Atheism : Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[Bubonic]

you asked... and you shall receive... definitive proof

[YT]pvF64F3AjKY[/YT]

next time... try to have some evidence...

 

[hopefuldreamer]

There is no real difference between a religious nut and an atheist in reality.Neither one will shut up about what they believe in and how much better off they are because of it. yes I am saying that a hardcore atheists religion is preaching and believing in "not believing" for xy reason.

In my own and very humble opinion, people can believe what they want and others should respect that as long as their beliefs are not physically harmful to others.
.

But IMO religion IS physically harmful to people, in all sorts of situations and circumstances all over the world.

In terms of the general belief in God, I have nothing against people who choose to believe. What bothers me is that I think a lot of people only believe because they are afraid of going against something they have been brought up with their whole life. It's the social conditioning that I have something against. People who went to church and sunday school, whose families have drummed God into their brains, and who have never once looked at other explanations or options for fear of being 'sinful' to question it.

That IMO is a harmful thing.

If atheism is a religion... then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

I have A LOT of hobbies then!

I can't really think of anything more intellectually lazy than to assume that God did everything simply because you can't fathom how it happened.

It is as if you go to a magic show and, not knowing how the magician achieves the illusion, assume that he/she really does have magical powers. Instead of investigating, studying sleight of hand, learning how optical illusions can be produced with mirrors and extremely thin string, etc., you just leave it at that and go around thinking that people have magical abilities for the rest of your life.

Love this post.

Actually had a situation like this the other day.

I was argueing with a rather naive workmate about this magician called Dynamo. I come in in the morning and she's talking about how this guy ACTUALLY walked on water.

I immediately said 'Well, no he didn't really, it's a trick'

And people actually argued with me!

'No seriously, there were loads of people watching and there was no way he could have faked it.'

At this point, I just shook my head and left it. No point argueing.

Then they start talking about this other trick he did, were he got a mobile phone into a glass bottle.

And I said 'Well there's only three options really. 1. He has a bottle that already has a mobile phone in it, and produces that at the end 2. There is something special about the bottle. 3. There is something special about the phone.

And they were still argueing...

At this point I just got so frustrated I nearly fell out with people. I said 'Seriously, it is IMPOSSIBLE to squeeze a mobile phone into a glass bottle... so unless you believe the guy is actually magical, there MUST have been a trick.'

At which point they reluctantly agreed. Because believing in actual magic is considered ridiculous.

But it felt exactly the same to me as argueing with a religious person. The blatant disregard of the facts, and defending things with only what you have been TOLD. So infuriating.

The average person just takes scientists' words for it. They don't question it. They're told that X is the truth because of Y, and they just accept it. They don't attempt to recreate the experiment themselves (mainly because the average person doesn't have the equipment or knowledge to do so with certain experiments). They just trust that they're being told the truth.

And really, religion is the same way. You get religious leaders saying Z is the truth, and the average person doesn't question it. They don't bother checking their religious texts. They just trust that they're being told the truth.

Unless you're a scientist or a religious scholar of some sort, all you're doing is arguing something that someone else told you and you assume is true.

With science, I don't assume it's true because one person has 'suggested' it, unlike with religion.

I assume it's true because one person has suggested it, then a lot more people have tested it and found evidence to support it, then even more people have tried to disprove it and failed.

Yes, the 'average' person would probably believe that the world is round and blood pumps through our veins etc. But that doesn't mean that the 'truth' of it doesn't go beyond that average persons acceptance.

The difference is, if the average person suddenly becomes 'more than average' and begins to question what their told, with Science, you will find the proof, you will find the answers to the questions and you will come out going 'okay, so that IS right.'

Whereas with religion, if you start questioning what you've been told, the further you dig and explore, the less you can accept it as truth... because there is no basis for it being fact.

Emotion is the complex psychophysiological experience of an individual's state of mind as interacting with biochemical (internal) and environmental (external) influences. In humans, emotion fundamentally involves "physiological arousal, expressive behaviors, and conscious experience." Emotion is associated with mood, temperament, personality and disposition, and motivation. Motivations direct and energize behavior, while emotions provide the affective component to motivation, positive or negative.

No definitive taxonomy of emotions exists, though numerous taxonomies have been proposed. Some categorizations include:

"Cognitive" versus "non-cognitive" emotions
Instinctual emotions (from the amygdala), versus cognitive emotions (from the prefrontal cortex).
Categorization based on duration: Some emotions occur over a period of seconds (for example, surprise), whereas others can last years (for example, love).
A related distinction is between the emotion and the results of the emotion, principally behaviors and emotional expressions. People often behave in certain ways as a direct result of their emotional state, such as crying, fighting or fleeing. If one can have the emotion without the corresponding behavior, then we may consider the behavior not to be essential to the emotion.

The James–Lange theory posits that emotional experience is largely due to the experience of bodily changes. The "functionalist" approach to emotions (for example, Nico Frijda and Freitas-Magalhaes) holds that emotions have evolved for a particular function, such as to keep the subject safe.

Thank you for that

And what great example of why science is an incredible thing that I am very grateful for.

Someone asks a question, and the answer can be more than just 'because that's how God made us'.

It can actually make sense.

Well... To say you don't believe in God, suggests that he actually exists.

Food for thought.

Yeah, your gonna have to explain that one to me... cause it makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[8wid]

I have a question for European atheists from countries that used to have empires like Britain, France, Belgium etc. Here it is. Do you think that the reason agnosticism and atheism has spread so rapidly since the 1950s is because in part at least it was due to imperialism and its decline after World War II?

 

[redhawk23]

It's best to agree to disagree here. I feel that there are a lot of problems with the current scientific method of "it needs to be repeatable", especially since it doesn't have the tools to recognize certain aspects of reality. I really don't want to continue the "arguing in circles" theme here.



I'm sure I don't understand your meaning. 0 = No.

A line with 0 slope is horizontal. The measurement of the slope is 0.

Measurements of slope do not apply to vertical lines which are descirbed as having "No Slope."

I was using the idea to illustrate how the concept of "more or less faith" may not apply to atheism at all, similar to a vertical line having "No Slope" as apposed to 0 slope. Figuratively I was refering to atheism as "perpendicular" to theism rather than a measurement of it.

 

[Manic]

I thought horizontal lines were "no slope" and "0 slope," but vertical lines are "undefined slope."

 

[Thundercrack85]

I have a question for European atheists from countries that used to have empires like Britain, France, Belgium etc. Here it is. Do you think that the reason agnosticism and atheism has spread so rapidly since the 1950s is because in part at least it was due to imperialism and its decline after World War II?

I think it's more a case of people just being tired of religious extremism than anything else. If you look at all the war religion caused in Europe. Most Europeans aren't atheist, they're just tired of organized religion. Most are deists.

 

[redhawk23]

I thought horizontal lines were "no slope" and "0 slope," but vertical lines are "undefined slope."

Lines with undefined slopes, vertical lines, have "no slope" because the definition of slope does not apply to them.

http://www.mathwords.com/u/undefined_slope.htm


And anyways I was only speaking figuratively.

 

[8wid]

I think it's more a case of people just being tired of religious extremism than anything else. If you look at all the war religion caused in Europe. Most Europeans aren't atheist, they're just tired of organized religion. Most are deists.

That's mostly what I was getting at with imperialism, I understand it is too violent. I think in the coming decades America will finally go to a similar direction.

 

[redhawk23]

That's mostly what I was getting at with imperialism, I understand it is too violent. I think in the coming decades America will finally go to a similar direction.

We won't even adopt the metric system. Seriously though I really don't see it happening here in the states.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Hmm... Did you walk one cricket to type that?

 

[Thundercrack85]

That's mostly what I was getting at with imperialism, I understand it is too violent. I think in the coming decades America will finally go to a similar direction.

Well, imperialism arguably replaced religious extremism as Europe's main export, though it still showed up from time to time.

America's "relationship" with religion has been very different from Europe's. Although there have been issues with religious extremism (Salem Witch Trials, Jonestown, etc) it hasn't resulted in continent spanning wars and genocides in North America. As a result, most people in America have a less jaded view of organized religion.

 

[zanos]

But IMO religion IS physically harmful to people, in all sorts of situations and circumstances all over the world.

In terms of the general belief in God, I have nothing against people who choose to believe. What bothers me is that I think a lot of people only believe because they are afraid of going against something they have been brought up with their whole life. It's the social conditioning that I have something against. People who went to church and sunday school, whose families have drummed God into their brains, and who have never once looked at other explanations or options for fear of being 'sinful' to question it.

That IMO is a harmful thing.





I have A LOT of hobbies then!



Love this post.

Actually had a situation like this the other day.

I was argueing with a rather naive workmate about this magician called Dynamo. I come in in the morning and she's talking about how this guy ACTUALLY walked on water.

I immediately said 'Well, no he didn't really, it's a trick'

And people actually argued with me!

'No seriously, there were loads of people watching and there was no way he could have faked it.'

At this point, I just shook my head and left it. No point argueing.

Then they start talking about this other trick he did, were he got a mobile phone into a glass bottle.

And I said 'Well there's only three options really. 1. He has a bottle that already has a mobile phone in it, and produces that at the end 2. There is something special about the bottle. 3. There is something special about the phone.

And they were still argueing...

At this point I just got so frustrated I nearly fell out with people. I said 'Seriously, it is IMPOSSIBLE to squeeze a mobile phone into a glass bottle... so unless you believe the guy is actually magical, there MUST have been a trick.'

At which point they reluctantly agreed. Because believing in actual magic is considered ridiculous.

But it felt exactly the same to me as argueing with a religious person. The blatant disregard of the facts, and defending things with only what you have been TOLD. So infuriating.



With science, I don't assume it's true because one person has 'suggested' it, unlike with religion.

I assume it's true because one person has suggested it, then a lot more people have tested it and found evidence to support it, then even more people have tried to disprove it and failed.

Yes, the 'average' person would probably believe that the world is round and blood pumps through our veins etc. But that doesn't mean that the 'truth' of it doesn't go beyond that average persons acceptance.

The difference is, if the average person suddenly becomes 'more than average' and begins to question what their told, with Science, you will find the proof, you will find the answers to the questions and you will come out going 'okay, so that IS right.'

Whereas with religion, if you start questioning what you've been told, the further you dig and explore, the less you can accept it as truth... because there is no basis for it being fact.



Thank you for that

And what great example of why science is an incredible thing that I am very grateful for.

Someone asks a question, and the answer can be more than just 'because that's how God made us'.

It can actually make sense.



Yeah, your gonna have to explain that one to me... cause it makes no sense whatsoever.

Just think how infuriating it will be in a thousand years when atheists attempt to convince ppl that you don't go to Hogwarts when you die and that Harry Potter is not god.

to explain to ppl in a thousand years that Harry Potter wasn't actually real.

 

[8Diagrams(WU)]

We're not nearly as complex and our "millions of natural systems" don't work as cohesive as you'd like to suggest. If a "superior system" is guiding it, then it needs to do a better job.

You can trace most every trait we have in other organisms from it's most simplest form to some that are superior to ours. There is nothing all that spectacular about how it came together. The only thing one has to wonder about is why some don't bother learning about Evolutionary Biology which explains how all those "incredible coincidences" manage to fit together instead of making an argument from incredulity.

Try to be respectful if that isnt too hard. The cohesiveness and harmony of this planet in particular is unique in the universe as far as we know today in our limited perspective. Einstein himself, a non believer of a personal god, and a not very complex being as you also believe did see such harmony and perfection in trying to explain the universe in his relativity theory:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

But what does that Einstein nut know about anything? What a fool he was for believing any intelligent being could take the position of suspecting the posibility of an unexplicable mysterious order in the universe manifesting in a ridiculous level of perfect harmony. What a disgrace of a scientist he is. He should have bothered learning something that does not disprove what he states, like Evolutionary Biology, instead of making an argument from incredulity.

 

[8Diagrams(WU)]

But IMO religion IS physically harmful to people, in all sorts of situations and circumstances all over the world.

In terms of the general belief in God, I have nothing against people who choose to believe. What bothers me is that I think a lot of people only believe because they are afraid of going against something they have been brought up with their whole life. It's the social conditioning that I have something against. People who went to church and sunday school, whose families have drummed God into their brains, and who have never once looked at other explanations or options for fear of being 'sinful' to question it.

That IMO is a harmful thing.

Religion does become physically harmful in the cases where people use others faith as a weapon to make them harm others. If you can see the flick traitor, there is a tiny bit where a man leading a group of dangerous muslim extremists was shown as not living his faith and the main character calls him out on it but he explains it as means of avoiding persecution, all while he downs a steak with some wine in some fancy restaurant while his lackeys are hidden in some ****** part of town doing the dirty work. Very powerful message.

 

[Bill]

Try to be respectful if that isnt too hard. The cohesiveness and harmony of this planet in particular is unique in the universe as far as we know today in our limited perspective. Einstein himself, a non believer of a personal god, and a not very complex being as you also believe did see such harmony and perfection in trying to explain the universe in his relativity theory:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

But what does that Einstein nut know about anything? What a fool he was for believing any intelligent being could take the position of suspecting the posibility of an unexplicable mysterious order in the universe manifesting in a ridiculous level of perfect harmony. What a disgrace of a scientist he is. He should have bothered learning something that does not disprove what he states, like Evolutionary Biology, instead of making an argument from incredulity.

For some reason most of your post has very little to do with what I said, which seems to be a disease that is catching around here. I was speaking in regards to our lack of "complexity and cohesiveness" which when you consider that we are subject to issues that stem from only walking upright a few million years, vestigial structures that no longer serve a function and illnesses and diseases which our perfectly, harmoniously, complex and cohesive bodies fall prey to on a daily basis.

Having said all that, we are certainly wondrous natural machines with our various systems that do work together very well for the most part. But our "complexity" is relevant to our level of understanding. And that is growing at such a rate that we don't seem as "complex" as we once were, and I suspect there will come a time in the near future when what was once thought of as "complex" will not seem so. There are examples of gradations for each system we have within nature, and some examples that work with better effectiveness and efficiency than our own. And, as you have stated, this is within our limited understanding. Think back 2000 years to what was thought of as complex. What do you think we will see in the next 2000 years?

I can appreciate Einstein the mathematician and physicist. What were his qualifications in Biology again? You're raising an Argument from Incredulity with an Appeal to Authority, and then not able to stay within the context of the discussion.

If you're suggesting an intelligence behind it all, then make sure you are ready to deal with the apparent mistakes that are inherent in the "design" you are attempting to put forth when rationalizing the mechanics of the natural world.

As a side note, would it interest you to know that Einstein may be wrong about some of those laws dealing with the Universe?

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Einstein isn't wrong, special relativity has been proven accurate, general relativity however, has properties to it that could never be proven until humanity grows a TARDIS.

 

[redhawk23]

As a side note, would it interest you to know that Einstein may be wrong about some of those laws dealing with the Universe?

Of course he might be wrong. He was a physicist not a prophet. You'd be hard pressed to find a physicist or mathematician who isn't trying to PROVE that he is wrong. Nothing is taken for granted. It is only because so many have failed to improve upon Einstein's findings that he so respected, as opposed to say Stephen Hawking in recent years, who though while famous and certainly still personally respected, his theories have fallen out of favor due to conflicting evidence.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Yeah, but his Black Hole decay through Hawking radiation was a stroke of brilliance, as was the opposite force to a Black Hole is a Black Hole.

 

[Dr.]

But what does that Einstein nut know about anything? What a fool he was for believing any intelligent being could take the position of suspecting the possibility of an inexplicable mysterious order in the universe manifesting in a ridiculous level of perfect harmony. What a disgrace of a scientist he is. He should have bothered learning something that does not disprove what he states, like Evolutionary Biology, instead of making an argument from incredulity.

Obviously, some sarcasm there. But it’s difficult to know if the whole thing is to be read as such.

Just to be clear: Einstein did not believe in a personal god or an “intelligent agent” who fashioned the order of the Universe. The order was to be marveled at, to be sure. And Einstein spent a lifetime doing so. But he didn’t think it was sentient in the conventionally religious sense. It certainly wasn’t something that anyone could have a conversation with (e.g., through prayer) or something that could or should be worshipped.

 

[Bill]

Of course he might be wrong. He was a physicist not a prophet. You'd be hard pressed to find a physicist or mathematician who isn't trying to PROVE that he is wrong. Nothing is taken for granted. It is only because so many have failed to improve upon Einstein's findings that he so respected, as opposed to say Stephen Hawking in recent years, who though while famous and certainly still personally respected, his theories have fallen out of favor due to conflicting evidence.

Whoa, folks. I'm not trying to spit on the altar of Einstein. Just illustrating that he is falliable, especially when dealing with subjects outside his expertise.

 

[redhawk23]

Whoa, folks. I'm not trying to spit on the altar of Einstein. Just illustrating that he is falliable, especially when dealing with subjects outside his expertise.

Nah, I agree with you. That was my point. That he isn't on an altar. Nor that he or anyone else should be. No one ever said he was infallible and anyone who acts like his is foolish.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

He made a a huge error in saying there was no cosmological constant force, which there is, which left cosmology sort of baffled, which he admitted was his greatest blunder.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Was talking to a recovering heroin addict yesterday, who said he was struggling with religion because he couldn't see it was possible.

So I asked him why he struggled at all? If you don't believe, you don't believe (cause that's how I see my atheism having come about).

He said he struggled because he WANTED to believe.

I couldn't really respond to that. I just said 'fair enough'.

I have absolutely no problem with that form of spiritual belief. The kind that really helps people get through the day.

 

[redhawk23]

He made a a huge error in saying there was no cosmological constant force, which there is, which left cosmology sort of baffled, which he admitted was his greatest blunder.

Faced with the evidence, he admitted he was wrong.

Thus the difference between the scientific approach and that of the general stance of the Abrahamic religions.

 

[Manic]

Was talking to a recovering heroin addict yesterday, who said he was struggling with religion because he couldn't see it was possible.

So I asked him why he struggled at all? If you don't believe, you don't believe (cause that's how I see my atheism having come about).

He said he struggled because he WANTED to believe.

I couldn't really respond to that. I just said 'fair enough'.

I have absolutely no problem with that form of spiritual belief. The kind that really helps people get through the day.

I know a few recovering addicts, and latching onto a religion has really helped them. I think some addicts feel alone in their struggles, and thinking that there's someone with them all the time watching their backs seems to help.