, they might get angry, so:

Okay, I gotta admit, that was pretty friggun funny. Any one else think the artist's rendition of god looks like Carlin? lol

(re: give religious folks some credit. Being religious doesn't kill one's funny bone)

On another note, I mentioned earlier in the week that I would address that Pat Condell video, "The Trouble with Christians". My time got divided, and I forgot about it. Now that I do have time, here are a few of my own thoughts on his views:

St. Paul was the first to talk of a spiritual, God-Jesus. The early church capitalized on this to use fear to promote Christianity.

Paul was one of the earliest "leaders" of the christian religion, but certainly not the first (the disciples like Peter were before him). Paul's conversion from Judaism to Christianity is considered to be around 36 CE - about 2-3 years after the crucifixion. With that being said, of course he would be one of the first to preach Jesus' divinity. His whole conversion was based on Jesus' divinity, and Jesus' disciples had been preaching this since the crucifixion (and in turn, Jesus was preaching throughout his evangelical career). So, NO, simple history and chronological awareness dictates that Paul was not the first, but through his vast travels and ministries, he DID help spread this notion.

The Trinity wasn't "created" until the 4th century.

This is like saying dinosaurs didn't exist until the word "dinosaur" was coined by Richard Owen. The Gospels (all written between 40 CE and 70 CE), contain references to what would later be coined as the Trinity by Tertullian at some in the late 2nd, early 3rd century CE. But really, you have no need but to look at the Gospels to see that the concept of the Trinity far precedes Condell's claim. For instance, Matt 28:19 (written by a disciple of Peter - one of Jesus' disciples and an eyewitness - around 55 CE) says "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

What Condell is referring to (and painfully twisting) is the Council of Nicea. The point of the Council, for those unaware of it, was not to "invent" new theologies. At that time, there were many religious sects, many divisions of "Christianity", both well- and ill-intentioned, and there needed to be a firm grasp on the situation. There needed to be confirmation as to what beliefs/doctrines/writings held true to Jesus' intention, what did not. The Doctrine of the Trinity did arise out of this - not as an invention, but as confirmation of what believers of the last 300 years had been teaching and believing (as well as the denouncement of some ideologies that did misrepresented the core of Christianity).

The concept of hell is merely an invention to scare people into believing.

While the true nature of hell is often times debated, this statement really boils down to how you want to view it to justify your standings. If thinking hell was created to scare people into believing in hopes to justify his disgust for religion, that's Condell's right. But it doesn't make it true. And from a logical standpoint, it shouldn't work. Hell does not sell. People don't want to be told they're wrong or are a bad person. People don't want to be told that their life style is wrong. You don't gain followers by damning them (as many of the personal stories here attest). How do you get atheists and people of other religions to convert when they don't believe in hell? You gain them through love, which is what Jesus taught and preached. Sure, you might get a few people here and there, but a religion based on fear is not a thriving one, and claiming Christianity spread to be one of the largest religions in the world - all thanks to preaching fear of Hell - is both inaccurate and illogical. With that in mind, I would consider Condell's views to be narrow-minded, wrong, and self-serving.

 

[Bubonic]

It's nice that some religions can stand to have a bit of fun poked at themselves without resorting to widespread riots and murder.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Exactly. Totally agree. I haven't heard a good enough response from a believer on this question. If God created us, and is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent...then I don't understand how we have Free Will. If he knows everything from the beginning of the Universe to the end, then we don't have free will. Its already predetermined from God's perspective. Maybe Christians should say that God is not omniscient? Be easier to make the Free Will argument.

The concept of Free Will is a one that has been theorized and philosophized over for centuries. And for good reason, too. Its complicated, and there's many schools of thought. To better understand the topic, we first have to understand what free will really is.

Free will is ones ability to make conscious choices, to understand and perceive those choices consequences, and just as importantly, it is our ability to recognize this fact.

Addressing this part of your post:

If he knows everything from the beginning of the Universe to the end, then we don't have free will.

I think you are misunderstanding the nature of free will and omniscience. Omniscience is not an act. It is a passive trait. Awareness does not create. Awareness does not affect. The idea of God's ability to "see into the future" is no where near the same as saying we have no free will. It literally just means, he knows what choices we will make. He's not making the choices for us. God's knowledge of our choice does not equate to God's influence of our choice.

This is pretty simplistic, but look at is this way:

I have a dog. She LOVES used toilet paper rolls for some weird reason. If she comes across one, she will take it. I know that if I walk by the location of the roll, I will see her sitting there playing it with. She could just as easily sniff it and walk away. But having witnessed her take them for 10 years, I would lay money down on the fact that she'll grab it in a heart beat. How does my knowledge here influence her? My ability to know what action she'll choose does not have any influence on her decision to take it or not.

 

[Franklin Richards]

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill

RUSH