My atheism came about from schooling and the way may brain works. I was raised hardcore Mormon, and around ~11 I started to have doubts. As I grew older and learned more, my skepticism grew. It became incredibly clear to me that religion was a cultural invention from taking World History. Learning about the progress of science made it clear that God was used to explain that which we couldn't explain: As the realm of science explained more and more, God was relegated to less and less. This doesn't sound like the work of an all-knowing being to me. To me, it looks like humanity inventing something in their need for explanation.
So, I decided that if there was a God, it didn't manifest itself in human affairs, or if it did, it was capricious and random.
I went on to get a Philosophy degree (would you like fries with that?), and I have never heard a philosophically compelling argument for the existence of God. I remain a pragmatic atheist: I admit that I don't KNOW there is no God, but I think all the evidence points to the contrary (at least one that deals in human affairs), and live my life as if there is not one,
On April 23 2013 02:02 farvacola wrote: I became an atheist after "discovering" rationality and finding it very complementary to an egoistic view of the world. I lost my atheism once I figured out that not all knowledge is rational and, more importantly, that the symbol precedes the symbolized.
an example of not all knowledge is rational please.
"This song really lifts my spirits."
"I can't wait to see my brother."
"Whoa, I swore I just felt a bit of deja vu."
"Why?"
One can mealy mouth there way around clumsily applied neuroscience in pursuit of explaining some of these things, but no amount of scientific definition can create a hit song, nor can "rationality" win an election or "create" a group of friends.
Besides, even "rationality" is still just a word we use to speak to a concept we created. It is inherently limited via the means with which we can communicate it.
Edit: I'm not saying irrational God thoughts trump rational science thoughts. Simply that there are fringes of existence in which rationality proves unhelpful.
On April 23 2013 01:33 icydergosu wrote: From Jean-Luc Picard, obviously.
How can you watch that and still believe. :o
nice! thanks for this video! I was wondering what if ancient people referred to higher intellectual beings as "Gods". Clearly those people, full of superstitious beliefs would call fascinating things "magic" or godly stuff does not have terms, explanation or came up of such ideas so they resort to calling them Gods. Maybe those were people instructing them and giving them such ideas are highly advanced race capable such technology AKA aliens as shown in this clip. lol
For me personally it always made more sense to believe in God and then die and find out he didn't exist than the other way around...unless it was ever proven without a shadow of a doubt there's no higher being, being Atheist always seemed like a risky cop out to me.
On April 22 2013 22:58 woreyour wrote: I am mature enough to know what is right or wrong. I don't need that to be "moral"; I just don't need to be an asshole. And best of all, I can fap without feeling bad about it.
100% of the people who say that they are mature enough to "know right from wrong" are just not mature enough to know that the distinction isn't always easy. You have a strange sense of what morality is - it is intended to be the set of rules which prevent a person from being "an asshole".
Consider that sociopaths also view their version of morality (whereby some people are just supposed to die) to be completely legitimate. Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". This is where religion/morality comes in. It gives people a context in which to discuss right and wrong. Outside of religion, there is no good and evil, there is only legal and illegal.
That is a logical fallacy. Just because a being who created us says that something is moral, does not make it moral. If god was real and he really did order and / or condone the genocide and rape and slavery that's in the bible, it does not mean that it would be moral. It would still be evil. Morality can never be defined by an authority, no matter who it is.
I don't know how moral the original poster is, but his morality can't be worse than that of catholicism.
Morality is defined by an authority almost as a rule. Morality defined by someone without authority would be useless. Even individually-defined morality is assigned by virtue of each individual's authority over themselves.
If you can think of no morality worse than catholicism (which may contain instances of poor behavior in stories, but overall at least contains undertones of well-being for people), you have both a very small imagination, and a very limited knowledge of history.
Authority is required to enforce morality but I do not believe it is required to define it.
The Golden Rule, for example, requires no authority for definition.
Morality is generally defined within the confines of a society, both geographically and temporally. However there are some things that transcend even societal bounds. For example, I think almost every society would think of the murder of a fellow citizen of that same society as morally reprehensible. This has been true for thousands of years, and is honestly probably inherent in our very biology.
You don't see animals of the same species wantonly killing each other. Self-preservation is a strong motivating factor in that regard.
On April 22 2013 22:58 woreyour wrote: I am mature enough to know what is right or wrong. I don't need that to be "moral"; I just don't need to be an asshole. And best of all, I can fap without feeling bad about it.
100% of the people who say that they are mature enough to "know right from wrong" are just not mature enough to know that the distinction isn't always easy. You have a strange sense of what morality is - it is intended to be the set of rules which prevent a person from being "an asshole".
Consider that sociopaths also view their version of morality (whereby some people are just supposed to die) to be completely legitimate. Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". This is where religion/morality comes in. It gives people a context in which to discuss right and wrong. Outside of religion, there is no good and evil, there is only legal and illegal.
So do you believe slavery is morally acceptable, then?
The banning of slavery in most countries certainly wasn't a religiously motivated event. In fact, many people in the United States in particular used religion to defend slavery. That's not all that surprising, given what is actually contained in the Bible.
Human history shows that your assertion is just straight up wrong. Morality is based a lot on human knowledge and understanding both of the past and the current. I do not believe that people, even religious people, actually look toward religion for moral guidance. I think statements like "if it weren't for religion I'd probably be out there murdering people" are pretty fallacious because it doesn't hold up in reality.
All one needs to do to affirm this is to look at actual human history. Let's take some examples from American and European history, since we can probably relate to or exemplify some of these things.
Think about these things:
The numerous inquisitions throughout the middle ages. Let's focus on the Spanish Inquisition, since it's probably the most famous. The Spanish Inquisition was essentially intended to force Muslims and Jews to convert, or leave/die. The enforcement of Catholicism in Spain consisted of censorship, persecution, oppression, suppression, and torture of offenders: the nature of the punishable offenses could range from the verbal (blasphemy) to sexual (sodomy) to supernatural (witchcraft) among many many others. Thousands of people were affected over many years, many dying in the process. Do you consider this a good example of religious morals?
In the colonial period, did religion stop the American colonists from trampling over the natives, killing them, eradicating their peoples and their lands, and subjugating them? No. In fact, in many cases, religious leaders encouraged many practices we would consider today to be completely immoral. Many many people died in the interests of conversion and absolution/purification. At the time, it was considered absolutely the morally right thing to do: these people were being "saved" from an eternity in hell. And of course, if they didn't listen, the converters were doing a favor for everyone by killing the heathen unbelieving savages. Sounds pretty ridiculous, no?
Again, during the colonial period: do you recall the numerous witch trials and the results of Puritanism in New England? I can guarantee you that today, burning a teenage girl at the stake over mere religious hysteria would be outrageous. No one would stand for that.
There are many more examples from human history that I can find and display for you, some of which are happening right now. The simple fact is that religion is not and never has been a good moral compass. It's honestly actually one of the worst things you can use as a guide, given its track record. No other human societal institution has demonstrated as much propensity to subvert, oppress, control and hurt both the individual and the masses.
As to the subject of this blog, I don't actually remember when I became atheist. I was born in a Muslim family and grew up half-practicing, even reading the Koran till I was around 12 or 13. However I do know for a fact I never really believed in God or any sort of higher power. I started questioning why others believed probably in elementary school and I was pretty taken aback at the beliefs in Santa, God, the tooth fairy, and all sorts of other things at a very young age. By the time I was a freshman in high school I had spent lots of time on the internet reading about almost everything, and a lot of the time it was about logic and religion; two things I found in utter contradiction of each other.
How on earth did you get from my post to "So you think slavery is okay, do you?" Why is it that whenever people talk about religion, we can't talk like rational adults?
Can't I believe in god but not believe in the "holiness" of the crusades? Can't I believe in God without believing in everything anyone has done in his name? If some guy out in the wilderness says "the only people who are really atheists are people who murder rampantly for no real reason" - does that mean that all atheists think this way?
And regarding your comment about human history, I'm fairly certain that religion has had a relatively large influence both in current events and past ones, too - both good and bad. So your notion that just because slavery wasn't abolished single-handedly by Jesus Christ that christianity had no part in it is pretty outrageous.
In the end, though, it's hard for me to respond to anyone on the topic of religion, because at some point it all becomes rhetoric.
It's unfortunate that for whatever reason it has to be that way, instead of each of us saying to the other "I believe/don't believe in this God or that God." - and there is actually no real evidence why I do or why you should. Hopefully, the example I set is sufficient argument that my way is better - and if it isn't, I hope you find your way well through life anyway.
Your argument was that morality is defined under religion.
So, how exactly is Christianity morally acceptable when in 1800 years it condoned slavery? Every major facet of Christianity supported slavery for literally 90% of the time it has existed.
You're fairly certain that Christianity has had a large part in current and past events, and yet a perfect Jesus Christ did not abolish slavery. A perfect God did nothing, and in fact, slavery is condoned in the Bible.
If you're going to resort to a no True Scotsman fallacy, and you don't subscribe to the Bible, one can easily turn it around on you: how are you Christian? You can't both believe in the moral authority of God and then turn around and say that God's acceptance, nay, encouragement of slavery, racism, misogyny, homophobia, and genocide are not directly contradictory.
My argument is that morality is necessary - and most people get their morality from religion. Our current social standards may well be biological and not stemming from religion - I can't prove otherwise, but that's not what I believe. After raising children and being a child myself, I wonder how different my life would have been had I been raised in a world ruled by the older dieties - or no diety at all. Some may grow up with no religion, but present day society is so heavily influenced by religious environment (what % of the populace is atheist, after all?) that it's difficult to look at an individual who is atheist living in a religiously-affected environment and say "this is what people in an atheist society would look like".
I will not prove to you that God is moral, nor will I prove to you that I believe in him. I will tell you I believe in God as a moral being but not necessarily the morality of everyone else who believes in him. I didn't say that people who did things in the crusades or inquisition were not Christians (the no true scotsman fallacy), so it isn't exactly fair for you to turn it against me, but since you have, I consider myself a christian in that I believe in what I've understood from the bible, but that doesn't always mean that everything should be taken literally. There is a lot of context behind the bible that must be understood (just like any other book) before you can fully take in its meaning. In some areas, my understanding is thin, and therefore my belief is less.
In the end, though, my argument against the OP is largely for morality as a concept (which I think you also are for) - regardless of whether it's for religion or not - and against some of the more outlandish things said (e.g. "I just know what's right and wrong"). I don't think we need to reconcile the finer points of our beliefs to leave it at that.
On April 23 2013 02:40 LuckyFool wrote: For me personally it always made more sense to believe in God and then die and find out he didn't exist than the other way around...unless it was ever proven without a shadow of a doubt there's no higher being, being Atheist always seemed like a risky cop out to me.
On April 23 2013 02:40 LuckyFool wrote: For me personally it always made more sense to believe in God and then die and find out he didn't exist than the other way around...unless it was ever proven without a shadow of a doubt there's no higher being, being Atheist always seemed like a risky cop out to me.
Mao: "...if you would kneel down, and worship ME...." *and if u dont I'll send my teenager loyalist lynch mobs to beat the shit out of you.
==================
But seriously tho, I actually really dislike the comparison of atheism to being gay.
It's like comparing being being a Republican or Democrat to being gay -- are you ready to "come out of the closet" and "admit" that you voted for Ronald Reagan? Do you "Really" have the balls? Would your family still accept you if they found out you voted for Reagan? I mean, have you no shame??? *ridiculous.
On April 23 2013 02:02 farvacola wrote: I became an atheist after "discovering" rationality and finding it very complementary to an egoistic view of the world. I lost my atheism once I figured out that not all knowledge is rational and, more importantly, that the symbol precedes the symbolized.
an example of not all knowledge is rational please.
"This song really lifts my spirits."
"I can't wait to see my brother."
"Whoa, I swore I just felt a bit of deja vu."
"Why?"
One can mealy mouth there way around clumsily applied neuroscience in pursuit of explaining some of these things, but no amount of scientific definition can create a hit song, nor can "rationality" win an election or "create" a group of friends.
Besides, even "rationality" is still just a word we use to speak to a concept we created. It is inherently limited via the means with which we can communicate it.
Edit: I'm not saying irrational God thoughts trump rational science thoughts. Simply that there are fringes of existence that rationality proves unhelpful.
Just because you can't rationalize somethings because of your lack of knowledge does not mean others can't rationalize it.
"this song really lifts my spirits" someone like a song, and does not know or have the technical terms to describe what he likes about it.
"I can't wait to see my brother" Someone with an attachment to a close relative, it's easy to rationalize why he/she wants to see the brother.
"Whoa, I swore I just felt a bit of deja vu." my brain remembered similar situation in one of my 5 senses in the past (usually the visual sense) and the events that followed that situation is close enough to what's happening now. Therefore, I felt like I experienced something like this before. It has to do with brain accessing random memory without you consciously thinking about it.
I went to a catholic elementary and middle school. I received my Reconciliation in 2nd grade and was due for Confirmation in 8th grade (junior high school). It was right around that time that I started to question my faith. The more I read and listened in Church, the less and less sense it seemed to make. It sounded more like magic, as if God was some kind of magician that could create matter out of nothing. Parables started to turn into fairy tales in my mind, and I could not go through a single page of the Bible without questioning the logic or the rationale behind someone's motivations. I announced to the class (when we were turning in our Confirmation documents) that I would not be receiving the blessing. My parents were okay with it as long as I did not make a huge deal out of it. The school said I could come back at any time and finish the blessing I rejected.
At that time, I considered myself agnostic. I didn't know what to believe. The idea that we were created out of almost nothing made no sense to me whether or not there is some omnipotent being residing above us. Scripture tells me that God made us because he loved us, but how can you love something that you have not seen, made, or made possible yet. Why did he lead such a scientific path and universes that we cannot yet explore yet? Would God make other intelligent life out of this same love? None of the answers to these questions feel right, nor does the whole "big bang" theory resonate with me either.
Today I consider myself an atheist because I completely reject the idea of an omnipresent being looking over us but at the same time I wish that there was, just to give me some additional direction in how to live my life to go to whatever afterlife (if there is one). I'm not going to spend my life in prayer to a being that may or may not exist exclusively for the purpose of a "just in case" measure.
On April 23 2013 02:02 farvacola wrote: I became an atheist after "discovering" rationality and finding it very complementary to an egoistic view of the world. I lost my atheism once I figured out that not all knowledge is rational and, more importantly, that the symbol precedes the symbolized.
an example of not all knowledge is rational please.
"This song really lifts my spirits."
"I can't wait to see my brother."
"Whoa, I swore I just felt a bit of deja vu."
"Why?"
One can mealy mouth there way around clumsily applied neuroscience in pursuit of explaining some of these things, but no amount of scientific definition can create a hit song, nor can "rationality" win an election or "create" a group of friends.
Besides, even "rationality" is still just a word we use to speak to a concept we created. It is inherently limited via the means with which we can communicate it.
Edit: I'm not saying irrational God thoughts trump rational science thoughts. Simply that there are fringes of existence that rationality proves unhelpful.
Just because you can't rationalize somethings because of your lack of knowledge does not mean others can't rationalize it.
"this song really lifts my spirits" someone like a song, and does not know or have the technical terms to describe what he likes about it.
"I can't wait to see my brother" Someone with an attachment to a close relative, it's easy to rationalize why he/she wants to see the brother.
"Whoa, I swore I just felt a bit of deja vu." my brain remembered similar situation in one of my 5 senses in the past (usually the visual sense) and the events that followed that situation is close enough to what's happening now. Therefore, I felt like I experienced something like this before. It has to do with brain accessing random memory without you consciously thinking about it.
There's a big difference between the physics behind hitting a baseball with a bat, and the experience of hitting a baseball with a bat.
If you ask a great hitter how they hit so well, they won't be able to rationally explain how they do it. While the physics behind the event is certainly rational and understandable, actually Being a great hitter is beyond rationality.
Being itself is pre-rational. The way we exist in the world leads to rationality, but it also has a non-rational foundation. The non-rational components are not reducible to rational ones, because they are Experiential in basis. Check out Heidegger's Being and Time for more.
I used to dislike religion, but recently I've become more interested in religious organizations. It seems like there might be some interesting job opportunities with more and more people leaving churches (so gaps need to be filled). The only price I pay is that I have to say some stuff I don't really believe in. But If I get paid to do it then who cares.
Hey, maybe I can solicit myself to Fox and become the next Glenn Beck, I'll get a shitty reputation, but I'll get paid millions of dollars.
On April 23 2013 02:02 farvacola wrote: I became an atheist after "discovering" rationality and finding it very complementary to an egoistic view of the world. I lost my atheism once I figured out that not all knowledge is rational and, more importantly, that the symbol precedes the symbolized.
an example of not all knowledge is rational please.
"This song really lifts my spirits."
"I can't wait to see my brother."
"Whoa, I swore I just felt a bit of deja vu."
"Why?"
One can mealy mouth there way around clumsily applied neuroscience in pursuit of explaining some of these things, but no amount of scientific definition can create a hit song, nor can "rationality" win an election or "create" a group of friends.
Besides, even "rationality" is still just a word we use to speak to a concept we created. It is inherently limited via the means with which we can communicate it.
Edit: I'm not saying irrational God thoughts trump rational science thoughts. Simply that there are fringes of existence that rationality proves unhelpful.
Just because you can't rationalize somethings because of your lack of knowledge does not mean others can't rationalize it.
"this song really lifts my spirits" someone like a song, and does not know or have the technical terms to describe what he likes about it.
"I can't wait to see my brother" Someone with an attachment to a close relative, it's easy to rationalize why he/she wants to see the brother.
"Whoa, I swore I just felt a bit of deja vu." my brain remembered similar situation in one of my 5 senses in the past (usually the visual sense) and the events that followed that situation is close enough to what's happening now. Therefore, I felt like I experienced something like this before. It has to do with brain accessing random memory without you consciously thinking about it.
You're misunderstanding what I am saying, and since I don't buy into the cult of NDT, you'll have to excuse my refusal to acknowledge a youtube video on vulgar scientism attacking vulgar Christianity. No amount of knowledge will change how language works, nor will it somehow superimpose language based truth over top "actual" truth. If you are going to appeal to authority, then allow me the same; read Thomas Kuhn and Michael Polanyi, specifically Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and Polanyi's Personal Knowledge. Both describe why science can never truly be objective and why "rationality" is bounded by agential observation and direction. It is precisely why economic's obsession with "rational agents" is proving so troublesome; optimization over a given set of constraints is made infinitely more difficult when supposedly "rational agents" act irrationally every day. As to you doing exactly what I predicted, that being hackneyed semi-scientific explanations for phenomena that are far more complex, please watch this Ted Talk. http://www.ted.com/talks/molly_crockett_beware_neuro_bunk.html
What so few people realize is that the man who sits entranced by the depths of space and possibility a la NDT and the man who prays in church for the health of his family are actually doing the same thing.
On April 22 2013 23:22 Treehead wrote: Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...".
On April 22 2013 22:58 woreyour wrote: I am mature enough to know what is right or wrong. I don't need that to be "moral"; I just don't need to be an asshole. And best of all, I can fap without feeling bad about it.
100% of the people who say that they are mature enough to "know right from wrong" are just not mature enough to know that the distinction isn't always easy. You have a strange sense of what morality is - it is intended to be the set of rules which prevent a person from being "an asshole".
Consider that sociopaths also view their version of morality (whereby some people are just supposed to die) to be completely legitimate. Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". This is where religion/morality comes in. It gives people a context in which to discuss right and wrong. Outside of religion, there is no good and evil, there is only legal and illegal.
That is a logical fallacy. Just because a being who created us says that something is moral, does not make it moral. If god was real and he really did order and / or condone the genocide and rape and slavery that's in the bible, it does not mean that it would be moral. It would still be evil. Morality can never be defined by an authority, no matter who it is.
I don't know how moral the original poster is, but his morality can't be worse than that of catholicism.
Morality is defined by an authority almost as a rule. Morality defined by someone without authority would be useless. Even individually-defined morality is assigned by virtue of each individual's authority over themselves.
If you can think of no morality worse than catholicism (which may contain instances of poor behavior in stories, but overall at least contains undertones of well-being for people), you have both a very small imagination, and a very limited knowledge of history.
Authority is required to enforce morality but I do not believe it is required to define it.
The Golden Rule, for example, requires no authority for definition.
Morality is generally defined within the confines of a society, both geographically and temporally. However there are some things that transcend even societal bounds. For example, I think almost every society would think of the murder of a fellow citizen of that same society as morally reprehensible. This has been true for thousands of years, and is honestly probably inherent in our very biology.
You don't see animals of the same species wantonly killing each other. Self-preservation is a strong motivating factor in that regard.
On April 23 2013 01:04 Treehead wrote:
On April 23 2013 00:18 wherebugsgo wrote:
On April 22 2013 23:22 Treehead wrote:
On April 22 2013 22:58 woreyour wrote: I am mature enough to know what is right or wrong. I don't need that to be "moral"; I just don't need to be an asshole. And best of all, I can fap without feeling bad about it.
100% of the people who say that they are mature enough to "know right from wrong" are just not mature enough to know that the distinction isn't always easy. You have a strange sense of what morality is - it is intended to be the set of rules which prevent a person from being "an asshole".
Consider that sociopaths also view their version of morality (whereby some people are just supposed to die) to be completely legitimate. Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". This is where religion/morality comes in. It gives people a context in which to discuss right and wrong. Outside of religion, there is no good and evil, there is only legal and illegal.
So do you believe slavery is morally acceptable, then?
The banning of slavery in most countries certainly wasn't a religiously motivated event. In fact, many people in the United States in particular used religion to defend slavery. That's not all that surprising, given what is actually contained in the Bible.
Human history shows that your assertion is just straight up wrong. Morality is based a lot on human knowledge and understanding both of the past and the current. I do not believe that people, even religious people, actually look toward religion for moral guidance. I think statements like "if it weren't for religion I'd probably be out there murdering people" are pretty fallacious because it doesn't hold up in reality.
All one needs to do to affirm this is to look at actual human history. Let's take some examples from American and European history, since we can probably relate to or exemplify some of these things.
Think about these things:
The numerous inquisitions throughout the middle ages. Let's focus on the Spanish Inquisition, since it's probably the most famous. The Spanish Inquisition was essentially intended to force Muslims and Jews to convert, or leave/die. The enforcement of Catholicism in Spain consisted of censorship, persecution, oppression, suppression, and torture of offenders: the nature of the punishable offenses could range from the verbal (blasphemy) to sexual (sodomy) to supernatural (witchcraft) among many many others. Thousands of people were affected over many years, many dying in the process. Do you consider this a good example of religious morals?
In the colonial period, did religion stop the American colonists from trampling over the natives, killing them, eradicating their peoples and their lands, and subjugating them? No. In fact, in many cases, religious leaders encouraged many practices we would consider today to be completely immoral. Many many people died in the interests of conversion and absolution/purification. At the time, it was considered absolutely the morally right thing to do: these people were being "saved" from an eternity in hell. And of course, if they didn't listen, the converters were doing a favor for everyone by killing the heathen unbelieving savages. Sounds pretty ridiculous, no?
Again, during the colonial period: do you recall the numerous witch trials and the results of Puritanism in New England? I can guarantee you that today, burning a teenage girl at the stake over mere religious hysteria would be outrageous. No one would stand for that.
There are many more examples from human history that I can find and display for you, some of which are happening right now. The simple fact is that religion is not and never has been a good moral compass. It's honestly actually one of the worst things you can use as a guide, given its track record. No other human societal institution has demonstrated as much propensity to subvert, oppress, control and hurt both the individual and the masses.
As to the subject of this blog, I don't actually remember when I became atheist. I was born in a Muslim family and grew up half-practicing, even reading the Koran till I was around 12 or 13. However I do know for a fact I never really believed in God or any sort of higher power. I started questioning why others believed probably in elementary school and I was pretty taken aback at the beliefs in Santa, God, the tooth fairy, and all sorts of other things at a very young age. By the time I was a freshman in high school I had spent lots of time on the internet reading about almost everything, and a lot of the time it was about logic and religion; two things I found in utter contradiction of each other.
How on earth did you get from my post to "So you think slavery is okay, do you?" Why is it that whenever people talk about religion, we can't talk like rational adults?
Can't I believe in god but not believe in the "holiness" of the crusades? Can't I believe in God without believing in everything anyone has done in his name? If some guy out in the wilderness says "the only people who are really atheists are people who murder rampantly for no real reason" - does that mean that all atheists think this way?
And regarding your comment about human history, I'm fairly certain that religion has had a relatively large influence both in current events and past ones, too - both good and bad. So your notion that just because slavery wasn't abolished single-handedly by Jesus Christ that christianity had no part in it is pretty outrageous.
In the end, though, it's hard for me to respond to anyone on the topic of religion, because at some point it all becomes rhetoric.
It's unfortunate that for whatever reason it has to be that way, instead of each of us saying to the other "I believe/don't believe in this God or that God." - and there is actually no real evidence why I do or why you should. Hopefully, the example I set is sufficient argument that my way is better - and if it isn't, I hope you find your way well through life anyway.
Your argument was that morality is defined under religion.
So, how exactly is Christianity morally acceptable when in 1800 years it condoned slavery? Every major facet of Christianity supported slavery for literally 90% of the time it has existed.
You're fairly certain that Christianity has had a large part in current and past events, and yet a perfect Jesus Christ did not abolish slavery. A perfect God did nothing, and in fact, slavery is condoned in the Bible.
If you're going to resort to a no True Scotsman fallacy, and you don't subscribe to the Bible, one can easily turn it around on you: how are you Christian? You can't both believe in the moral authority of God and then turn around and say that God's acceptance, nay, encouragement of slavery, racism, misogyny, homophobia, and genocide are not directly contradictory.
My argument is that morality is necessary - and most people get their morality from religion.
How is this statement not a direct contradiction of the standards you yourself requested from the OP?
It's hard to take anything you say seriously when you are not even internally consistent.
Simply because many people believe in religion it does not mean societal morality stems from it. That's pretty patently true when you look at how many things in modern society outright defy generations of religious teachings. It's also pretty obvious given how many civil and social rights movements have been hindered by, that's right, religion.
Religion has been little more than a hindrance to progress throughout history. Its benefits have been few and far between, and the negatives have far outweighed the positives. In fact, simply thinking of the positive benefits of religion is hard. From a natural selection standpoint there may have been a biological advantage for religion bringing together humans a long long time ago, but it's foolish to argue for religion/God as a moral authority, given how inconsistent most monotheistic religions have been throughout human history.
Even now you can see how they stray so far from the moral truths we accept in modern society. For example, look at interracial marriage. It was seen as a sin by most white Christians in America merely 50 years ago. Now, the very thought of such bigotry is reprehensible in the majority of the country. The same is happening right now for homosexuals, and I can guarantee you that in 100 years people will look back upon yet another failing of religion on a moral front. How can you say that Christianity is a model for morality when a vast majority of its adherents and leaders in the U.S. view homosexual marriage as a sin? Christianity denies civil rights in front of your very eyes and yet you have the gall to suggest that it is some sort of moral authority to look up to.
About when I began to develop my own, interpersonal thought, around 13, when things started to fall into place in 'reality' and theologolistic stuff just stood out as redundant. I can see, there for I am, and there's no more room for things I cannot see. And, plus all the logical renouncing of organized religion through the years. Indescribable Ultimate rest after life, that is all.
Some may grow up with no religion, but present day society is so heavily influenced by religious environment (what % of the populace is atheist, after all?) that it's difficult to look at an individual who is atheist living in a religiously-affected environment and say "this is what people in an atheist society would look like".
On April 23 2013 02:02 farvacola wrote: I became an atheist after "discovering" rationality and finding it very complementary to an egoistic view of the world. I lost my atheism once I figured out that not all knowledge is rational and, more importantly, that the symbol precedes the symbolized.
an example of not all knowledge is rational please.
"This song really lifts my spirits."
"I can't wait to see my brother."
"Whoa, I swore I just felt a bit of deja vu."
"Why?"
One can mealy mouth there way around clumsily applied neuroscience in pursuit of explaining some of these things, but no amount of scientific definition can create a hit song, nor can "rationality" win an election or "create" a group of friends.
Besides, even "rationality" is still just a word we use to speak to a concept we created. It is inherently limited via the means with which we can communicate it.
Edit: I'm not saying irrational God thoughts trump rational science thoughts. Simply that there are fringes of existence that rationality proves unhelpful.
Just because you can't rationalize somethings because of your lack of knowledge does not mean others can't rationalize it.
"this song really lifts my spirits" someone like a song, and does not know or have the technical terms to describe what he likes about it.
"I can't wait to see my brother" Someone with an attachment to a close relative, it's easy to rationalize why he/she wants to see the brother.
"Whoa, I swore I just felt a bit of deja vu." my brain remembered similar situation in one of my 5 senses in the past (usually the visual sense) and the events that followed that situation is close enough to what's happening now. Therefore, I felt like I experienced something like this before. It has to do with brain accessing random memory without you consciously thinking about it.
You're misunderstanding what I am saying, and since I don't buy into the cult of NDT, you'll have to excuse my refusal to acknowledge a youtube video on vulgar scientism attacking vulgar Christianity. No amount of knowledge will change how language works, nor will it somehow superimpose language based truth over top "actual" truth. If you are going to appeal to authority, then allow me the same; read Thomas Kuhn and Michael Polanyi, specifically Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and Polanyi's Personal Knowledge. Both describe why science can never truly be objective and why "rationality" is bounded by agential observation and direction. It is precisely why economic's obsession with "rational agents" is proving so troublesome; optimization over a given set of constraints is made infinitely more difficult when supposedly "rational agents" act irrationally every day. As to you doing exactly what I predicted, that being hackneyed semi-scientific explanations for phenomena that are far more complex, please watch this Ted Talk. http://www.ted.com/talks/molly_crockett_beware_neuro_bunk.html
What so few people realize is that the man who sits entranced by the depths of space and possibility a la NDT and the man who prays in church for the health of his family are actually doing the same thing.
So, would you consider yourself an agnostic in that matter?
On April 23 2013 02:02 farvacola wrote: I became an atheist after "discovering" rationality and finding it very complementary to an egoistic view of the world. I lost my atheism once I figured out that not all knowledge is rational and, more importantly, that the symbol precedes the symbolized.
an example of not all knowledge is rational please.
"This song really lifts my spirits."
"I can't wait to see my brother."
"Whoa, I swore I just felt a bit of deja vu."
"Why?"
One can mealy mouth there way around clumsily applied neuroscience in pursuit of explaining some of these things, but no amount of scientific definition can create a hit song, nor can "rationality" win an election or "create" a group of friends.
Besides, even "rationality" is still just a word we use to speak to a concept we created. It is inherently limited via the means with which we can communicate it.
Edit: I'm not saying irrational God thoughts trump rational science thoughts. Simply that there are fringes of existence that rationality proves unhelpful.
Just because you can't rationalize somethings because of your lack of knowledge does not mean others can't rationalize it.
"this song really lifts my spirits" someone like a song, and does not know or have the technical terms to describe what he likes about it.
"I can't wait to see my brother" Someone with an attachment to a close relative, it's easy to rationalize why he/she wants to see the brother.
"Whoa, I swore I just felt a bit of deja vu." my brain remembered similar situation in one of my 5 senses in the past (usually the visual sense) and the events that followed that situation is close enough to what's happening now. Therefore, I felt like I experienced something like this before. It has to do with brain accessing random memory without you consciously thinking about it.
There's a big difference between the physics behind hitting a baseball with a bat, and the experience of hitting a baseball with a bat.
That difference is merely the actual physical act and its descriptions versus the perception and action of a human hitting a baseball. Both can be explained scientifically and rationally.
On April 23 2013 03:08 trias_e wrote: If you ask a great hitter how they hit so well, they won't be able to rationally explain how they do it. While the physics behind the event is certainly rational and understandable, actually Being a great hitter is beyond rationality.
This is not true. Some hitters may not be able to explain how they do it, but plenty will be able to. Also, simply because someone cannot explain something does not mean it cannot rationally be explained.
Being a great hitter is also not beyond rationality. You can train to be a great hitter. You can work out, you can practice, you can spend time. In fact, that's how most people become great hitters! Obviously being born with certain natural talents can help, but it's not magic.
On April 23 2013 03:08 trias_e wrote: Being itself is pre-rational. The way we exist in the world leads to rationality, but it also has a non-rational foundation. The non-rational components are not reducible to rational ones, because they are Experiential in basis. Check out Heidegger's Being and Time for more.
"Being itself is pre-rational"
This sentence is meaningless.
"The way we exist in the world leads to rationality, but it also has a non-rational foundation."
This one is meaningless too.
"The non-rational components are not reducible to rational ones, because they are Experiential in basis. Check out Heidegger's Being and Time for more."
This just sounds like bullshit.
Simply because you are not capable of explaining experience, does not mean it is irrational.
In fact, even if science cannot explain certain things now, it does not mean that they will forever be inexplicable. 200 years ago science was not able to explain why people got sick, but that did not mean that the plague was caused by God hating us for our sins. The germ theory of disease nicely and rationally explains many of our ailments.
Some may grow up with no religion, but present day society is so heavily influenced by religious environment (what % of the populace is atheist, after all?) that it's difficult to look at an individual who is atheist living in a religiously-affected environment and say "this is what people in an atheist society would look like".
Sweden.
This. Only 10% of swedes think religion is important in daily life, and only 18% claimed they believe in god in a recent survey. We're not all atheist, but we're probably as close as we're going to get for a long time. Religion has no impact on politics here, and all major religions are taught in school.
Some may grow up with no religion, but present day society is so heavily influenced by religious environment (what % of the populace is atheist, after all?) that it's difficult to look at an individual who is atheist living in a religiously-affected environment and say "this is what people in an atheist society would look like".
Sweden.
This. Only 10% of swedes think religion is important in daily life, and only 18% claimed they believe in god in a recent survey. We're not all atheist, but we're probably as close as we're going to get for a long time. Religion has no impact on politics here, and all major religions are taught in school.
wait, how long has this been going on? You guys teach them everything, and 80% of the people still end up atheist?
EPT
