Atheism: Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[Jerry Siegel]

All I did was add my answer directly underneath it, common practice dude.

You put your answers inside my quote, so the only thing I can quote is see above. If you want me to reply, do like hopefulsuicide does and separate your answers from my quote. Otherwise, I won't reply.

You seem to implicitly support this notion. In the world we currently live in, whether or not rights are an objective fact, it is beneficial for us to have rights.

Don't put words in my mouth. If rights don't exist objectively, they don't exist. How can you rationally argue about rights without an objective basis on which to judge them?

 

[Sloth7d]

You're basically checking things off a list here. Faith is irrational but emotional, then it must be meaningless to anyone who has their emotional needs filled. Check. Irrationality leads to ignorance and bigotry. Check.

You don't get it, and you probably won't get it, because you're rationalizing it here too. I believe what I believe because it feels right and it makes sense to me. Simple as that.

Not true. Just because faith may not be rational does not make it exempt from rational criticism or analysis. If what it breaks down to is what you describe then it's just a subjective phenomenom which is no more different from art or beauty. In that case, it has no basis to determine what's real, only what you find desirable, and I'm content with using that feeling to better appreciate what I have and is real, than what I wish was real so that I may have it. And even then, I keep my emotions on a short leash because, like it or not, they're just not suited for to help anyone make good decisions.

It isn't as if I don't get it, though. I wasn't always the skeptic. I went through the rituals of Catholicism back when my dad indoctrinated me into that, and then Baptists when my mother transitioned me to that. I thought my friend David was crazy not to believe in God when he first told me, and I thought I saved his soul when I ratted him out to his parents. Now I'm happy not to have to worry about the eternal souls of my friends burning. And besides the fear of my religion's punishments, I'm happy not to waste time with spiritual rituals of any kind when I could be doing something productive for my material self and still have happiness and meaning in my life.

That said, I don't have problem with spiritual people in general. In fact, the more atheists I see treat religion in general like it's the problem rather than the specifics of the specific religion, the more annoyed I get. I mostly agree with Sam Harris, that it's not religion that's a problem, but the religions full of intolerance and bigotry that are. This is why most of my vitriol is reserved for the Abrahamic faiths. Though I think, at the very least, Christianity can be salvaged if people would just ripp out and discard the part of their Bibles not titled Mark, Luke, John, and Matthew, since it seems like too many of them (cough Conservatives ahem) use the OT as a guide for morality like the Jews instead of using it as context for what goes in these four books.

Also, it might open the door for ignorance and bigotry, but you've got to choose to walk through that door. Even when I was kind of Christian, I didn't let that affect my scientific beliefs,

If you were "kind of" a Christian, I wouldn't doubt that your scientific beliefs would remain in check. Someone who has complete faith in the religion and feel it to be right and because it feels right would likely have a problem with things like zoology, the big bang, and modern dating techniques.

and being a bigot is more the person's fault for *****ebaggery than it is the fault of what they believe.

When I was a Christian, I thought homosexuality was wrong. I tried to preach to homosexuals about it. I wasn't friends with these "unrepentant people" because of it. And I had nothing against them, but I was taught that what they were doing was wrong. It didn't make sense, but I figured God knew what he was talking about. Thus, faith opened the door to my irrational intolerance which allowed my religion to push me through.

That being said, I think the other big issue in this discussion is the over-generalization of people based on their beliefs.

This is true, and though I went on a tangent a bit, I still don't see how you can't see the problem in trying to give faith some special treatment above rationality or even leave it immune to criticism from rational argument. I don't really see how you can have such pride in your emotions despite how misleading human feelings can be and the foolish situations it can set us up for. I'm no stoic or loljedi, but I've learned from my previous faith it's best to have some doubt in all things, even real things you love, ( a sort of ll emcompassing agnosticism) and nearly complete doubt in things you can't prove if you don't want to find out what's really right and makes sense rather than feel like it's right and makes sense.

 

[Jerry Siegel]

I mostly agree with Sam Harris, that it's not religion that's a problem, but the religions full of intolerance and bigotry that are.

Rather than saying some religions are good and some are bad, just get rid of all religions. By its very definition, religion is irrational.

I think, at the very least, Christianity can be salvaged if people would just ripp out and discard the part of their Bibles not titled Mark, Luke, John, and Matthew, since it seems like too many of them (cough Conservatives ahem) use the OT as a guide for morality like the Jews instead of using it as context for what goes in these four books.

Either the bible's holy or it isn't. That's just picking and choosing, which is one of christianity's big problems anyway. Besides, it says in the new testament that one should still follow the old testament. And jesus isn't such a great guy.

 

[Spider-Who?]

When I was a Christian, I thought homosexuality was wrong. I tried to preach to homosexuals about it. I wasn't friends with these "unrepentant people" because of it. And I had nothing against them, but I was taught that what they were doing was wrong. It didn't make sense, but I figured God knew what he was talking about. Thus, faith opened the door to my irrational intolerance which allowed my religion to push me through.

This is the problem that many people have, and is what gives other religious people a bad name. People stop reading and understanding the bible too early. They look at the "don't do this" stuff and then stop, which is a dangerous thing. Its so easy for people to check of a list of all the bad things they dont do, skip the middle, and rejoice in "going to heaven" while others dont.

Believing that homosexuality is not correct is not intolerance. It's an opinion. Ignorant and hateful people push that opinion towards intolerance. Tolerance isn't about changing your stance, its about accepting something for what it is despite your stance. If people were honest about themselves, what the bible teaches, and were more regulated to what Jesus taught, there were be a LOT less of this problem. How do you work with others and teach them if you keep them at a distance? Jesus was friends with sinners. He led through example, higher thought and love. He didn't ostracize the people that didn't agree with him or acted wrong; in fact, aside from his disciples, he spent MOST OF HIS TIME hanging out and talking with people that most of "us" wouldn't go within 50 feet of.

That's wrong.

 

[Jerry Siegel]

This is the problem that many people have, and is what gives other religious people a bad name. People stop reading and understanding the bible too early. They look at the "don't do this" stuff and then stop, which is a dangerous thing. Its so easy for people to check of a list of all the bad things they dont do, skip the middle, and rejoice in "going to heaven" while others dont.

Believing that homosexuality is not correct is not intolerance. It's an opinion. Ignorant and hateful people push that opinion towards intolerance. Tolerance isn't about changing your stance, its about accepting something for what it is despite your stance. If people were honest about themselves, what the bible teaches, and were more regulated to what Jesus taught, there were be a LOT less of this problem. How do you work with others and teach them if you keep them at a distance? Jesus was friends with sinners. He led through example, higher thought and love. He didn't ostracize the people that didn't agree with him or acted wrong; in fact, aside from his disciples, he spent MOST OF HIS TIME hanging out and talking with people that most of "us" wouldn't go within 50 feet of.

That's wrong.

You have no idea how sad I feel for you.

 

[Spider-Who?]

You have no idea how sad I feel for you.

Funny, I feel sad for you.

 

[Jerry Siegel]

Funny, I feel sad for you.

Why is that?

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I was presented with the idea of god. I came to the conclusion I didn't believe in him. I was presented with the idea of no god. I came to the conclusion I didn't believe that either. It's my opinion you believe only what you feel you need to believe.

It is my opinion that we have absolutely no control over what we believe... It's almost instinctual, immediate.

Yes, someone can change your mind if they present reasons for you to believe something, but until someone gives me a reason not to think there is no God, I will always hold that belief.

But I completely accept that you believe neither. As complicated as that is, it makes sense, and is pretty much the conception of an agnostic that most people have.

Both evidence. Different things though. That matters to me. I think of different things differently.

You said the WAY in which they could be proven or disproven would be different. As in the method.

And then you used two examples of the same method - evidence - to support your claim.

I know you said beef. I meant to say beef. I said belief because I have the word on the brain at this stage. But I still don't have a beef. A beef is a big problem. I have an INTENSE M*****F***ING HATRED!

Lol, I can understand the word being on the brain. I feel that it's semantics are going round and round in my head too.

If you believe something that you have no reason to doubt, fine. If you believe something that you have reason to doubt, and you don't have any evidence to back up your belief, that's called faith. I hate faith.

Hmmm...

I guess I do have faith then.

I have faith in reality. I have faith in what is tangible and what can be proven. And I have faith that things which cannot be proven yet, should never be considered true until they are.

And I have faith that, when logic indicates something doesn't exist, and there is absolutely no proof of it existing whatsoever, and the origins of the very idea are not from sound, informed or trustworthy sources... That's because it doesn't exist.

So yeah, I have faith that there is no God I suppose.

 

[Jerry Siegel]

It is my opinion that we have absolutely no control over what we believe... It's almost instinctual, immediate.

Yes, someone can change your mind if they present reasons for you to believe something, but until someone gives me a reason not to think there is no God, I will always hold that belief.

But I completely accept that you believe neither. As complicated as that is, it makes sense, and is pretty much the conception of an agnostic that most people have.

I would call myself an agnostic atheist antitheist.

You said the WAY in which they could be proven or disproven would be different. As in the method.

And then you used two examples of the same method - evidence - to support your claim.

Would you go about solving a kidnapping in the same way as you'd go about solving a murder?

Hmmm...

I guess I do have faith then.

I have faith in reality. I have faith in what is tangible and what can be proven. And I have faith that things which cannot be proven yet, should never be considered true until they are.

And I have faith that, when logic indicates something doesn't exist, and there is absolutely no proof of it existing whatsoever, and the origins of the very idea are not from sound, informed or trustworthy sources... That's because it doesn't exist.

So yeah, I have faith that there is no God I suppose.

Logic does not indicate that a god doesn't exist. There is no indication that one does exist.

 

[Sloth7d]

Rather than saying some religions are good and some are bad, just get rid of all religions. By its very definition, religion is irrational.

Curious. What definition would that be? Some would say religion is defined as merely a belief system while others would say it's a belief system that incorperates elements of the super natural. I assume you mean something close to the latter?

As for your notion of getting rid of all religions, I don't see that happening. Religion by it's very nature seems to be a natural instinct in humans to cope with the limits of reality. That being the case, I would hope to at least cull the herd of the intolerant ones.

Either the bible's holy or it isn't. That's just picking and choosing, which is one of christianity's big problems anyway. Besides, it says in the new testament that one should still follow the old testament. And jesus isn't such a great guy.

The Bible isn't just one book though. It's a book of books. Figuring out which books are accepted canon, which books take precedence over which, and which books aren't canon has been the subject of debate for centuries. In any case, I don't think it's holy anyway. That wasn't my point.

This is the problem that many people have, and is what gives other religious people a bad name. People stop reading and understanding the bible too early. They look at the "don't do this" stuff and then stop, which is a dangerous thing. Its so easy for people to check of a list of all the bad things they dont do, skip the middle, and rejoice in "going to heaven" while others dont.

Believing that homosexuality is not correct is not intolerance. It's an opinion. Ignorant and hateful people push that opinion towards intolerance.

Sure, believing it is merely an opinion. A bigoted opinion but still an opinion. It doesn't become intolerance until you express it in some way. Of course, The Bible asks more than that you hold that belief, but that you spread it's word as well. That is intolerance and hate speech.

Tolerance isn't about changing your stance, its about accepting something for what it is despite your stance.

Um, but the Bible does not tell you to accept someone else's stance before The Lord's. You're speaking from a secular perspective.

If people were honest about themselves, what the bible teaches, and were more regulated to what Jesus taught, there were be a LOT less of this problem. How do you work with others and teach them if you keep them at a distance? Jesus was friends with sinners.

Everyone is a sinner. Of course Jesus was friends with sinners, but Jesus was friends with repentent sinners; people who wanted to change. He wasn't hanging around with the Pharisees though. They came and left him as they felt like, and he publically denounces them several times. So for me, if they wouldn't consider thinking of striving to "be better", as I considered it then, I saw no reason to further a close connection to that person. They WERE my Pharisees, and with every counter argument they gave me to mine, I considered them liars and hypocrites trying to trap and trick me.

He led through example, higher thought and love. He didn't ostracize the people that didn't agree with him or acted wrong; in fact, aside from his disciples, he spent MOST OF HIS TIME hanging out and talking with people that most of "us" wouldn't go within 50 feet of.

That's wrong.

Except the Pharisees and people who use the temple as a market. Why, oh why, couldn't Jesus just learn to tolerate their difference of opinion? A guy sets up a coke machine in a church and suddenly Jesus starts ostricizing people. It's like he's giving Christians a bad name or something.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I would call myself an agnostic atheist antitheist.

I guess I'm just an antitheist atheist.

Would you go about solving a kidnapping in the same way as you'd go about solving a murder?

Yes.

Look for evidence, motive, interview suspects, analyse the crime scene etc.

Logic does not indicate that a god doesn't exist. There is no indication that one does exist.

I disagree. I think it is plenty logical to think God doesn't exist.

 

[Jerry Siegel]

Curious. What definition would that be? Some would say religion is defined as merely a belief system while others would say it's a belief system that incorperates elements of the super natural. I assume you mean something close to the latter?

When I think of religion, I'm thinking of at least one deity. I can't name any religions that don't involve belief in at least one deity.

As for your notion of getting rid of all religions, I don't see that happening. Religion by it's very nature seems to be a natural instinct in humans to cope with the limits of reality. That being the case, I would hope to at least cull the herd of the intolerant ones.

I don't see it happening either. I'm just saying how I'd like this world to be, but I'll never get what I want. People are just too ****ed up.

The Bible isn't just one book though. It's a book of books. Figuring out which books are accepted canon, which books take precedence over which, and which books aren't canon has been the subject of debate for centuries. In any case, I don't think it's holy anyway. That wasn't my point.

To christians, the bible is the holy word of god. Picking and choosing which books should be accepted and which shouldn't and ranking books in order of precedence is ridiculous and laughable. Either the bible is the holy word of god or it isn't. Either every single word printed in that book is absolutely true down to the letter, or none of it is true.

 

[Jerry Siegel]

I guess I'm just an antitheist atheist.



Yes.

Look for evidence, motive, interview suspects, analyse the crime scene etc.

But you'd look for different evidence, different motives, interview different suspects, analyze different crime scenes. The basic, general method is the same. But the specifics are different. And I'm not interested in the general, I'm interested in the specific.

I disagree. I think it is plenty logical to think God doesn't exist.

Which god?

 

[hopefuldreamer]

But you'd look for different evidence, different motives, interview different suspects, analyze different crime scenes. The basic, general method is the same. But the specifics are different. And I'm not interested in the general, I'm interested in the specific.

I'm getting bored of this arguement.

It originated with me saying that God being proven or Fairies being proven can only be achieved through evidence.

I don't know why you even think that the fact proof of fairies would be dust, and Gods would be mountains has any impact AGAINST my assertion.

Just like your analogy above.

I have joe bloggs on suspicion of murder and mary sue on suspicion of kidnapping - how do I prove they did it? The evidence.

It doesn't matter whether that evidence is a fingernail or a strand of hair. It PROVES they did it.

Just as ANY evidence of God or Fairies would help prove their existence, regardless of the 'specifics' that your pointing out for whatever reason.

Which god?

I'll rephrase.

I think it's plenty logical to believe there is no God or Gods of any kind.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

When I think of religion, I'm thinking of at least one deity. I can't name any religions that don't involve belief in at least one deity.

Buddhism is the most well known, but there are plenty more.

 

[Sloth7d]

When I think of religion, I'm thinking of at least one deity. I can't name any religions that don't involve belief in at least one deity.

Fair enough, but I think of it as being synonymous with belief or philosophy. I don't think it has to involve the super natural as a mandatory, and going by one of Webster's definitions, it doesn't.

I don't see it happening either. I'm just saying how I'd like this world to be, but I'll never get what I want. People are just too ****ed up.

I don''t see what's wrong with religion so long as it isn't one that conflicts with science or proposes bigoted view points. Why are you so against the idea in general to the point that you think most people are screwed up because of it?

To christians, the bible is the holy word of god. Picking and choosing which books should be accepted and which shouldn't and ranking books in order of precedence is ridiculous and laughable. Either the bible is the holy word of god or it isn't. Either every single word printed in that book is absolutely true down to the letter, or none of it is true.

To Christian's who have no idea how they got the Bible's they have now or the many different Bible's that came before it. Yes, a lot of Christians do believe these books came all together as a packaged deal and will laugh at anyone who tries to tell them about how what was selected to be in the Bible was chosen by the priest to get in their, and how certain books of the Bible relate to, and in some cases aren't meant to relate to, other books from a theological perspective. One thing you have to remember though; the reason they are laughing is because they don't know about this stuff because they never went to college for it or even read a book on it. If they did, they would know that it isn't an all or nothing deal. Fortunately, some Christians do know this; mostly Liberal Christians.

 

[Sloth7d]

Buddhism is the most well known, but there are plenty more.

Buddhism has devas.

 

[Dr.]

Logic does not indicate that a god doesn't exist.

At the very least, logic could certainly indicate such a thing. In classical logic, it’s called modus tollens. In “argument form,” it’s expressed like this:

If P, then Q.
Not Q.
Therefore, not P.

This is logically valid.

Now, you might take issue with its applicability to more empirical contexts and the god question. (Though, even there, it’s fairly robust. See evidence of absence.) But the general principle is definitely embedded in formal logic.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Buddhism has devas.

Devas are not deities. They are not immortal, they are not omnicient or omnipotent, they are not morally perfect and are considered to have their own path in life.

 

[Schlosser85]

Many Christians (including my roommates) believe the Bible was written by men and therefore is not infallible. They would generally say the true basis of Christianity is the original teachings of Christ.

Adhering to a certain religion isn't about agreeing with every single word of it (there's not a person alive, or ever has been, who follows every word of the Bible), it's about finding the belief system that works the best for you.

 

[Sloth7d]

Devas are not deities. They are not immortal, they are not omnicient or omnipotent, they are not morally perfect and are considered to have their own path in life.

They aren't, but not every religion defines their gods as such. Even in the early myths of the Greeks and Egyptians gods could be killed, were fallible, and limited. The idea of a single, perfect, immortal power mostly comes from monotheism, and even then mostly because of the influence of Plato.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

They aren't, but not every religion defines their gods as such. Even in the early myths of the Greeks and Egyptians gods could be killed, were fallible, and limited. The idea of a single, perfect, immortal power mostly comes from monotheism, and even then mostly because of the influence of Plato.

Yeah I guess I see your point.

Buddhism is like most religions; it's followers pick and choose which bits they believe and which bits they don't.

My Dad (who in fairness, I don't know all that well) is a buddhist monk who is an atheist and doesn't even believe in karma or any of the supernatural aspects. He says that a lot of what has been 'attached' to buddhism did not come from Buddha, but from the influences of popular theism of the time and place, and that the earlier of Buddhas teachings you read, the more of the actual message you get.

I'm not expert myself, but the way he describes Buddhas teachings always sounded really appealing to me. Alot to do with finding peace within your mind and body, and understanding yourself.

 

[-Arya-]

Don't put words in my mouth. If rights don't exist objectively, they don't exist. How can you rationally argue about rights without an objective basis on which to judge them?

My argument is not to advocate the idea that rights are objectively real just as electromagnetic waves are for example. My argument is that rights can exist as one piece of our impressions of fairness and cooperation. They exist right now so we can better organize the complex societies currently in existence; taking into account the many similarities and differences between individuals. We can use objective methods (science), juxtapose those methods with our justice system and ultimately improve humanity. Are we close to doing this? No, but the possibility is certainly there.

 

[Sloth7d]

Yeah I guess I see your point.

Buddhism is like most religions; it's followers pick and choose which bits they believe and which bits they don't.

My Dad (who in fairness, I don't know all that well) is a buddhist monk who is an atheist and doesn't even believe in karma or any of the supernatural aspects. He says that a lot of what has been 'attached' to buddhism did not come from Buddha, but from the influences of popular theism of the time and place, and that the earlier of Buddhas teachings you read, the more of the actual message you get.

I'm not expert myself, but the way he describes Buddhas teachings always sounded really appealing to me. Alot to do with finding peace within your mind and body, and understanding yourself.

Yeah, from what little I understand of it, their gods and spirits aren't really important, and it is called on the person to better himself through disciplining his desires rather than asking for blessings from a god or spirit.

Lately, I've been so focused in reading Nietzsche and various books detailing the history of the Abrahamic religions that I hadn't gotten around to Buddhism. I think I got past the first chapter in Karen Armstrong's book on Siddhartha, and two in another person's book, of whom I forget the name of, before getting distracted. Other than that, I only know a little from various sources in passing.

 

[Bat-Mite]

When it comes to Buddhism, there's a variety of views on the subject of gods. There are Jewish Buddhists (JuBus) who practice their Jewish faith while practicing Buddhist ethics and meditation techniques. There have also been Christians, such as Thomas Merton, who have done the same. Most Western practitioners of Buddhism probably tend to lean more towards an atheistic view, but with the exception of Tibetan Buddhism (which has a lot in common with Hinduism), deities just are not important in Buddhism because they are seen as living in a realm of suffering and ignorance. Being a buddha means that you have overcome the ignorance that gods and all other beings are trapped in.

Even so, a buddha is not a thing to be worshiped. The Buddha called his followers fools when they compared him to an angel, deity, etc. because they were too caught up in the teacher and not focusing on the teaching. The important thing to take away from Buddhism's position on gods is that, even though traditional Buddhism states that they're there, it also states that they are irrelevant. They are not a thing to be worshiped because they are just as ignorant as the average Joe. This begs the question as to why there are Christian and Jewish Buddhists, but Buddhism is a very flexible philosophy and those practitioners probably just disregard Buddhism's traditional teachings about gods. It's not like they're going to get kicked out of a Buddhist temple just because they also go to a church or synagogue and worship a god there. I think that Jainism has a similar position on the subject of gods.