The Atheism Thread - Part 5

[Thundercrack85]

I have to disagree there. Leave religious people to their own devices and well.. remember the Dark Ages? Have you ever lived in a theocracy? The worst societies are theocracies.

People need to challenge illogic.

 

[Matt Mortem]

I have to disagree there. Leave religious people to their own devices and well.. remember the Dark Ages? Have you ever lived in a theocracy? The worst societies are theocracies.

People need to challenge illogic.

I'm speaking purely on a personal, one-on-one basis. I don't think religion has any place in government or national policy. On a one-on-one conversation though, just let people be however religious they want to be. It costs you nothing to let people believe. I will again qualify that with saying that once it reaches the national conversation and starts to effect policy, that's when you step in.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I'm speaking purely on a personal, one-on-one basis. I don't think religion has any place in government or national policy. On a one-on-one conversation though, just let people be however religious they want to be. It costs you nothing to let people believe. I will again qualify that with saying that once it reaches the national conversation and starts to effect policy, that's when you step in.

If they keep it to themselves, it wouldn't bother me. But they rarely do.

Still it's not like I go around telling individuals they are wrong, unless they throw their holy book at me (that happens more than you'd think).

 

[Matt Mortem]

If they keep it to themselves, it wouldn't bother me. But they rarely do.

Still it's not like I go around telling individuals they are wrong, unless they throw their holy book at me (that happens more than you'd think).

My original post was directed at the sort of atheists that hunt down people of faith with the sole intent of telling them they're wrong. I don't agree with that.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

My original post was directed at the sort of atheists that hunt down people of faith with the sole intent of telling them they're wrong. I don't agree with that.

Oh, well then. No. I don't do that.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I like having my positions challenged, though it does get a bit tiresome at times, when we don't agree on reality, since it makes discourse rather pointless.

If you can't win an argument with facts... how do you win an argument?

That's why I'm rather weary of creationists. You can have an interesting discussion with deists. Theists, not so much, they're too far gone.

Too true. Someone working in a theology department who is "religious" will at least allow themselves to live in reality, so it's more of a spirituality in that regard.

 

[Hawkingbird]

I have to disagree there. Leave religious people to their own devices and well.. remember the Dark Ages? Have you ever lived in a theocracy? The worst societies are theocracies.

People need to challenge illogic.

I honestly don't see what makes religion illogical. If you use the reductionist argument, a creator is all you're left with.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I honestly don't see what makes religion illogical. If you use the reductionist argument, a creator is all you're left with.

I can cite specific examples (claims of people talking to animals are commonly found in most religions), or to put it more concisely, extraordinary claims, requires extraordinary evidence.

If you say there's a creator, then I'd have to ask (aside from what evidence you have for one, which is none), where did the creator come from? And then we're back to square one.

 

[Danalys]

Now one thing I find odd about your logic is you suggest that our understanding of something having emotions is not a convincing reason not to eat it. If this is truly what you believe, I'm curious as to what something about something could we understand to be convincing to act upon it, particularly, to act upon not eating it?

well traditionally the reasons are that either it has more use as a working animal, more appeal as a pet ,or it's a predator or kin. these are aspects we have evolved to live by. morality is often similar, as it is an evolved philosophy to strengthen the species chances of survival.

 

[boywonder13]

I have to disagree there. Leave religious people to their own devices and well.. remember the Dark Ages? Have you ever lived in a theocracy? The worst societies are theocracies.

People need to challenge illogic.

The "Dark Ages" is considered in scholarship to be a very loaded and incorrect term to describe the period of the middle ages. Sure sucky things happened during that period, but sucky things happen in ours too. There are also tons of "myths" reported about this period which have turned out to be untrue when the bias of enlightenment historians was overcome, and modern scholarship started to peel away some of these "myths" (ie. believed world was flat) and also found or refocused on many of the triumphs of the so called "Dark Ages". I know its common in some Atheist rhetoric to make this period one of utter religious depravity (we would be colonizing space right now if it wasn't for the Dark Ages)when really it was not.

 

[redhawk23]

Not to mention that it was largely the work of monks and the efforts of the Catholic church that many important historical texts and works of philosophy have survived to the modern day. Also there was that whole thing of founding the modern University system.

 

[Doctor Evo]

I honestly don't see what makes religion illogical. If you use the reductionist argument, a creator is all you're left with.

You should expand on this.

 

[TheBat812]

I honestly don't see what makes religion illogical. If you use the reductionist argument, a creator is all you're left with.

Are we talking about religion here? or about the fact that there might be a creator that's impossible to prove either way?

Belief in God makes sense, belief in literal translations of old fables don't, to me.

 

[Edguy]

Let's say there is a God - how would he work physically? Would he be describable by our current physics, though extrordinarily technologically and/or biologically advanced? Or some being partly or completely outside of the physics currently theorized and understood?

No, "beyond understanding" is not a valid answer.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Not to mention that it was largely the work of monks and the efforts of the Catholic church that many important historical texts and works of philosophy have survived to the modern day. Also there was that whole thing of founding the modern University system.

Yes, works they often altered for their own benefit.

Let's not go into the Catholic church.

 

[Thundercrack85]

The "Dark Ages" is considered in scholarship to be a very loaded and incorrect term to describe the period of the middle ages. Sure sucky things happened during that period, but sucky things happen in ours too. There are also tons of "myths" reported about this period which have turned out to be untrue when the bias of enlightenment historians was overcome, and modern scholarship started to peel away some of these "myths" (ie. believed world was flat) and also found or refocused on many of the triumphs of the so called "Dark Ages". I know its common in some Atheist rhetoric to make this period one of utter religious depravity (we would be colonizing space right now if it wasn't for the Dark Ages)when really it was not.

It was a terrible time when religion had the most power it would ever have in Europe. That much is indisputable. The Renaissance is when the Church started losing much of its power (thanks a great deal to King Henry's child making problems, and religious reformers).

Tell me what you know about these myths. The persecution of Jews, the murder of thousands of alleged witches, and the theft of their land. Mindless religious genocide and war.

 

[redhawk23]

It was a terrible time when religion had the most power it would ever have in Europe. That much is indisputable. The Renaissance is when the Church started losing much of its power (thanks a great deal to King Henry's child making problems, and religious reformers).

Tell me what you know about these myths. The persecution of Jews, the murder of thousands of alleged witches, and the theft of their land. Mindless religious genocide and war.

The enforced atheism of the Soviet Union was just as terrible, if not worse.

 

[redhawk23]

Yes, works they often altered for their own benefit.

Let's not go into the Catholic church.

I'm just saying, lets not act as if the Church was a black hole of knowledge that stunted societal growth and that'd we'd be living on mars if not for their intervention as is the usual narrative people try to spin about the so called "dark ages."

It is true that a huge amount of technological and cultural wealth was lost with the collapse of the Roman empire, but much of what was saved, and much of the foundation of socalled modern Western civilization, and what eventually became the foundation of science and the Enlightenment period was preserved and passed on by the church. Not to mention a long devotion to expanding literacy and general education among the population.

It is absolutely fine to criticize the Church and other religious institutions for the amount of terrible crap they've pulled in their long histories, but don't overstate your argument, it does you no good.

 

[Thundercrack85]

The enforced atheism of the Soviet Union was just as terrible, if not worse.

You're not going to argue that the Soviets did what they did in the name of atheism, are you?

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

The enforced atheism of the Soviet Union was just as terrible, if not worse.

Enforced nationalism. They weren't opposing worship, so long as it was to Mother Russia and Stalin.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I'm just saying, lets not act as if the Church was a black hole of knowledge that stunted societal growth and that'd we'd be living on mars if not for their intervention as is the usual narrative people try to spin about the so called "dark ages."

It is true that a huge amount of technological and cultural wealth was lost with the collapse of the Roman empire, but much of what was saved, and much of the foundation of socalled modern Western civilization, and what eventually became the foundation of science and the Enlightenment period was preserved and passed on by the church. Not to mention a long devotion to expanding literacy and general education among the population.

It is absolutely fine to criticize the Church and other religious institutions for the amount of terrible crap they've pulled in their long histories, but don't overstate your argument, it does you no good.

As much as it pains me to admit it, yes, the Church played a key role in preserving a lot of knowledge. For all the wrong reasons, and a lot of it didn't go unscathed, but yes. Though you do seem to be glossing over the part where they tried to intimidate / kill anyone who challenged their "scientific" view of the universe, and their suppression of women and religious minorities.

I don't think there are any deeds that can undo the crimes of the Church (some of which continue to this day). Of course, that's why half of Europe broke away from the Church (well that, and a certain English king's libido).

 

[NateHevens]

So, I've been having some trouble with atheisms v religious types. I'm an agnostic. I won't call myself atheist, but I can't claim any faith either. My trouble is I have a lot of militant atheist friends and I genuinely believe what they do is wrong. Every facebook post is something attacking someone's faith. Or it's a post about why not having a faith is the best way to be. It just goes on and on and on. It is my belief that a hardcore atheist shoving his belief (or non-belief) down someone's throat is as bad as, say, a bible thumping uber Christian condemning you to Hell for not believing the same as they do. I think people should be able to do, or believe whatever makes them happy, just so long as it doesn't infringe on the happiness of others.

I might be a 'militant atheist' as I will attack someone faith, and I'm pretty blunt about it.

However as to the agnosticism, well, I guess technically that is what I am since evidence of a God can and will sway me, if such a thing existed.

Yay! I get to promote my favorite blog post again!

Knowledge vs. Belief: Agnostic Atheism

tl;dr:
Since knowledge and belief aren't actually the same thing, one can be both an agnostic and an atheist.

And since everyone alive, whether they admit it or not, is actually agnostic, since we don't actually yet know what caused the Big Bang, the label "agnostic" is redundant and should always be assumed.

I also hate the term "atheist" because I'm not chronically reminding myself there is no God, praying to my non-God, and so it's not an "-ism". It's just a gap in my knowledge and I'm taking a default position of what I believe requires evidence.

As Carl Sagan said (and this is my motto): "I don't want to believe. I want to know."

Also... atheism is a legitimate label as long as we're still one of the most hated minorities in the world.

So I do find faith fairly daft. It's stupid, yes stupid, to believe things or construct your life around a belief for which there is no evidence.

Agreed.

I also think I can be pretty much certain Christianity is wrong, even if the basic concept of a God isn't. It has to be a Deist type God at this point.

Exactly right. As a rule, impersonal deities are more likely than personal deities, strictly because impersonal deities would, by definition, be less complex.

How is that ok, though? While I certainly don't subscribe to the dogma's of the various faiths, I don't think attack people who hold those beliefs to be a good use of time. It's just not constructive, and you won't change anyone's mind. All it does is initiate a needless conflict.

Depends on who's initiating the conflict.

For the record, posting atheist stuff on Facebook is not the same as searching out random theists to proselytize atheism on the streets.

Also, everybody does what you're complaining about on Facebook. Go find a Christian's Facebook page. More often than not, you'll find Bible verses, crap about how wonderful Jesus's love is, etc... and depending on how evangelical the particular Christian is, the latter can be borderline creepy..

I've also seen vegans, conservatives, liberals, socialists, people who are in love, cynics, sports fans, Zepheads, scientists, and more do exactly the same thing.

And yes, it's the exact same thing. Posting 300 status updates in a row about how you're in love with somebody and that everyone should be in love and so on and so forth is actually the exact same thing as posting about how stupid faith is. You're shoving stupid crap in people' faces. That's actually the whole point of Facebook.

It's not proselytizing, it's being part of an online social community.

It happened on MySpace, too.

I agree. I hate it when atheist feel they have the logical high ground. And I'm someone who doesn't believe in God.

No. Twice in one post?

Why... yes!

My original post was directed at the sort of atheists that hunt down people of faith with the sole intent of telling them they're wrong. I don't agree with that.

Erm... that's assuming there are atheists that do this.

Posting status updates on Facebook is not this, by the way.

 

[Hawkingbird]

I can cite specific examples (claims of people talking to animals are commonly found in most religions), or to put it more concisely, extraordinary claims, requires extraordinary evidence.

If you say there's a creator, then I'd have to ask (aside from what evidence you have for one, which is none), where did the creator come from? And then we're back to square one.

I do not have evidence. But do you have evidence to say there is none? It's why it's called faith.

I'm an atheist in a sense. However, I'm determined to not let people call it "stupid" and "illogical", because it isn't.

Are we talking about religion here? or about the fact that there might be a creator that's impossible to prove either way?


Belief in God makes sense, belief in literal translations of old fables don't, to me.

Actually, this is the way I see it.

 

[redhawk23]

You're not going to argue that the Soviets did what they did in the name of atheism, are you?

Certainly not. Atheism isn't a motivating factor. Its the lack of a philosophy. However they did restrict religious rights just as much as any theocracy. Their non-religious underpinnings contributed to similar results to the problems of theocracies. The potential for these problems don't go away simply by opposing religion.

 

[moviedoors]

I do not have evidence. But do you have evidence to say there is none?

That's not how it works. Proving a negative is impossible. Atheism is the null hypothesis. It's not making a claim. The burden of proof is always on the one making the extraordinary claim.