Similar to finding out you are gay or knowing something new about yourself, I want to know when you had the “change of heart” from a theist to an atheist. How did you manage to realize that you don't believe in stuff you were programmed, raised to or have been introduced to? When was the time you questioned your "faith" and you analysed the stuff you are to believe into.
It is funny to note that for my experience, it was because of a TV show that told me unconsciously to wake up. However, I did not automatically flipped; I think it was just a confirmation. I for one, is raised Catholic, born under the guidance of Catholic ceremonies and tradition. Conservative in nature, that’s the culture we used to be and is trying to be (before the internet ruled our lives). I studied in a Catholic school until I graduated college. My folks were not the religious types which I as well turned out to be. I always questioned stuff I "need" to do when we are forced in school like praying the rosary, kneeling down, and going to mass. I said to myself, if God is really that good then he would understand that my knee hurts while I kneel, why I can say a simple thank you instead of saying the whole damn rosary, when I can use an hour for more productive stuff than going to church. I for one am always a critique of how stuff needs to be done and will always think of better ways to do it and will wonder why are we doing it? What is the purpose?
Being catholic just made it worst since I got to be a teenager. Raging hormones and liking the opposite sex made me guilty every time I fapped. There was a time I like to fap a lot and I read it was just natural but the priest/ pastors would always preach about impure thoughts and stuff. Is premarital sex really bad? Is it really worst than stealing and killing? I thought God has better things to do than watch me fap and release secretions, my rainbows of joy. I became fond of science, finding facts and absolute truth. I became fascinated about how stuff works and theorize stuff. I enjoyed and I got entertained by science fiction, got to imagine the “what ifs”. It came to the point that the possibility of Aliens is far more viable than an imaginary being who made stuff in 7 days.
The realization that there were once dinosaurs, evolution and possible aliens are just too conflicting to what the "good old book" was saying. And I started to find facts and evidences only to realise the bible could be ridiculous sometimes. Like Santa or the unicorn, it could be weird sometimes. They say the book is perfect, guided by "God" but then they say "we are only human", we commit mistakes. "People" wrote the bible, therefore using logic, bible can be inaccurate or lost in translation.
Further and further I disapprove of what I come to believe until I realised the bullshit it was. I thought some intelligent person made religion to herd ignorant people to do stuff for them. It has been happening as I read through history. Crusades, purging and wars, just to name a few of those atrocities it caused. More people fought and died for this bullshit than I ever recall. As I wake up to reality, I told myself, I'm done with this crap.
As soon as I let go of religion, I felt free. I felt better, lighter inside and no guilt. I really think that there is no need for that, I am not a sheep. I have my own mind and I can think for myself. 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.
I am curious to see what are your experiences and reactions as this is mostly a gaming website/forum and would probably not think or discuss this topic. More so to what lead you to have this similar realization that I went if you had one too. This is a fairly new change for me and I am glad I had to realize this.
I am curious to see what are your experiences and reactions as this is mostly a gaming website/forum and would probably not think or discuss this topic
actually, TL used to get tons of religion/atheism threads, but every single one devolved into shitfests hahaha...
but to share my experience: my parents are not religious, so i grew up without thinking much about religion. instead, they taught my brother and me values such as responsibility, respect, kindness, etc, without the need for someting like religion to support them. i really identified as an atheist some time during high school when i became more interested in evolutionary biology (and having met some students at my school who were pretty devout creationists). basically did a lot of studying, especially in biology, and a lot of richard dawkins' works.
I always have been an agnostic atheist, since my parents didn't indoctrinate me in to any religion (or against any). There is no evidence for any religion, and therefor no reason to believe in any of them.
However, an interesting question is how long it would take me to reject a religion I was raised in to. When you are a child, you are not intellectually honest, and you easily lie to yourself and skew information to avoid having to face unpleasant truths. Going against my parents wouldn't be easy, and I can only imagine the excuses I would make for my religions immoralities.
I always had a huge interest in science, math, physics and all this neat kind of stuff. When i was 14 or so, i decided that science was incompatible with religion and decided to become an atheist.
I then learned that it is not true at all, that the bible is not supposed to be a science book, but instead to convey a message, and that science and religion complement each other nicely. I learned that religion is not a set of rule, but instead a guide to help you make your own decision. So I went back to being a Christian.
It seems pretty weird when I think about it now, but I remember very well that during my early childhood I've been barely aware that religion even existed. When I finally became aware of it, I naturally assumed that like 99% people in the world would be atheist, but there are some people with weird beliefs and habits and that's fine.
It wasn't until mid-90s (and me being like 12-13) that I realized that I was the one in the minority.
But yeah, I was atheist long before I even heard of the term "atheist". I still feel uncomfortable describing myself as such, as I don't want to even categorize myself on some sort of a religious scale.
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.
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.
lolwut yes there is. you just said that that is where morality comes in.
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.
I can't remember a time where I literally believed in god. It's a bit like santa claus, I never REALLY believed he existed, but I had a better suspension of disbelief as a kid so it was still fun to imagine.
I was raised with no particular religion. When I was eight or so, I began attending scripture. While it wasn't compulsory, you had to get a note from a parent in order to get out of it. So I heard these stories about God and such, and I was kinda skeptical. I remember two things I tried:
I asked my scripture teacher how she KNEW there was a god. She told me she'd get back to me, and wrote me a very nice and fairly long reply, all about the beauty of nature and of life, and how she couldn't help but see God's hand everywhere. This was convincing, but not convincing enough. So that day, on my way home from school, I prayed to God to show me a miracle: I asked him to set a bush on fire like he did for Moses in one of the stories we'd looked at in scripture. He did not. I became an atheist at that point.
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.
lolwut yes there is. you just said that that is where morality comes in.
Pardon me, I meant to say morality. His blog is decrying morality itself, not just religion. I did use religion and morality interchangeably in the sentence prior to that one.
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.
I can say for myself I am "mature" because I try to make it simple as for my concept of morality which is if you think it is bad for you, don't do it to other people. I try to ask myself, would I like it? Will I get offended? Most of the if I am unsure I can always just ask, properly that is. I really don't think there is a need for religion to discuss morality, we can utilize healty discussions, probably debates. Religion does not discuss morality, they tend to instill it, indoctrinate it.
Btw your post is insightful, and totally agree we are naturally ignorant.
Education and the internet is the cure to religion. It's getting harder and harder to remain ignorant when information is easily accessible on the internet, and the more educated a person is the easier it is for them to distinguish which piece of information is trustworthy.
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.
just became old enough to realize that rational thought and religion don't mix at all, and I realized that a lot of the religious people i knew at church were huge shitheads.
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.
On April 23 2013 00:21 QuanticHawk wrote: just became old enough to realize that rational thought and religion don't mix at all, and I realized that a lot of the religious people i knew at church were huge shitheads.
On April 23 2013 00:17 rei wrote: Education and the internet is the cure to religion. It's getting harder and harder to remain ignorant when information is easily accessible on the internet, and the more educated a person is the easier it is for them to distinguish which piece of information is trustworthy.
I must suffer from the internet resistant strain then...
or perhaps my education is insufficient, or I'm an illogical irrational person.
I don't think "after thinking about it for a long while rationally" or "when I was old enough I realized" is quite a big enough reason to make yourself feel that you're an atheist. Scholars are constantly studying the case of God, whether there is really a god, slowly dissecting each "evidence" people find about any religion (i.e. parchments of Gospel writings, wrecked up chariots found in the Dead Sea a few years ago). They are constantly giving real rational thoughts whether there is a higher power somewhere.
For me, it feels much more logical (as you all would say it in the same way as how you feel it is logical to just not believe in God) to be a Christian. While God appreciates faith more than finding evidence for the existence of God, there are atheists who gave finding evidence of God a shot, and they have come to their own conclusion that there really is perhaps a God out there. People like Lee Strobel have written their own books about their journey in the pursuit of evidences and cracking the deepest of questions.
In the case of the Christian God, it is rather unlikely that God would place evidences right smack in your face that He exists if he wants people to have faith and believe in Him. It's just that there are many occurrences in the world pointing towards the direction that there is God. Prophesies slowly being fulfilled (end time prophesies, basically of how more and more natural disasters will occur), more evidences of Jesus being dug up and analysed, and just the complexity of science related matter (the human body, astronomy, etc.)
To all you atheists, I politely seek that you guys would open up just a little bit, and do a little bit of readings of atheists who turned Christians because of their findings and such. I'm sure you would be surprised by what you may find.
On April 23 2013 00:44 ElusoryX wrote: I don't think "after thinking about it for a long while rationally" or "when I was old enough I realized" is quite a big enough reason to make yourself feel that you're an atheist. Scholars are constantly studying the case of God, whether there is really a god, slowly dissecting each "evidence" people find about any religion (i.e. parchments of Gospel writings, wrecked up chariots found in the Dead Sea a few years ago). They are constantly giving real rational thoughts whether there is a higher power somewhere.
No they aren't.
They're studying historical texts for their historical significance or for various other reasons, not for evidence that there is something supernatural.
Evidence that Jesus existed is interesting on a simply scholarly basis, one that has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus truly rose from the dead.
Evidence for a higher power would have to be incredibly strong, and some parchment of Gospel writings is not enough to even hint toward it.
On April 23 2013 00:44 ElusoryX wrote: For me, it feels much more logical (as you all would say it in the same way as how you feel it is logical to just not believe in God) to be a Christian. While God appreciates faith more than finding evidence for the existence of God, there are atheists who gave finding evidence of God a shot, and they have come to their own conclusion that there really is perhaps a God out there. People like Lee Strobel have written their own books about their journey in the pursuit of evidences and cracking the deepest of questions.
As you say, for you and for you alone. Your failure to grasp how some others can lack belief in God simply, as you put it, "after thinking about it for a long while rationally" is simply personal to you. Indeed, you haven't actually put forth any rational basis for believing in God, you're merely asserting it. An assertion of truth is not a rational basis nor will it ever be.
On April 23 2013 00:44 ElusoryX wrote: In the case of the Christian God, it is rather unlikely that God would place evidences right smack in your face that He exists if he wants people to have faith and believe in Him. It's just that there are many occurrences in the world pointing towards the direction that there is God. Prophesies slowly being fulfilled (end time prophesies, basically of how more and more natural disasters will occur), more evidences of Jesus being dug up and analysed, and just the complexity of science related matter (the human body, astronomy, etc.)
Like what? Name one. I can guarantee you that anything you can come up with that actually happened will have an alternate explanation that does not require belief in the supernatural.
On April 23 2013 00:44 ElusoryX wrote: To all you atheists, I politely seek that you guys would open up just a little bit, and do a little bit of readings of atheists who turned Christians because of their findings and such. I'm sure you would be surprised by what you may find.
Doesn't sound like you have many findings yourself.
In fact, I'd be surprised if you've even read a fraction of the Bible. I don't see how anyone can accept for truth a book that condones slavery, genocide, misogyny, homophobia, and racism, among a host of other despicable things.
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.
He's a human being in the modern age. That makes it unlikely that his morality is worse than catholicism. I never said there can be no worse morality than catholicism, I said that I don't think his morality is worse than it.
If morality is defined by an authority, that means the authority could say that making innocent people suffer is righteous, and it would be righteous. This is not the case. No matter what any one says, that is never moral. I don't care if a government says it, if my parents say it, or if a god says it.
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.
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?"
I was raised in a family that went to church and even was an altar boy. Mind you, the catholic church is pretty tame in Germany, and I did actually go to the kindergarten of the protestant church in the next suburb.
Church was more of a social thing. Later in life my sister became pretty religious and I got to know quite a lot of religious zealots in the 'free churches', and some people I know founded their own cult. 90% of the strong believers are batshit crazy and the closest minded people you can imagine, so I pretty much turned away from anything church-related in disgust and was some kind of agnostic, now I'm a non-militant atheist. Big turning point also was the death of said religious sister.
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.
Oh wow. This thread is headed straight to hell. Yes. That pun's intended. My wit is razor sharp.
I imagine you, the OP, wanted to have people tell about crises and subsequent loss of faith, rather than their general world-view, correct? You might want to edit the title to properly reflect this, if you do. The first impressions I got when reading the title, was that you implied that people were born with faith, and turning atheist was a development from this, which of course would be a preposterous claim.
That said, I went through the entire attempt at religious indoctrination. Softly, mind you - there wasn't any cult things going on. But during my grade school, we had "Christianity" rather than religious / social class, we did pseudo-prayersongs for lunch, and went to church during all major holidays - easter, christmas and so on. But during my early years of grade school, this social conditioning, if you want to call it such, made me beleive that the christian faith was how the world worked, since people seemed to respect the faith naturally around me.
Once I got aware of the attempts at social conditioning around 4th grade or so, however, I started looking into why I considered christianity to be sensible. I realised that I didn't - the only reason I had thought of it such previously, was because of the appeal of tradition, and a feeling of invisible, accepted social values that one had to adhere to.
In later years, having read religious texts of all the major world religions, as well as a plenthora of mytholological writings, I have found no reason to follow any religion. They're too filled with inner conflicts, nonsense, claims of superiority / uniqueness and ignorance of their own origins and surrounding context, which gives me no reason to believe in their claims. And while I'm loathe to claim with conviction that there's no greater conciousness than our own in the entirety of existance, I find no reason to connect any greater conciousness to any of humanity's faiths, even if they could be touching on a closer connection, simply because there's too much non-connected bullshit in the organized faiths.
I went to an Anglican church (Sunday school mostly) until I was about 7. I cared more about sneaking around and goofing off with my brother so I didn't listen to much of what was being said. I actually have very few memories of actual "church" stuff, so it was never a big influence. My parents decided they weren't going to bother going anymore and that was pretty much it.
I never really believed in God, but didn't label myself as an atheist until later. Whenever people asked what religion I was I just said I was raised Anglican. It wasn't until I started paying attention to all the stupid, hateful and harmful things that religious people believe and do that I began identifying myself as atheist.
This thread is spiraling dangerously close to a absolute morality vs. a relative morality discussion.
I hope it does. I always love to see the bizarre things people will say to defend moral absolutism.
OT: Was born in a family that wasn't religious. I experimented with believing in some sort of god when I was younger (12-15 ish). Didn't seem to make any sense. Been a non-believer since.
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.
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.
On April 23 2013 00:21 QuanticHawk wrote: just became old enough to realize that rational thought and religion don't mix at all, and I realized that a lot of the religious people i knew at church were huge shitheads.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
yes but do all these countries each all religions? or something else?
I don't know.
It's not like you are taught religion in secular schools. I wasn't "taught" any religion in American high school. We had the option to take religious studies classes, and there are certainly plenty of Catholic/Christian charter schools and the like, but I don't understand your question.
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?
Sort of, I consider myself a radical, absurd Christian; not because I think Jesus was literally the son of God, but because I think all belief, even in science or rationality, is inherently irrational to a degree, and that sometimes, "playing nonsense" makes the most of sense of all. By being open to the possibility of their being some sort of God, some might even say through pretending, I've found I've gotten to know a lot more people far more intimately, and it is through my experience with others that my belief is strengthened. Call it a "spiritual placebo" effect. I use the label "Christian" because my family is Christian, and it is through the Christian lens that I've come to know religiosity; my beliefs would most certainly not be welcome amongst the vast majority of Christians though.
These sorts of topics are a personal passion of mine, and I realize that a lot of it sounds like bullshit. That's ok though, everything is always merely a work in progress.
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.
Just because you are ignorant of something, does not mean it cannot be explained.
Is this some sort of metajoke? Your criticism of his statements revolves around "I don't get it" and "this sounds like bullshit", and then you end it all with "just because you are ignorant of something, does not mean it cannot be explained.". Your entire discrediting of his post revolves around an argument from ignorance.......
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.
Just because you are ignorant of something, does not mean it cannot be explained.
Is this some sort of metajoke? Your criticism of his statements revolves around "I don't get it" and "this sounds like bullshit", and then you end it all with "just because you are ignorant of something, does not mean it cannot be explained.". Your entire discrediting of his post revolves around an argument from ignorance.......
What?
I clearly explained how there IS a rational basis to literally everything he tried to say cannot be explained rationally.
His post is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. He makes the assertion that there are things that cannot be explained rationally simply...because. That's it! He doesn't explain why, nor does he give any evidence for his assertions. When you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you. It does not suffice to simply say that something cannot be explained rationally because it cannot be explained. That's just circular.
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.
Just because you are ignorant of something, does not mean it cannot be explained.
You are entirely misunderstanding me.
Of course I am capable of explaining experience. All of us are. If you are conscious, you know what experience is like. It is the one thing we are NOT ignorant of. Science is not capable of explaining experience, because experience is entirely subjective. Imagine going out on an extremely cold day. Science can tell you why you feel cold, and why feeling the cold is painful or unpleasant, but it can't tell you what being in the cold actually FEELS like. The experience of being cold isn't scientifically explainable, and it never will be: It is entirely subjective.
This is how our existence works. There is a foundation to our experience which is irreducible. It is what it is actually like to experience things, and this is something we all have knowledge of. This is why being itself is pre-rational. The way something smells, the emotion brought about by a certain bit of music, the jolt of fear that runs through the body when encountering a dangerous animal walking through the woods. These things are pre-rational. We may make rational decisions after experiencing these things. The actual experience of these things isn't born of some rational thought process in the mind, but is prior to that. Now, we can explain why we may feel this way through rationality. But we can't explain what it's LIKE to feel that way through rationality.
"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."
No. The experience that someone hitting a baseball has will never be able to explained scientifically or rationally. You can rationally explain how someone got good at baseball. You can rationally explain what their body is doing. But you can't rationally explain what it is like to be a great baseball player. You can explain how the player perceives the ball through their eyes, how neurons fire and how their muscles twitch, but this has nothing to do with what it's actually like to be a great baseball hitter.
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.
Just because you are ignorant of something, does not mean it cannot be explained.
Is this some sort of metajoke? Your criticism of his statements revolves around "I don't get it" and "this sounds like bullshit", and then you end it all with "just because you are ignorant of something, does not mean it cannot be explained.". Your entire discrediting of his post revolves around an argument from ignorance.......
What?
I clearly explained how there IS a rational basis to literally everything he tried to say cannot be explained rationally.
His post is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. He makes the assertion that there are things that cannot be explained rationally simply...because. That's it! He doesn't explain why, nor does he give any evidence for his assertions. When you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you. It does not suffice to simply say that something cannot be explained rationally because it cannot be explained. That's just circular.
Well, the question ends up being, do you take Descartes' Cogito to be irreducibly true and self-evident? Is "I think, therefore I am" enough for you? For some, like myself and presumably the poster above, there is more to the mind-body predicament than that.
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.
Just because you are ignorant of something, does not mean it cannot be explained.
You are entirely misunderstanding me.
Of course I am capable of explaining experience. All of us are. If you are conscious, you know what experience is like. It is the one thing we are NOT ignorant of. Science is not capable of explaining experience, because experience is entirely subjective. Imagine going out on an extremely cold day. Science can tell you why you feel cold, and why feeling the cold is painful or unpleasant, but it can't tell you what being in the cold actually FEELS like. The experience of being cold isn't scientifically explainable, and it never will be: It is entirely subjective.
This is how our existence works. There is a foundation to our experience which is irreducible. It is what it is actually like to experience things, and this is something we all have knowledge of. This is why being itself is pre-rational. The way something smells, the emotion brought about by a certain bit of music, the jolt of fear that runs through the body when encountering a dangerous animal walking through the woods. These things are pre-rational. We may make rational decisions after experiencing these things. The actual experience of these things isn't born of some rational thought process in the mind, but is prior to that.
Actually, yes it can.
Neuroscientists have succeeded in tricking people into feeling things simply by poking certain parts of their brains. Science cannot completely explain all of experience, but that's because it's a growing and developing, specific subfield of neurobiology.
If you find out how the feeling of something works, you can potentially make someone feel it. At this stage you would need physical access to someone's brain, but I'm sure in the (nearer than you'd think) future there will be things like virtual reality that use science to actually give you these feelings.
And besides, even if practically this is not possible for a hundred years or whatever, you can explain rationally your conscious experience through chemical reactions in your brain. Plenty of things have already been explained that way, and lots of drugs have been developed to treat psychological diseases using this knowledge. It's not far fetched to think in the future that computers will be able to simulate certain feelings so we can experience them through a proxy.
So again, simply because something is not explainable NOW does not mean it is not RATIONALLY explainable. Those are two very different things. One is a gap in knowledge and the other is an assertion that you have to be able to back up with more than "it's simply not possible."
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.
Do you read the wiki pages you're posting? Or do you honestly not see the difference between Argumentum ad populum and what I did there?
"It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely-held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct.
...
Appeal to belief is valid only when the question is whether the belief exists. Appeal to popularity is therefore valid only when the questions are whether the belief is widespread and to what degree. I.e., ad populum only proves that a belief is popular, not that it is true. In some domains, however, it is popularity rather than other strengths that makes a choice the preferred one, for reasons related to network effects."
I never assert that people believing through religion is correct (though I believe it is, I can't prove it). I merely state that's what they do - not to try to sway a person to be religious, but to say that religion does add value to present day society. The OP, on the other hand, states that he "just knows" right from wrong. He could be (is) wrong in this belief. But in order to appear correct, he may employ argumentum ad populum to legitimize his belief system (which is, apparently, egoistic by design). No one should employ argumentum ad populum in order to sway readers, so I pointed him away from it.
If you're "having trouble taking me seriously", then by all means don't. At this point, any alternative to two sentences of poorly thought out observations about what I've written, followed by three paragraphs about why all christians are cruel homophobes who like slavery and molest children is probably preferable.
Clearly, any beliefs I have as a christian must be wrong or malformed. Why, look at all the bad things done by people who were christian. Look at all the bad things these people used to think (as did people who didn't believe in the christian god, but that's beside the point). Clearly, because of all the bad things christians have ever done, any christian system of belief must be wrong. That's what you're aiming at, isn't it?
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?
Sort of, I consider myself a radical, absurd Christian; not because I think Jesus was literally the son of God, but because I think all belief, even in science or rationality, is inherently irrational to a degree, and that sometimes, "playing nonsense" makes the most of sense of all. By being open to the possibility of their being some sort of God, some might even say through pretending, I've found I've gotten to know a lot more people far more intimately, and it is through my experience with others that my belief is strengthened. Call it a "spiritual placebo" effect. I use the label "Christian" because my family is Christian, and it is through the Christian lens that I've come to know religiosity; my beliefs would most certainly not be welcome amongst the vast majority of Christians though.
These sorts of topics are a personal passion of mine, and I realize that a lot of it sounds like bullshit. That's ok though, everything is always merely a work in progress.
meh, while i agree on the "everything is (to some degree) irrational" part and i can somehow understand your idea behind your choice for religion than, it still offers no explanation for chosing to be Christian, other than you grew up with it. And imo, picking your religion based on the randomness that is socialization is more than a little irrational. But than again, I shouldnt criticize the personal belief of other people.
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?
Sort of, I consider myself a radical, absurd Christian; not because I think Jesus was literally the son of God, but because I think all belief, even in science or rationality, is inherently irrational to a degree, and that sometimes, "playing nonsense" makes the most of sense of all. By being open to the possibility of their being some sort of God, some might even say through pretending, I've found I've gotten to know a lot more people far more intimately, and it is through my experience with others that my belief is strengthened. Call it a "spiritual placebo" effect. I use the label "Christian" because my family is Christian, and it is through the Christian lens that I've come to know religiosity; my beliefs would most certainly not be welcome amongst the vast majority of Christians though.
These sorts of topics are a personal passion of mine, and I realize that a lot of it sounds like bullshit. That's ok though, everything is always merely a work in progress.
meh, while i agree on the "everything is (to some degree) irrational" part and i can somehow understand your idea behind your choice for religion than, it still offers no explanation for chosing to be Christian, other than you grew up with it. And imo, picking your religion based on the randomness that is socialization is more than a little irrational. But than again, I shouldnt criticize the personal belief of other people.
Well, I'm not really "picking" Christianity; I've already made it clear that I take huge issue with the fundamental tenant of Christianity, that being an acceptance of Christ as the son of God. I simply call myself a "Christian" because the Christian church is the thing I know and feel comfortable with in terms of doctrinal criticism and the like. Whether I like it or not, I have lived a life in which Christianity has played a large role, and it seems pragmatic for me to approach the issue from a place of experience.
Neuroscientists have succeeded in tricking people into feeling things simply by poking certain parts of their brains. Science cannot completely explain all of experience, but that's because it's a growing and developing, specific subfield of neurobiology.
If you find out how the feeling of something works, you can potentially make someone feel it. At this stage you would need physical access to someone's brain, but I'm sure in the (nearer than you'd think) future there will be things like virtual reality that use science to actually give you these feelings.
And besides, even if practically this is not possible for a hundred years or whatever, you can explain rationally your conscious experience through chemical reactions in your brain. Plenty of things have already been explained that way, and lots of drugs have been developed to treat psychological diseases using this knowledge. It's not far fetched to think in the future that computers will be able to simulate certain feelings so we can experience them through a proxy.
So again, simply because something is not explainable NOW does not mean it is not RATIONALLY explainable. Those are two very different things. One is a gap in knowledge and the other is an assertion that you have to be able to back up with more than "it's simply not possible."
Make them feel what? Where's the scientific description of what they are actually feeling? The person can say "I feel pain when you do that to my brain", but science has no access to what they are actually experiencing. Our words for pain are social conveniences, but we don't have access to other people's experiential states; We simply assume that when they say pain, they have the same kind of experience that we do when we have pain. There's nothing scientifically rigorous about this assumption whatsoever.
I'm not arguing that experience doesn't come from the mind, and I'm not arguing that we can't change how we experience things through science. I'm arguing that what it is like to experience things can't be explained through science. The act or process of experience itself. You could have a perfect scientific understanding of the brain and brain states, but you still wouldn't know what the experience they relate to is like, because the experience they relate to is an entirely private domain.
On April 23 2013 04:07 Treehead wrote: Clearly, the belief in the christian god must be wrong. Why, look at all the bad things done by people who believed. Look at all the bad things these people used to think (as did people who didn't believe in the christian god, but that's beside the point). Clearly, because of all the bad things christians have ever done, any christian system of belief must be wrong. That's what you're aiming at, isn't it?
No, actually. Belief in the Christian God is wrong on a logical level that has nothing to do with its reprehensible history.
I'm arguing that you cannot hold Christianity as a moral authority when it is internally inconsistent.
If Christianity has long been on the wrong side of history when it comes to morality, one cannot argue that it is a standard for morals. That's just blindness.
Also, calling something immoral is not equivalent to ad hominem. I think Christianity is morally reprehensible, but that's not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be if I called you a moron for believing in it.
Neuroscientists have succeeded in tricking people into feeling things simply by poking certain parts of their brains. Science cannot completely explain all of experience, but that's because it's a growing and developing, specific subfield of neurobiology.
If you find out how the feeling of something works, you can potentially make someone feel it. At this stage you would need physical access to someone's brain, but I'm sure in the (nearer than you'd think) future there will be things like virtual reality that use science to actually give you these feelings.
And besides, even if practically this is not possible for a hundred years or whatever, you can explain rationally your conscious experience through chemical reactions in your brain. Plenty of things have already been explained that way, and lots of drugs have been developed to treat psychological diseases using this knowledge. It's not far fetched to think in the future that computers will be able to simulate certain feelings so we can experience them through a proxy.
So again, simply because something is not explainable NOW does not mean it is not RATIONALLY explainable. Those are two very different things. One is a gap in knowledge and the other is an assertion that you have to be able to back up with more than "it's simply not possible."
Make them feel what? Where's the scientific description of what they are actually feeling? The person can say "I feel pain when you do that to my brain", but science has no access to what they are actually experiencing. Our words for pain are social conveniences, but we don't have access to other people's experiential states; We simply assume that when they say pain, they have the same kind of experience that we do when we have pain. There's nothing scientifically rigorous about this assumption whatsoever.
I'm not arguing that experience doesn't come from the mind, and I'm not arguing that we can't change how we experience things through science. I'm arguing that experience ITSELF can't be explained through science. If you understand what I'm talking about, I don't think this can possibly be argued against.
If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like.
Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it.
Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation.
Five hundred years ago a person might have argued, like you, that artificial vision would be impossible because science cannot explain to someone what happens when you see something, what it "feels like" to see something. Yet that's clearly not true now, since science can literally cure blindness. Obviously scientists understand what it "feels like" to see, since they've reproduced everything that's necessary for vision.
Same arguments can be applied to almost anything you're coming up with right now. Human experience is nothing more than biological functions in the brain. Just because they cannot be completely explained now it does not mean that will forever hold true.
On April 23 2013 04:07 Treehead wrote: Clearly, the belief in the christian god must be wrong. Why, look at all the bad things done by people who believed. Look at all the bad things these people used to think (as did people who didn't believe in the christian god, but that's beside the point). Clearly, because of all the bad things christians have ever done, any christian system of belief must be wrong. That's what you're aiming at, isn't it?
No, actually. Belief in the Christian God is wrong on a logical level that has nothing to do with its reprehensible history.
I'm arguing that you cannot hold Christianity as a moral authority when it is internally inconsistent.
If Christianity has long been on the wrong side of history when it comes to morality, one cannot argue that it is a standard for morals. That's just blindness.
Also, calling something immoral is not equivalent to ad hominem. I think Christianity is morally reprehensible, but that's not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be if I called you a moron for believing in it.
Actually, the constraints of "ad hominem" in this case would revolve around each parties estimation of possible judgement. If he or others do not think one can look at history and excise bits and pieces for criticism, than your statement that "Christianity is morally reprehensible" operates as an ad hominem. This is also true if one believes Christianity sufficiently stratified; you seem to think that one can point at this thing called "Christianity" and level a true accusation towards everyone and everything that calls itself a Christian. This is actually a pretty monumental task, as there are a great many people who call themselves Christians who struggle with rationally-inspired doubt every day and yet live good lives and help people.
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?
Sort of, I consider myself a radical, absurd Christian; not because I think Jesus was literally the son of God, but because I think all belief, even in science or rationality, is inherently irrational to a degree, and that sometimes, "playing nonsense" makes the most of sense of all. By being open to the possibility of their being some sort of God, some might even say through pretending, I've found I've gotten to know a lot more people far more intimately, and it is through my experience with others that my belief is strengthened. Call it a "spiritual placebo" effect. I use the label "Christian" because my family is Christian, and it is through the Christian lens that I've come to know religiosity; my beliefs would most certainly not be welcome amongst the vast majority of Christians though.
These sorts of topics are a personal passion of mine, and I realize that a lot of it sounds like bullshit. That's ok though, everything is always merely a work in progress.
meh, while i agree on the "everything is (to some degree) irrational" part and i can somehow understand your idea behind your choice for religion than, it still offers no explanation for chosing to be Christian, other than you grew up with it. And imo, picking your religion based on the randomness that is socialization is more than a little irrational. But than again, I shouldnt criticize the personal belief of other people.
Well, I'm not really "picking" Christianity; I've already made it clear that I take huge issue with the fundamental tenant of Christianity, that being an acceptance of Christ as the son of God. I simply call myself a "Christian" because the Christian church is the thing I know and feel comfortable with in terms of doctrinal criticism and the like. Whether I like it or not, I have lived a life in which Christianity has played a large role, and it seems pragmatic for me to approach the issue from a place of experience.
It is pragmatic to choose this approach, but I dont like to be pragmatic in this matter. Other than that, i probably agree with you.
On April 23 2013 04:07 Treehead wrote: Clearly, the belief in the christian god must be wrong. Why, look at all the bad things done by people who believed. Look at all the bad things these people used to think (as did people who didn't believe in the christian god, but that's beside the point). Clearly, because of all the bad things christians have ever done, any christian system of belief must be wrong. That's what you're aiming at, isn't it?
No, actually. Belief in the Christian God is wrong on a logical level that has nothing to do with its reprehensible history.
I'm arguing that you cannot hold Christianity as a moral authority when it is internally inconsistent.
If Christianity has long been on the wrong side of history when it comes to morality, one cannot argue that it is a standard for morals. That's just blindness.
Also, calling something immoral is not equivalent to ad hominem. I think Christianity is morally reprehensible, but that's not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be if I called you a moron for believing in it.
Actually, the constraints of "ad hominem" in this case would revolve around each parties estimation of possible judgement. If he or others do not think one can look at history and excise bits and pieces for criticism, than your statement that "Christianity is morally reprehensible" operates as an ad hominem. This is also true if one believes Christianity sufficiently stratified; you seem to think that one can point at this thing called "Christianity" and level a true accusation towards everyone and everything that calls itself a Christian. This is actually a pretty monumental task, as there are a great many people who call themselves Christians who struggle with rationally-inspired doubt every day and yet live good lives and help people.
Wrong again, because I'm calling the institution morally reprehensible, not necessarily Christians in particular.
Christianity as an institution has done nothing more than stifle progress throughout history. There are plenty of facts that I have already cited that support that assertion.
On April 23 2013 04:07 Treehead wrote: Clearly, the belief in the christian god must be wrong. Why, look at all the bad things done by people who believed. Look at all the bad things these people used to think (as did people who didn't believe in the christian god, but that's beside the point). Clearly, because of all the bad things christians have ever done, any christian system of belief must be wrong. That's what you're aiming at, isn't it?
No, actually. Belief in the Christian God is wrong on a logical level that has nothing to do with its reprehensible history.
I'm arguing that you cannot hold Christianity as a moral authority when it is internally inconsistent.
If Christianity has long been on the wrong side of history when it comes to morality, one cannot argue that it is a standard for morals. That's just blindness.
Also, calling something immoral is not equivalent to ad hominem. I think Christianity is morally reprehensible, but that's not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be if I called you a moron for believing in it.
Neuroscientists have succeeded in tricking people into feeling things simply by poking certain parts of their brains. Science cannot completely explain all of experience, but that's because it's a growing and developing, specific subfield of neurobiology.
If you find out how the feeling of something works, you can potentially make someone feel it. At this stage you would need physical access to someone's brain, but I'm sure in the (nearer than you'd think) future there will be things like virtual reality that use science to actually give you these feelings.
And besides, even if practically this is not possible for a hundred years or whatever, you can explain rationally your conscious experience through chemical reactions in your brain. Plenty of things have already been explained that way, and lots of drugs have been developed to treat psychological diseases using this knowledge. It's not far fetched to think in the future that computers will be able to simulate certain feelings so we can experience them through a proxy.
So again, simply because something is not explainable NOW does not mean it is not RATIONALLY explainable. Those are two very different things. One is a gap in knowledge and the other is an assertion that you have to be able to back up with more than "it's simply not possible."
Make them feel what? Where's the scientific description of what they are actually feeling? The person can say "I feel pain when you do that to my brain", but science has no access to what they are actually experiencing. Our words for pain are social conveniences, but we don't have access to other people's experiential states; We simply assume that when they say pain, they have the same kind of experience that we do when we have pain. There's nothing scientifically rigorous about this assumption whatsoever.
I'm not arguing that experience doesn't come from the mind, and I'm not arguing that we can't change how we experience things through science. I'm arguing that experience ITSELF can't be explained through science. If you understand what I'm talking about, I don't think this can possibly be argued against.
If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like.
Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it.
Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation.
"If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like."
Really? Where's the explanation of this then? I'd love for you to give an example.
"Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it."
Science can of course tell us how vision works. And of course, we all know that if you take out someone's eyes, they can't see. We understand the basic mechanics behind vision. But explaining what happens physically when someone sees and hears is not the same as explaining what it's like to see or hear.
"Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation."
I'm not ignorant of it. I have a perfect understanding of my experience. You do too (well, at least of your own experience). You continue to misunderstand. Rational explanation of mechanisms behind experience != Rational explanation of what experience is actually like to the person who is experiencing.
On April 22 2013 23:29 TOCHMY wrote: To answer how I became an atheist:
When I was old enough to make the logical decision that God isn't real was the day I became an atheist.
Amen brother. Born and raised catholic, then discovered science! Religion is there to give people a purpose, and to explain what they cannot understand.
Five hundred years ago a person might have argued, like you, that artificial vision would be impossible because science cannot explain to someone what happens when you see something, what it "feels like" to see something. Yet that's clearly not true now, since science can literally cure blindness. Obviously scientists understand what it "feels like" to see, since they've reproduced everything that's necessary for vision.
You can't possibly believe your last sentence. Imagine a blind scientist, who has never seen a thing in his life. He understands vision perfectly at a scientific level. Do you really think, from that, he knows what it's like to actually have vision?
On April 23 2013 04:07 Treehead wrote: Clearly, the belief in the christian god must be wrong. Why, look at all the bad things done by people who believed. Look at all the bad things these people used to think (as did people who didn't believe in the christian god, but that's beside the point). Clearly, because of all the bad things christians have ever done, any christian system of belief must be wrong. That's what you're aiming at, isn't it?
No, actually. Belief in the Christian God is wrong on a logical level that has nothing to do with its reprehensible history.
I'm arguing that you cannot hold Christianity as a moral authority when it is internally inconsistent.
If Christianity has long been on the wrong side of history when it comes to morality, one cannot argue that it is a standard for morals. That's just blindness.
Also, calling something immoral is not equivalent to ad hominem. I think Christianity is morally reprehensible, but that's not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be if I called you a moron for believing in it.
On April 23 2013 04:10 trias_e wrote:
Actually, yes it can.
Neuroscientists have succeeded in tricking people into feeling things simply by poking certain parts of their brains. Science cannot completely explain all of experience, but that's because it's a growing and developing, specific subfield of neurobiology.
If you find out how the feeling of something works, you can potentially make someone feel it. At this stage you would need physical access to someone's brain, but I'm sure in the (nearer than you'd think) future there will be things like virtual reality that use science to actually give you these feelings.
And besides, even if practically this is not possible for a hundred years or whatever, you can explain rationally your conscious experience through chemical reactions in your brain. Plenty of things have already been explained that way, and lots of drugs have been developed to treat psychological diseases using this knowledge. It's not far fetched to think in the future that computers will be able to simulate certain feelings so we can experience them through a proxy.
So again, simply because something is not explainable NOW does not mean it is not RATIONALLY explainable. Those are two very different things. One is a gap in knowledge and the other is an assertion that you have to be able to back up with more than "it's simply not possible."
Make them feel what? Where's the scientific description of what they are actually feeling? The person can say "I feel pain when you do that to my brain", but science has no access to what they are actually experiencing. Our words for pain are social conveniences, but we don't have access to other people's experiential states; We simply assume that when they say pain, they have the same kind of experience that we do when we have pain. There's nothing scientifically rigorous about this assumption whatsoever.
I'm not arguing that experience doesn't come from the mind, and I'm not arguing that we can't change how we experience things through science. I'm arguing that experience ITSELF can't be explained through science. If you understand what I'm talking about, I don't think this can possibly be argued against.
If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like.
Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it.
Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation.
"If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like."
Really? Where's the explanation of this then? I'd love for you to give an example.
"Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it."
Science can of course tell us how vision works. And of course, we all know that if you take out someone's eyes, they can't see. We understand the basic mechanics behind vision. But explaining what happens physically when someone sees and hears is not the same as explaining what it's like to see or hear.
"Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation."
I'm not ignorant of it. I have a perfect understanding of my experience. You do too (well, at least of your own experience). You continue to misunderstand. Rational explanation of mechanisms behind experience != Rational explanation of what experience is actually like to the person who is experiencing.
You're just arguing semantics at this point. In fact, your entire argument lacks cohesion.
What is the purpose of your argument? I'm not even understanding its core. You assert that science is not capable of explaining what it "feels like" to see or hear or whatever. I'm saying it obviously can, because science is capable of "explaining" to a deaf person what it is like to hear by GIVING THEM the experience.
Five hundred years ago a person might have argued, like you, that artificial vision would be impossible because science cannot explain to someone what happens when you see something, what it "feels like" to see something. Yet that's clearly not true now, since science can literally cure blindness. Obviously scientists understand what it "feels like" to see, since they've reproduced everything that's necessary for vision.
You can't possibly believe your last sentence. Imagine a blind scientist, who has never seen a thing in his life. He understands vision perfectly at a scientific level. Do you really think, from that, he knows what it's like to actually have vision?
if there was an all-encompassing explanation, then yes, of course.
Your misunderstanding is stemming from the fact that there isn't one NOW. That's not a product of there being a lack of rational explanation, that's simply a product of science not having progressed far enough.
The most practical way to think about it in today's terms would be that the scientist could easily create a device to see and then experience it himself.
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?
It's been going on for quite a while I'd assume, and I think it's quite logical that more people become atheist by studying all religions. See, if a person only knows of Christianity, it doesn't seem so irrational to believe in god. If, however, a person knows of several hundred deities and realizes there's no logical reason to believe in one over any of the others...
Of course, you must realize that when I said we study all religions, I meant from a secular point of view.
What is the purpose of your argument? I'm not even understanding its core. You assert that science is not capable of explaining what it "feels like" to see or hear or whatever. I'm saying it obviously can, because science is capable of "explaining" to a deaf person what it is like to hear by GIVING THEM the experience.
If science gives someone hearing, then they give them knowledge of what it is like to hear. But, it wasn't the scientific knowledge alone that gave them this knowledge. Only through actually experiencing hearing for yourself do you know what it is like. This is why experience isn't rational: You can't explain to someone through facts what it's like to hear. You have to give them the opportunity to experience it for themselves.
What is the purpose of your argument? I'm not even understanding its core. You assert that science is not capable of explaining what it "feels like" to see or hear or whatever. I'm saying it obviously can, because science is capable of "explaining" to a deaf person what it is like to hear by GIVING THEM the experience.
If science gives someone hearing, then they give them knowledge of what it is like to hear. But, it wasn't the scientific knowledge alone that gave them this knowledge. Only through actually experiencing hearing for yourself do you know what it is like. This is why experience isn't rational: You can't explain to someone through facts what it's like to hear. You have to give them the opportunity to experience it for themselves.
Okay, let me take your bait.
Suppose experience is not rational, and there will never ever be any rational basis for it.
What is the purpose of your argument? I'm not even understanding its core. You assert that science is not capable of explaining what it "feels like" to see or hear or whatever. I'm saying it obviously can, because science is capable of "explaining" to a deaf person what it is like to hear by GIVING THEM the experience.
If science gives someone hearing, then they give them knowledge of what it is like to hear. But, it wasn't the scientific knowledge alone that gave them this knowledge. Only through actually experiencing hearing for yourself do you know what it is like. This is why experience isn't rational: You can't explain to someone through facts what it's like to hear. You have to give them the opportunity to experience it for themselves.
Depends on what you find important. Of course, you can't explain something in such a way that the person hearing the explanation gets the actual experience, that's what makes experience something special. However, you can quite easily explain how hearing works to a deaf person, and they can understand it fully, without knowing exactly what it feels like.
On April 23 2013 04:07 Treehead wrote: Clearly, the belief in the christian god must be wrong. Why, look at all the bad things done by people who believed. Look at all the bad things these people used to think (as did people who didn't believe in the christian god, but that's beside the point). Clearly, because of all the bad things christians have ever done, any christian system of belief must be wrong. That's what you're aiming at, isn't it?
No, actually. Belief in the Christian God is wrong on a logical level that has nothing to do with its reprehensible history.
I'm arguing that you cannot hold Christianity as a moral authority when it is internally inconsistent.
If Christianity has long been on the wrong side of history when it comes to morality, one cannot argue that it is a standard for morals. That's just blindness.
Also, calling something immoral is not equivalent to ad hominem. I think Christianity is morally reprehensible, but that's not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be if I called you a moron for believing in it.
On April 23 2013 04:10 trias_e wrote:
Actually, yes it can.
Neuroscientists have succeeded in tricking people into feeling things simply by poking certain parts of their brains. Science cannot completely explain all of experience, but that's because it's a growing and developing, specific subfield of neurobiology.
If you find out how the feeling of something works, you can potentially make someone feel it. At this stage you would need physical access to someone's brain, but I'm sure in the (nearer than you'd think) future there will be things like virtual reality that use science to actually give you these feelings.
And besides, even if practically this is not possible for a hundred years or whatever, you can explain rationally your conscious experience through chemical reactions in your brain. Plenty of things have already been explained that way, and lots of drugs have been developed to treat psychological diseases using this knowledge. It's not far fetched to think in the future that computers will be able to simulate certain feelings so we can experience them through a proxy.
So again, simply because something is not explainable NOW does not mean it is not RATIONALLY explainable. Those are two very different things. One is a gap in knowledge and the other is an assertion that you have to be able to back up with more than "it's simply not possible."
Make them feel what? Where's the scientific description of what they are actually feeling? The person can say "I feel pain when you do that to my brain", but science has no access to what they are actually experiencing. Our words for pain are social conveniences, but we don't have access to other people's experiential states; We simply assume that when they say pain, they have the same kind of experience that we do when we have pain. There's nothing scientifically rigorous about this assumption whatsoever.
I'm not arguing that experience doesn't come from the mind, and I'm not arguing that we can't change how we experience things through science. I'm arguing that experience ITSELF can't be explained through science. If you understand what I'm talking about, I don't think this can possibly be argued against.
If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like.
Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it.
Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation.
"If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like."
Really? Where's the explanation of this then? I'd love for you to give an example.
"Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it."
Science can of course tell us how vision works. And of course, we all know that if you take out someone's eyes, they can't see. We understand the basic mechanics behind vision. But explaining what happens physically when someone sees and hears is not the same as explaining what it's like to see or hear.
"Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation."
I'm not ignorant of it. I have a perfect understanding of my experience. You do too (well, at least of your own experience). You continue to misunderstand. Rational explanation of mechanisms behind experience != Rational explanation of what experience is actually like to the person who is experiencing.
You're just arguing semantics at this point. In fact, your entire argument lacks cohesion.
What is the purpose of your argument? I'm not even understanding its core. You assert that science is not capable of explaining what it "feels like" to see or hear or whatever. I'm saying it obviously can, because science is capable of "explaining" to a deaf person what it is like to hear by GIVING THEM the experience.
Five hundred years ago a person might have argued, like you, that artificial vision would be impossible because science cannot explain to someone what happens when you see something, what it "feels like" to see something. Yet that's clearly not true now, since science can literally cure blindness. Obviously scientists understand what it "feels like" to see, since they've reproduced everything that's necessary for vision.
You can't possibly believe your last sentence. Imagine a blind scientist, who has never seen a thing in his life. He understands vision perfectly at a scientific level. Do you really think, from that, he knows what it's like to actually have vision?
if there was an all-encompassing explanation, then yes, of course.
So you think, through knowledge of facts about the physical world alone, a blind man could know what it's like to see?
This is just...obviously wrong? I suppose I can't really say much else. It's as if you said 1+1=3 to me here.
On April 23 2013 04:07 Treehead wrote: Clearly, the belief in the christian god must be wrong. Why, look at all the bad things done by people who believed. Look at all the bad things these people used to think (as did people who didn't believe in the christian god, but that's beside the point). Clearly, because of all the bad things christians have ever done, any christian system of belief must be wrong. That's what you're aiming at, isn't it?
No, actually. Belief in the Christian God is wrong on a logical level that has nothing to do with its reprehensible history.
I'm arguing that you cannot hold Christianity as a moral authority when it is internally inconsistent.
If Christianity has long been on the wrong side of history when it comes to morality, one cannot argue that it is a standard for morals. That's just blindness.
Also, calling something immoral is not equivalent to ad hominem. I think Christianity is morally reprehensible, but that's not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be if I called you a moron for believing in it.
On April 23 2013 04:10 trias_e wrote:
Actually, yes it can.
Neuroscientists have succeeded in tricking people into feeling things simply by poking certain parts of their brains. Science cannot completely explain all of experience, but that's because it's a growing and developing, specific subfield of neurobiology.
If you find out how the feeling of something works, you can potentially make someone feel it. At this stage you would need physical access to someone's brain, but I'm sure in the (nearer than you'd think) future there will be things like virtual reality that use science to actually give you these feelings.
And besides, even if practically this is not possible for a hundred years or whatever, you can explain rationally your conscious experience through chemical reactions in your brain. Plenty of things have already been explained that way, and lots of drugs have been developed to treat psychological diseases using this knowledge. It's not far fetched to think in the future that computers will be able to simulate certain feelings so we can experience them through a proxy.
So again, simply because something is not explainable NOW does not mean it is not RATIONALLY explainable. Those are two very different things. One is a gap in knowledge and the other is an assertion that you have to be able to back up with more than "it's simply not possible."
Make them feel what? Where's the scientific description of what they are actually feeling? The person can say "I feel pain when you do that to my brain", but science has no access to what they are actually experiencing. Our words for pain are social conveniences, but we don't have access to other people's experiential states; We simply assume that when they say pain, they have the same kind of experience that we do when we have pain. There's nothing scientifically rigorous about this assumption whatsoever.
I'm not arguing that experience doesn't come from the mind, and I'm not arguing that we can't change how we experience things through science. I'm arguing that experience ITSELF can't be explained through science. If you understand what I'm talking about, I don't think this can possibly be argued against.
If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like.
Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it.
Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation.
"If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like."
Really? Where's the explanation of this then? I'd love for you to give an example.
"Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it."
Science can of course tell us how vision works. And of course, we all know that if you take out someone's eyes, they can't see. We understand the basic mechanics behind vision. But explaining what happens physically when someone sees and hears is not the same as explaining what it's like to see or hear.
"Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation."
I'm not ignorant of it. I have a perfect understanding of my experience. You do too (well, at least of your own experience). You continue to misunderstand. Rational explanation of mechanisms behind experience != Rational explanation of what experience is actually like to the person who is experiencing.
You're just arguing semantics at this point. In fact, your entire argument lacks cohesion.
What is the purpose of your argument? I'm not even understanding its core. You assert that science is not capable of explaining what it "feels like" to see or hear or whatever. I'm saying it obviously can, because science is capable of "explaining" to a deaf person what it is like to hear by GIVING THEM the experience.
From my understanding, they are doing exactly what NDT was talking about. Specifically, they are pointing at the limits of current scientific understanding (for some reason they've chosen the chemical processes that go on in the human brain, what we call emotions, understanding, etc. which seems to be a popular thing to do among the "religious" crowd now as it is uncouth to argue against "feelings."). They are saying, you can't explain our emotions/experience/existence, therefore science = fail and our god/spirits/other thing we can't prove must be (or at least could be) there in some form.
This is the 21st century version of that. They are clinging on to whatever scraps are left. In another few hundreds years, it will be different scraps, and even less people will cling to them.
At least that is how I read what they are attempting to say.
What is the purpose of your argument? I'm not even understanding its core. You assert that science is not capable of explaining what it "feels like" to see or hear or whatever. I'm saying it obviously can, because science is capable of "explaining" to a deaf person what it is like to hear by GIVING THEM the experience.
If science gives someone hearing, then they give them knowledge of what it is like to hear. But, it wasn't the scientific knowledge alone that gave them this knowledge. Only through actually experiencing hearing for yourself do you know what it is like. This is why experience isn't rational: You can't explain to someone through facts what it's like to hear. You have to give them the opportunity to experience it for themselves.
Okay, let me take your bait.
Suppose experience is not rational, and there will never ever be any rational basis for it.
How does this imply that there is a God?
I don't think there is a God, and I don't think this implies that there is a God.
But my point is that rationality cannot account for everything in life. In particular, what it is actually like to exist, subjectively, as a human being (kind of an important thing).
On April 23 2013 04:07 Treehead wrote: Clearly, the belief in the christian god must be wrong. Why, look at all the bad things done by people who believed. Look at all the bad things these people used to think (as did people who didn't believe in the christian god, but that's beside the point). Clearly, because of all the bad things christians have ever done, any christian system of belief must be wrong. That's what you're aiming at, isn't it?
No, actually. Belief in the Christian God is wrong on a logical level that has nothing to do with its reprehensible history.
I'm arguing that you cannot hold Christianity as a moral authority when it is internally inconsistent.
If Christianity has long been on the wrong side of history when it comes to morality, one cannot argue that it is a standard for morals. That's just blindness.
Also, calling something immoral is not equivalent to ad hominem. I think Christianity is morally reprehensible, but that's not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be if I called you a moron for believing in it.
On April 23 2013 04:10 trias_e wrote:
Actually, yes it can.
Neuroscientists have succeeded in tricking people into feeling things simply by poking certain parts of their brains. Science cannot completely explain all of experience, but that's because it's a growing and developing, specific subfield of neurobiology.
If you find out how the feeling of something works, you can potentially make someone feel it. At this stage you would need physical access to someone's brain, but I'm sure in the (nearer than you'd think) future there will be things like virtual reality that use science to actually give you these feelings.
And besides, even if practically this is not possible for a hundred years or whatever, you can explain rationally your conscious experience through chemical reactions in your brain. Plenty of things have already been explained that way, and lots of drugs have been developed to treat psychological diseases using this knowledge. It's not far fetched to think in the future that computers will be able to simulate certain feelings so we can experience them through a proxy.
So again, simply because something is not explainable NOW does not mean it is not RATIONALLY explainable. Those are two very different things. One is a gap in knowledge and the other is an assertion that you have to be able to back up with more than "it's simply not possible."
Make them feel what? Where's the scientific description of what they are actually feeling? The person can say "I feel pain when you do that to my brain", but science has no access to what they are actually experiencing. Our words for pain are social conveniences, but we don't have access to other people's experiential states; We simply assume that when they say pain, they have the same kind of experience that we do when we have pain. There's nothing scientifically rigorous about this assumption whatsoever.
I'm not arguing that experience doesn't come from the mind, and I'm not arguing that we can't change how we experience things through science. I'm arguing that experience ITSELF can't be explained through science. If you understand what I'm talking about, I don't think this can possibly be argued against.
If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like.
Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it.
Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation.
"If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like."
Really? Where's the explanation of this then? I'd love for you to give an example.
"Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it."
Science can of course tell us how vision works. And of course, we all know that if you take out someone's eyes, they can't see. We understand the basic mechanics behind vision. But explaining what happens physically when someone sees and hears is not the same as explaining what it's like to see or hear.
"Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation."
I'm not ignorant of it. I have a perfect understanding of my experience. You do too (well, at least of your own experience). You continue to misunderstand. Rational explanation of mechanisms behind experience != Rational explanation of what experience is actually like to the person who is experiencing.
You're just arguing semantics at this point. In fact, your entire argument lacks cohesion.
What is the purpose of your argument? I'm not even understanding its core. You assert that science is not capable of explaining what it "feels like" to see or hear or whatever. I'm saying it obviously can, because science is capable of "explaining" to a deaf person what it is like to hear by GIVING THEM the experience.
On April 23 2013 04:22 trias_e wrote:
Five hundred years ago a person might have argued, like you, that artificial vision would be impossible because science cannot explain to someone what happens when you see something, what it "feels like" to see something. Yet that's clearly not true now, since science can literally cure blindness. Obviously scientists understand what it "feels like" to see, since they've reproduced everything that's necessary for vision.
You can't possibly believe your last sentence. Imagine a blind scientist, who has never seen a thing in his life. He understands vision perfectly at a scientific level. Do you really think, from that, he knows what it's like to actually have vision?
if there was an all-encompassing explanation, then yes, of course.
So you think, through knowledge of facts about the physical world alone, a blind man could know what it's like to see?
This is just...obviously wrong? I suppose I can't really say much else. It's as if you said 1+1=3 to me here.
Yes.
So, congratulations. We've disagreed, but what's the point?
If you're right, how does it imply that there needs to be a God?
What is the purpose of your argument? I'm not even understanding its core. You assert that science is not capable of explaining what it "feels like" to see or hear or whatever. I'm saying it obviously can, because science is capable of "explaining" to a deaf person what it is like to hear by GIVING THEM the experience.
If science gives someone hearing, then they give them knowledge of what it is like to hear. But, it wasn't the scientific knowledge alone that gave them this knowledge. Only through actually experiencing hearing for yourself do you know what it is like. This is why experience isn't rational: You can't explain to someone through facts what it's like to hear. You have to give them the opportunity to experience it for themselves.
Okay, let me take your bait.
Suppose experience is not rational, and there will never ever be any rational basis for it.
How does this imply that there is a God?
I don't think there is a God, and I don't think this implies that there is a God.
But my point is that rationality cannot account for everything in life. In particular, what it is actually like to exist, subjectively, as a human being (kind of an important thing).
Your point is nothing more that there is no rational explanation NOW for what something feels like.
That's nothing more than pointing out a knowledge gap. Cool story, there are plenty of knowledge gaps. Nothing new.
On April 23 2013 04:07 Treehead wrote: Clearly, the belief in the christian god must be wrong. Why, look at all the bad things done by people who believed. Look at all the bad things these people used to think (as did people who didn't believe in the christian god, but that's beside the point). Clearly, because of all the bad things christians have ever done, any christian system of belief must be wrong. That's what you're aiming at, isn't it?
No, actually. Belief in the Christian God is wrong on a logical level that has nothing to do with its reprehensible history.
I'm arguing that you cannot hold Christianity as a moral authority when it is internally inconsistent.
If Christianity has long been on the wrong side of history when it comes to morality, one cannot argue that it is a standard for morals. That's just blindness.
Also, calling something immoral is not equivalent to ad hominem. I think Christianity is morally reprehensible, but that's not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be if I called you a moron for believing in it.
On April 23 2013 04:10 trias_e wrote:
Actually, yes it can.
Neuroscientists have succeeded in tricking people into feeling things simply by poking certain parts of their brains. Science cannot completely explain all of experience, but that's because it's a growing and developing, specific subfield of neurobiology.
If you find out how the feeling of something works, you can potentially make someone feel it. At this stage you would need physical access to someone's brain, but I'm sure in the (nearer than you'd think) future there will be things like virtual reality that use science to actually give you these feelings.
And besides, even if practically this is not possible for a hundred years or whatever, you can explain rationally your conscious experience through chemical reactions in your brain. Plenty of things have already been explained that way, and lots of drugs have been developed to treat psychological diseases using this knowledge. It's not far fetched to think in the future that computers will be able to simulate certain feelings so we can experience them through a proxy.
So again, simply because something is not explainable NOW does not mean it is not RATIONALLY explainable. Those are two very different things. One is a gap in knowledge and the other is an assertion that you have to be able to back up with more than "it's simply not possible."
Make them feel what? Where's the scientific description of what they are actually feeling? The person can say "I feel pain when you do that to my brain", but science has no access to what they are actually experiencing. Our words for pain are social conveniences, but we don't have access to other people's experiential states; We simply assume that when they say pain, they have the same kind of experience that we do when we have pain. There's nothing scientifically rigorous about this assumption whatsoever.
I'm not arguing that experience doesn't come from the mind, and I'm not arguing that we can't change how we experience things through science. I'm arguing that experience ITSELF can't be explained through science. If you understand what I'm talking about, I don't think this can possibly be argued against.
If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like.
Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it.
Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation.
"If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like."
Really? Where's the explanation of this then? I'd love for you to give an example.
"Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it."
Science can of course tell us how vision works. And of course, we all know that if you take out someone's eyes, they can't see. We understand the basic mechanics behind vision. But explaining what happens physically when someone sees and hears is not the same as explaining what it's like to see or hear.
"Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation."
I'm not ignorant of it. I have a perfect understanding of my experience. You do too (well, at least of your own experience). You continue to misunderstand. Rational explanation of mechanisms behind experience != Rational explanation of what experience is actually like to the person who is experiencing.
You're just arguing semantics at this point. In fact, your entire argument lacks cohesion.
What is the purpose of your argument? I'm not even understanding its core. You assert that science is not capable of explaining what it "feels like" to see or hear or whatever. I'm saying it obviously can, because science is capable of "explaining" to a deaf person what it is like to hear by GIVING THEM the experience.
From my understanding, they are doing exactly what NDT was talking about. Specifically, they are pointing at the limits of current scientific understanding (for some reason they've chosen the chemical processes that go on in the human brain, what we call emotions, understanding, etc. which seems to be a popular thing to do among the "religious" crowd now as it is uncouth to argue against "feelings."). They are saying, you can't explain our emotions/experience/existence, therefore science = fail and our god/spirits/other thing we can't prove must be (or at least could be) there in some form.
This is the 21st century version of that. They are clinging on to whatever scraps are left. In another few hundreds years, it will be different scraps, and even less people will cling to them.
At least that is how I read what they are attempting to say.
Your therefore is utterly wrong.
It is funny that you reference NDT like a preacher cites the bible. Just know that faith in the progress of science is still faith.
On April 23 2013 04:07 Treehead wrote: Clearly, the belief in the christian god must be wrong. Why, look at all the bad things done by people who believed. Look at all the bad things these people used to think (as did people who didn't believe in the christian god, but that's beside the point). Clearly, because of all the bad things christians have ever done, any christian system of belief must be wrong. That's what you're aiming at, isn't it?
No, actually. Belief in the Christian God is wrong on a logical level that has nothing to do with its reprehensible history.
I'm arguing that you cannot hold Christianity as a moral authority when it is internally inconsistent.
If Christianity has long been on the wrong side of history when it comes to morality, one cannot argue that it is a standard for morals. That's just blindness.
Also, calling something immoral is not equivalent to ad hominem. I think Christianity is morally reprehensible, but that's not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be if I called you a moron for believing in it.
If you cannot prove that there is no god, you have no argument which can refer to christian belief as "wrong". You can say you doubt it. You can see it seems improbable, and you'd be right. You cannot say it's wrong (unless *you* like being wrong), because you cannot disprove it.
You can hold something as a moral authority which seems internally inconsistent, by understanding that there are many voices in christianity - and even if they quibble over the details, the general spirit is roughly the same.
It's not ad hominem to call something immoral, you're right. It is Ad Hominem to say "this guy Treehead, who currently operates under christian belief has all the wrong beliefs, because 100 years ago, this other christian guy believed in slavery as part of his christian religion". It is ad hominem to say that some christian's beliefs are wrong because other christians have made immoral actions. If that's not what you're getting at, I'd like to know what the actions of people long dead in a society that was far more violent than this one (e.g. the crusades, the inquisition - which happened in much less developed worlds) have to do with how we determine what we believe in today. Is there a god or not? Is he benevolent or not? I don't know the answer, but I'm sure the investigation doesn't rely in the actions of people hundreds of years ago, or even just 50 years ago.
Christianity is not the same religion as it was in the crusades, and you know it. You bring up history so you can call people who believe in it names, and consider yourself an intellectual for doing so. On the topic of history, by the way, what did atheists believe 1000 years ago? I bet there were many who believed in slavery. I bet many of them out there today are homophobes. I bet many of them who were out there 50 years ago hated black people. I bet there are people of every belief who also are hateful of some or another for more or less no reason. Where was our biological urge towards morality then?
You'll note that this is not ad hominem, because I actually do link up the allegations (bad things people have done in the past) with your beliefs (the belief that moral standards are somehow biological, which you stated above).
Nor is it ad hominem for you use subtext to call me names for my religion - but then, I'm sure you know that. You seem pretty smart.
My point is that you can't replace God with rationality and think we're all set. There are some things that religion/belief in God gave us that can't be replaced with science: Values, meaning, purpose, morality. I recommend reading some Sartre if you want to get into where having no God leaves us in these areas.
"Your point is nothing more that there is no rational explanation NOW for what something feels like.
That's nothing more than pointing out a knowledge gap. Cool story, there are plenty of knowledge gaps. Nothing new."
No, there will never be a rational/scientific explanation for what something feels like, because experience itself is not part of that which science can study (the physical realm).
On April 23 2013 04:37 trias_e wrote: My point is that you can't replace God with rationality and think we're all set. There are some things that religion/belief in God gave us that can't be replaced with science: Values, meaning, purpose, morality. I recommend reading some Sartre if you want to get into where having no God leaves us in these areas.
Religion/belief in god has nothing to do with any of those things.
Values/morality are part of being a social community, atheist have them too and you do not need to derive them from anything having to do with God/religion. Meaning and purpose? That's subjective, and I feel sad for people who's meaning in life is to live for a deity which gives them no feedback. Your purpose in life can be to be happy, and keep people you love happy. No relation to religion.
On April 23 2013 04:07 Treehead wrote: Clearly, the belief in the christian god must be wrong. Why, look at all the bad things done by people who believed. Look at all the bad things these people used to think (as did people who didn't believe in the christian god, but that's beside the point). Clearly, because of all the bad things christians have ever done, any christian system of belief must be wrong. That's what you're aiming at, isn't it?
No, actually. Belief in the Christian God is wrong on a logical level that has nothing to do with its reprehensible history.
I'm arguing that you cannot hold Christianity as a moral authority when it is internally inconsistent.
If Christianity has long been on the wrong side of history when it comes to morality, one cannot argue that it is a standard for morals. That's just blindness.
Also, calling something immoral is not equivalent to ad hominem. I think Christianity is morally reprehensible, but that's not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be if I called you a moron for believing in it.
On April 23 2013 04:10 trias_e wrote:
Actually, yes it can.
Neuroscientists have succeeded in tricking people into feeling things simply by poking certain parts of their brains. Science cannot completely explain all of experience, but that's because it's a growing and developing, specific subfield of neurobiology.
If you find out how the feeling of something works, you can potentially make someone feel it. At this stage you would need physical access to someone's brain, but I'm sure in the (nearer than you'd think) future there will be things like virtual reality that use science to actually give you these feelings.
And besides, even if practically this is not possible for a hundred years or whatever, you can explain rationally your conscious experience through chemical reactions in your brain. Plenty of things have already been explained that way, and lots of drugs have been developed to treat psychological diseases using this knowledge. It's not far fetched to think in the future that computers will be able to simulate certain feelings so we can experience them through a proxy.
So again, simply because something is not explainable NOW does not mean it is not RATIONALLY explainable. Those are two very different things. One is a gap in knowledge and the other is an assertion that you have to be able to back up with more than "it's simply not possible."
Make them feel what? Where's the scientific description of what they are actually feeling? The person can say "I feel pain when you do that to my brain", but science has no access to what they are actually experiencing. Our words for pain are social conveniences, but we don't have access to other people's experiential states; We simply assume that when they say pain, they have the same kind of experience that we do when we have pain. There's nothing scientifically rigorous about this assumption whatsoever.
I'm not arguing that experience doesn't come from the mind, and I'm not arguing that we can't change how we experience things through science. I'm arguing that experience ITSELF can't be explained through science. If you understand what I'm talking about, I don't think this can possibly be argued against.
If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like.
Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it.
Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation.
"If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like."
Really? Where's the explanation of this then? I'd love for you to give an example.
"Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it."
Science can of course tell us how vision works. And of course, we all know that if you take out someone's eyes, they can't see. We understand the basic mechanics behind vision. But explaining what happens physically when someone sees and hears is not the same as explaining what it's like to see or hear.
"Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation."
I'm not ignorant of it. I have a perfect understanding of my experience. You do too (well, at least of your own experience). You continue to misunderstand. Rational explanation of mechanisms behind experience != Rational explanation of what experience is actually like to the person who is experiencing.
You're just arguing semantics at this point. In fact, your entire argument lacks cohesion.
What is the purpose of your argument? I'm not even understanding its core. You assert that science is not capable of explaining what it "feels like" to see or hear or whatever. I'm saying it obviously can, because science is capable of "explaining" to a deaf person what it is like to hear by GIVING THEM the experience.
From my understanding, they are doing exactly what NDT was talking about. Specifically, they are pointing at the limits of current scientific understanding (for some reason they've chosen the chemical processes that go on in the human brain, what we call emotions, understanding, etc. which seems to be a popular thing to do among the "religious" crowd now as it is uncouth to argue against "feelings."). They are saying, you can't explain our emotions/experience/existence, therefore science = fail and our god/spirits/other thing we can't prove must be (or at least could be) there in some form.
This is the 21st century version of that. They are clinging on to whatever scraps are left. In another few hundreds years, it will be different scraps, and even less people will cling to them.
At least that is how I read what they are attempting to say.
Your therefore is utterly wrong.
It is funny that you reference NDT like a preacher cites the bible. Just know that faith in the progress of science is still faith.
Then you didn't explain it very well. I don't reference him for any reason other than he was linked in the thread already and he specifically mentioned what you are doing. Science is not faith, I know the religious community loves to pretend it is just a different form of faith, but it really isn't. That assertion proves a fundamental misunderstanding of either concept.
You already said "I think therefore I am" isn't "enough" for you, yet you can't prove a single thing beyond that, but we are suppose to "believe" that there is more. Why this is true, I have no clue.
On April 23 2013 04:07 Treehead wrote: Clearly, the belief in the christian god must be wrong. Why, look at all the bad things done by people who believed. Look at all the bad things these people used to think (as did people who didn't believe in the christian god, but that's beside the point). Clearly, because of all the bad things christians have ever done, any christian system of belief must be wrong. That's what you're aiming at, isn't it?
No, actually. Belief in the Christian God is wrong on a logical level that has nothing to do with its reprehensible history.
I'm arguing that you cannot hold Christianity as a moral authority when it is internally inconsistent.
If Christianity has long been on the wrong side of history when it comes to morality, one cannot argue that it is a standard for morals. That's just blindness.
Also, calling something immoral is not equivalent to ad hominem. I think Christianity is morally reprehensible, but that's not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be if I called you a moron for believing in it.
On April 23 2013 04:10 trias_e wrote:
Actually, yes it can.
Neuroscientists have succeeded in tricking people into feeling things simply by poking certain parts of their brains. Science cannot completely explain all of experience, but that's because it's a growing and developing, specific subfield of neurobiology.
If you find out how the feeling of something works, you can potentially make someone feel it. At this stage you would need physical access to someone's brain, but I'm sure in the (nearer than you'd think) future there will be things like virtual reality that use science to actually give you these feelings.
And besides, even if practically this is not possible for a hundred years or whatever, you can explain rationally your conscious experience through chemical reactions in your brain. Plenty of things have already been explained that way, and lots of drugs have been developed to treat psychological diseases using this knowledge. It's not far fetched to think in the future that computers will be able to simulate certain feelings so we can experience them through a proxy.
So again, simply because something is not explainable NOW does not mean it is not RATIONALLY explainable. Those are two very different things. One is a gap in knowledge and the other is an assertion that you have to be able to back up with more than "it's simply not possible."
Make them feel what? Where's the scientific description of what they are actually feeling? The person can say "I feel pain when you do that to my brain", but science has no access to what they are actually experiencing. Our words for pain are social conveniences, but we don't have access to other people's experiential states; We simply assume that when they say pain, they have the same kind of experience that we do when we have pain. There's nothing scientifically rigorous about this assumption whatsoever.
I'm not arguing that experience doesn't come from the mind, and I'm not arguing that we can't change how we experience things through science. I'm arguing that experience ITSELF can't be explained through science. If you understand what I'm talking about, I don't think this can possibly be argued against.
If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like.
Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it.
Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation.
"If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like."
Really? Where's the explanation of this then? I'd love for you to give an example.
"Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it."
Science can of course tell us how vision works. And of course, we all know that if you take out someone's eyes, they can't see. We understand the basic mechanics behind vision. But explaining what happens physically when someone sees and hears is not the same as explaining what it's like to see or hear.
"Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation."
I'm not ignorant of it. I have a perfect understanding of my experience. You do too (well, at least of your own experience). You continue to misunderstand. Rational explanation of mechanisms behind experience != Rational explanation of what experience is actually like to the person who is experiencing.
You're just arguing semantics at this point. In fact, your entire argument lacks cohesion.
What is the purpose of your argument? I'm not even understanding its core. You assert that science is not capable of explaining what it "feels like" to see or hear or whatever. I'm saying it obviously can, because science is capable of "explaining" to a deaf person what it is like to hear by GIVING THEM the experience.
From my understanding, they are doing exactly what NDT was talking about. Specifically, they are pointing at the limits of current scientific understanding (for some reason they've chosen the chemical processes that go on in the human brain, what we call emotions, understanding, etc. which seems to be a popular thing to do among the "religious" crowd now as it is uncouth to argue against "feelings."). They are saying, you can't explain our emotions/experience/existence, therefore science = fail and our god/spirits/other thing we can't prove must be (or at least could be) there in some form.
This is the 21st century version of that. They are clinging on to whatever scraps are left. In another few hundreds years, it will be different scraps, and even less people will cling to them.
At least that is how I read what they are attempting to say.
Your therefore is utterly wrong.
It is funny that you reference NDT like a preacher cites the bible. Just know that faith in the progress of science is still faith.
What's wrong with his conclusion about your argument?
I mean, this is a thread about atheism. What's the whole point of this discussion about experience and rational explanations if not with respect to belief/disbelief?
Stating that, just because there is no scientific explanation for something now doesn't mean there never will be is not equivalent to faith. There may very well never be a scientific explanation for something, but we don't know. I don't know whether or not science will be able to explain some currently unexplainable things.
In fact, one of the things that I like most about science is the fact that there is no fear about saying "we don't know right now." You know why? It's because science actually works toward explaining the unknown. It has a pretty good track record on that front.
With religion, the best explanation one can get is "God did it." You don't actually find out anything interesting from that. It's literally the antithesis to progress. There's nothing more to it than "God did it" whenever something we don't understand comes up.
Why does the sun rise every morning? For thousands of years, the explanation was "God did it". In fact, plenty of civilizations literally worshiped the sun, and saw eclipses as the wrath of the gods. Science can explain this natural phenomenon pretty accurately now, and it's clear that the sun doesn't actually rise. It's just an illusion.
There are plenty of questions now that are unanswered, and science uncovers more questions a lot of the time than answers. This doesn't mean that it's wrong, though, or that it will never succeed in explaining the currently unexplainable.
On April 23 2013 04:07 Treehead wrote: Clearly, the belief in the christian god must be wrong. Why, look at all the bad things done by people who believed. Look at all the bad things these people used to think (as did people who didn't believe in the christian god, but that's beside the point). Clearly, because of all the bad things christians have ever done, any christian system of belief must be wrong. That's what you're aiming at, isn't it?
No, actually. Belief in the Christian God is wrong on a logical level that has nothing to do with its reprehensible history.
I'm arguing that you cannot hold Christianity as a moral authority when it is internally inconsistent.
If Christianity has long been on the wrong side of history when it comes to morality, one cannot argue that it is a standard for morals. That's just blindness.
Also, calling something immoral is not equivalent to ad hominem. I think Christianity is morally reprehensible, but that's not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be if I called you a moron for believing in it.
If you cannot prove that there is no god, you have no argument which can refer to christian belief as "wrong". You can say you doubt it. You can see it seems improbable, and you'd be right. You cannot say it's wrong (unless *you* like being wrong), because you cannot disprove it.
You can hold something as a moral authority which seems internally inconsistent, by understanding that there are many voices in christianity - and even if they quibble over the details, the general spirit is roughly the same.
It's not ad hominem to call something immoral, you're right. It is Ad Hominem to say "this guy Treehead, who currently operates under christian belief has all the wrong beliefs, because 100 years ago, this other christian guy believed in slavery as part of his christian religion". It is ad hominem to say that some christian's beliefs are wrong because other christians have made immoral actions. If that's not what you're getting at, I'd like to know what the actions of people long dead in a society that was far more violent than this one (e.g. the crusades, the inquisition - which happened in much less developed worlds) have to do with how we determine what we believe in today. Is there a god or not? Is he benevolent or not? I don't know the answer, but I'm sure the investigation doesn't rely in the actions of people hundreds of years ago, or even just 50 years ago.
Christianity is not the same religion as it was in the crusades, and you know it. You bring up history so you can call people who believe in it names, and consider yourself an intellectual for doing so. On the topic of history, by the way, what did atheists believe 1000 years ago? I bet there were many who believed in slavery. I bet many of them out there today are homophobes. I bet many of them who were out there 50 years ago hated black people. I bet there are people of every belief who also are hateful of some or another for more or less no reason. Where was our biological urge towards morality then?
You'll note that this is not ad hominem, because I actually do link up the allegations (bad things people have done in the past) with your beliefs (the belief that moral standards are somehow biological, which you stated above).
Nor is it ad hominem for you use subtext to call me names for my religion - but then, I'm sure you know that. You seem pretty smart.
So? It's not that much better than in its history. Plenty of official Christian doctrine, plenty of Christian institutions, represent Christianity when they, today, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities.
As for your atheist question, there probably weren't that many atheists back then, at least not public ones. You know why? Because most religions would kill them for being nonbelievers. There aren't many famous atheists in history because atheists have long been discriminated against, just like any other minority in existence.
Here's the difference, though: you are arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am a walking contradiction to that statement. I am not religious at all, and I think most people would agree that I am not by any means an immoral person. I'm not going to kill anyone, I'm not going to steal, and I'm certainly not going to infringe upon the rights of any other person. Yet, I'm not religious, nor have I ever looked toward religion for moral guidance.
In fact, your earlier posts hinted toward Christian moral superiority. Plenty of Christians use Christianity to say that gays, blacks, women, oral sex, abortion, Democrats, Muslims, Jews, and plenty of other minorities/others are morally inferior to them.
When have you seen atheism, a lack of belief in God, used as a justification for the same?
On April 23 2013 04:37 trias_e wrote: My point is that you can't replace God with rationality and think we're all set. There are some things that religion/belief in God gave us that can't be replaced with science: Values, meaning, purpose, morality. I recommend reading some Sartre if you want to get into where having no God leaves us in these areas.
Religion/belief in god has nothing to do with any of those things.
Values/morality are part of being a social community, atheist have them too and you do not need to derive them from anything having to do with God/religion. Meaning and purpose? That's subjective, and I feel sad for people who's meaning in life is to live for a deity which gives them no feedback. Your purpose in life can be to be happy, and keep people you love happy. No relation to religion.
Well, I wouldn't say that religion/belief in god has nothing to do with any of those things. That's pretty much all it has to do with.
But you are right that you can have them without it. However, where belief in god is comforting is that god is supposed to be some objective measure of right and wrong in the world. While of course we can come up with our own meanings and purposes, who is to say that we are right. Without an 'objective' source of these things, we can be left in a bit of a dilemma.
If my morality comes from my society, what if my society is simply wrong? God can't be wrong (supposedly), which is why God is so comforting.
What if I come up with my own meaning and purpose for my life, but realize I got it wrong, and feel like I wasted my life. This is a pretty common theme in this modern era (especially given by the trope of the materialistic career-man who neglects his family). This is why God may actually be a good thing in some people's lives: It is a comforting illusion that hides the actual freedom of choice (for values, meanings, purposes) in your life. But, it is one that allows us to live with a firm purpose and order that we don't second-guess. That second-guessing can lead to much existential angst.
The one place that these things will never come from is scientific progress. Science can tell you the best way to get to an end, but it can't tell you what the end should actually be. The meaning of ones life, what moral values we should hold: These things aren't part of science, but part of the existence of humanity.
On April 23 2013 04:37 trias_e wrote: My point is that you can't replace God with rationality and think we're all set. There are some things that religion/belief in God gave us that can't be replaced with science: Values, meaning, purpose, morality. I recommend reading some Sartre if you want to get into where having no God leaves us in these areas.
Religion/belief in god has nothing to do with any of those things.
Values/morality are part of being a social community, atheist have them too and you do not need to derive them from anything having to do with God/religion. Meaning and purpose? That's subjective, and I feel sad for people who's meaning in life is to live for a deity which gives them no feedback. Your purpose in life can be to be happy, and keep people you love happy. No relation to religion.
Well, I wouldn't say that religion/belief in god has nothing to do with any of those things. That's pretty much all it has to do with.
But you are right that you can have them without it. However, where belief in god is comforting is that god is supposed to be some objective measure of right and wrong in the world. While of course we can come up with our own meanings and purposes, who is to say that we are right. Without an 'objective' source of these things, we can be left in a bit of a dilemma.
If my morality comes from my society, what if my society is simply wrong? God can't be wrong (supposedly), which is why God is so comforting.
What if I come up with my own meaning and purpose for my life, but realize I got it wrong, and feel like I wasted my life. This is a pretty common theme in this modern era (especially given by the trope of the materialistic career-man who neglects his family). This is why God may actually be a good thing in some people's lives: It is a comforting illusion that hides the actual freedom of choice (for values, meanings, purposes) in your life.
I agree with you, but then again, you could say that about any delusion. A dude might think he's actually a hen. His purpose in life is to hatch a couple of eggs he's sitting on in his mental asylum. Suddenly, he becomes clear of mind and realizes he's a dude sitting on a bunch of rotten old eggs. He would probably feel he wasted his life as well, but that doesn't mean he's better off being delusional.
EDIT: Or, I guess your point is that he's actually better off being delusional. Which I don't agree with, but it's a valid stance to take, in a way.
On April 23 2013 04:07 Treehead wrote: Clearly, the belief in the christian god must be wrong. Why, look at all the bad things done by people who believed. Look at all the bad things these people used to think (as did people who didn't believe in the christian god, but that's beside the point). Clearly, because of all the bad things christians have ever done, any christian system of belief must be wrong. That's what you're aiming at, isn't it?
No, actually. Belief in the Christian God is wrong on a logical level that has nothing to do with its reprehensible history.
I'm arguing that you cannot hold Christianity as a moral authority when it is internally inconsistent.
If Christianity has long been on the wrong side of history when it comes to morality, one cannot argue that it is a standard for morals. That's just blindness.
Also, calling something immoral is not equivalent to ad hominem. I think Christianity is morally reprehensible, but that's not ad hominem. Ad hominem would be if I called you a moron for believing in it.
On April 23 2013 04:10 trias_e wrote:
Actually, yes it can.
Neuroscientists have succeeded in tricking people into feeling things simply by poking certain parts of their brains. Science cannot completely explain all of experience, but that's because it's a growing and developing, specific subfield of neurobiology.
If you find out how the feeling of something works, you can potentially make someone feel it. At this stage you would need physical access to someone's brain, but I'm sure in the (nearer than you'd think) future there will be things like virtual reality that use science to actually give you these feelings.
And besides, even if practically this is not possible for a hundred years or whatever, you can explain rationally your conscious experience through chemical reactions in your brain. Plenty of things have already been explained that way, and lots of drugs have been developed to treat psychological diseases using this knowledge. It's not far fetched to think in the future that computers will be able to simulate certain feelings so we can experience them through a proxy.
So again, simply because something is not explainable NOW does not mean it is not RATIONALLY explainable. Those are two very different things. One is a gap in knowledge and the other is an assertion that you have to be able to back up with more than "it's simply not possible."
Make them feel what? Where's the scientific description of what they are actually feeling? The person can say "I feel pain when you do that to my brain", but science has no access to what they are actually experiencing. Our words for pain are social conveniences, but we don't have access to other people's experiential states; We simply assume that when they say pain, they have the same kind of experience that we do when we have pain. There's nothing scientifically rigorous about this assumption whatsoever.
I'm not arguing that experience doesn't come from the mind, and I'm not arguing that we can't change how we experience things through science. I'm arguing that experience ITSELF can't be explained through science. If you understand what I'm talking about, I don't think this can possibly be argued against.
If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like.
Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it.
Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation.
"If science is capable of explaining what is happening chemically in your brain when you experience something, then yes, it is capable of rationally explaining what something feels like."
Really? Where's the explanation of this then? I'd love for you to give an example.
"Practically this is obviously possible in the real world. For example, science has been able to explain what happens when someone hears or sees. That's how both artificial vision and hearing are possible. People have been both cured of deafness and blindness because of it."
Science can of course tell us how vision works. And of course, we all know that if you take out someone's eyes, they can't see. We understand the basic mechanics behind vision. But explaining what happens physically when someone sees and hears is not the same as explaining what it's like to see or hear.
"Simply because you are ignorant of something does not mean it is not rationally explainable. Sure, humans may not think rationally about an experience, but it does not mean it lacks a rational explanation."
I'm not ignorant of it. I have a perfect understanding of my experience. You do too (well, at least of your own experience). You continue to misunderstand. Rational explanation of mechanisms behind experience != Rational explanation of what experience is actually like to the person who is experiencing.
You're just arguing semantics at this point. In fact, your entire argument lacks cohesion.
What is the purpose of your argument? I'm not even understanding its core. You assert that science is not capable of explaining what it "feels like" to see or hear or whatever. I'm saying it obviously can, because science is capable of "explaining" to a deaf person what it is like to hear by GIVING THEM the experience.
From my understanding, they are doing exactly what NDT was talking about. Specifically, they are pointing at the limits of current scientific understanding (for some reason they've chosen the chemical processes that go on in the human brain, what we call emotions, understanding, etc. which seems to be a popular thing to do among the "religious" crowd now as it is uncouth to argue against "feelings."). They are saying, you can't explain our emotions/experience/existence, therefore science = fail and our god/spirits/other thing we can't prove must be (or at least could be) there in some form.
This is the 21st century version of that. They are clinging on to whatever scraps are left. In another few hundreds years, it will be different scraps, and even less people will cling to them.
At least that is how I read what they are attempting to say.
Your therefore is utterly wrong.
It is funny that you reference NDT like a preacher cites the bible. Just know that faith in the progress of science is still faith.
He isn't wrong and he didn't have to cite. I don't even know what NDT means, for instance.
Once every argument gets debunked in the most humiliating fashion possible, people keep looking for something that is still hard to grasp and, therefore, hard to explain with absolute confidence, and it becomes their new line of defense. But it is all too similar - same way that people of the past explained thunder and disease as if they were god's punishment, they resort to explaining feelings as something supernatural. But the simple fact that our whole palette can be easily flipped upside down by taking a pill and starting a chemical reaction inside our body somehow somewhere should connect your "surreal" concept of perception to something that can be reproduced in the lab.
When someone spoke of "poking" a brain in order to reproduce a certain feeling he wasn't talking about mere pain. You can generate anxiety, fear, joy, basically anything - including most complex sensations.
A dog that is happy to meet his master is just as excited as a brother meeting his sister.
And after all that your arguments are still incredibly non-relevant for trying to explain the concept of "God", let alone a specific religion.
Well, to respond to the OP before I jump into this wild discussion:
And let me first say that I really like this topic, and I'm very glad its been brought up, because it was the single biggest turning point in my life.
I became an atheist when I was 18 or 19, after being raised Catholic (church every sunday, holy days of obligation, and alter boy style). As a child you're kind of thrust into it and indoctrinated by your parents (albeit only one parent for me). Then its constantly surrounding you and reinforced. When I graduated high school I was 16, and I started going to community college and working 2 jobs. I really didn't have time for church anymore. But I knew that God and I had a special agreement, and that he was okay with me not attending church on the grounds that I was a good christian and the circumstances were against me. There was multiple factors that influenced me to start questioning. I had a rampant atheist geology teacher whom I really respected, I was reading the book "Stranger in a Strange Land", and I was having a hard time dealing with the concept of my best friend (who I felt was a greater person than most christians I know) was going to hell.
The most heavy hitting was my friend's apparent destination. I went to christian school and had many christian friends, and I went to public school where I met many atheist friends. All these friends really had much in common when it came to sinning, but the christian side was just more judgmental when it came to things like pre-marital sex. My friend and I were the absolute case of "good christian boys", but I believed and he didn't. I had always liked separating the idea of morals and ethics as morals are derived from a divine being and ethics being derived from worldly observations. I always felt first and foremost I was an ethical person who's actions were in line with morals. The same for my friend. But yet he was going to hell, and many of the so-called christian sinning people were going to heaven. That didn't sit well with me. But what also didn't sit well with me would be that the christian sinners are also going to hell because they're hypocrites. Also, what about the crazy guys that hang out at colleges with signs that say "God hates Fags, Jews, Blacks, etc."? Is that who God wants in heaven? Either way Heaven will either be incredibly inclusive, or exclusive. I was not okay with this.
I had searched and searched for answers in having history come to the aide of the bible, and it kept falling short. Many historians neglect the beginning portions of the bible under the idea that there was no civilization and that likely writing didn't exist among the early Jews, so stories were mostly word of mouth (which explains the crazy plot of the early old testament). But in my search for evidence, it kept falling short and I kept coming to a realization that maybe this isn't real. And while struggling to be able to admit that maybe I was becoming an atheist, I remember feeling so guilty for thinking such horrible thoughts. It wasn't until I said it out loud to a friend that I felt rid of all that guilt, and just felt free.
Now I'm an incredibly happy person. I'm not scared for others, feeling guilty, or judgmental. It excites me that the world is an incredibly random assortment of events that happened by pure chance. And to be able to just accept that I honestly do not know what is beyond me, or the cause of much of what happens in the universe. I'm fine with not having a definition of how the world was created, not knowing if I'm going to have consciousness when I die. I'm just happy that I'm alive and I'm going to make the most of it.
I do have religion to thank for making me the huge skeptic that I am today. If I could be brainwashed into believing that, there's capacity for me to be brainwashed on other subjects, and I would like to prevent that at all costs.
Being an atheist, I do think the morality argument has some merit.
If I were the dictator of the earth, I may not care about murdering millions of people just to get my way (but of course, the environment and circumstances will probably have a lot to do with it). But if you did want me to stop, then I don't think you are gonna be able to give me a rational argument. If you met with Stalin after 1945, how would you give him a 'rational' argument to stop doing what's he's doing? You can't argue that being dictator leads to negative consequences for him personally, because in the end his actions went unpunished.
But if you were able to lie to him and get him to believe in a religion that forces him to do good things, then he might stop.
So the point is, having some people act irrationally CAN actually be good for everyone.
I grew up in a catholic environment. As a kid, I always thought of prayer more like meditation. I mean it had to be, since the god I tried talking to did not reply to me. I didn't really think about it too much, since religion itself wasn't too present apart from the occasional church visit. About 11 years ago, I realized that people actually try to talk to god. I can't remember my exact thoughts, but I remember testing if talking to god did something by praying for random stuff and seeing if something happened. It was at that point that I became a cynical asshole and an atheist.
Everything I have learned since just makes a personal god look more and more absurd. In theory I have no problems with a deistic god that doesn't intervene in the universe, but what's the point. That god has as much to do with christianity as christmas trees and easter bunnies.
On April 23 2013 04:37 trias_e wrote: My point is that you can't replace God with rationality and think we're all set. There are some things that religion/belief in God gave us that can't be replaced with science: Values, meaning, purpose, morality. I recommend reading some Sartre if you want to get into where having no God leaves us in these areas.
Religion/belief in god has nothing to do with any of those things.
Values/morality are part of being a social community, atheist have them too and you do not need to derive them from anything having to do with God/religion. Meaning and purpose? That's subjective, and I feel sad for people who's meaning in life is to live for a deity which gives them no feedback. Your purpose in life can be to be happy, and keep people you love happy. No relation to religion.
If my morality comes from my society, what if my society is simply wrong? God can't be wrong (supposedly), which is why God is so comforting.
So moral absolutes exist unequivocally?
With every passing generation what the Christian God accepts on a moral basis seems to change.
Simply because a belief is comforting doesn't make it correct. In fact, this line of reasoning opens you up to the impression that the belief is nothing more than self-delusion.
I was never religious, but I went from atheist to spiritual in my puberty on account of music, literature, shattering experiences, reckless love and lots of psychedelic drugs (all of which I highly recommend).
I think we can only develop true, genuine belief from the inside out and organized religion is simply a cultist deception that in fact has nothing to do with spirituality (which is why, in general, the most devout people of any major faith happen to be turds in real life).
A sincere connection with the universe & your transcorporeal self, on the other hand, is extremely precious and was probably what all the enlightened historical figures wanted us to realize before they got raped and exploited by the religious mafia.
I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional.
On April 23 2013 04:54 Kalingingsong wrote: I'm go at this from a different angle.
Being an atheist, I do think the morality argument has some merit.
If I were the dictator of the earth, I may not care about murdering millions of people just to get my way (but of course, the environment and circumstances will probably have a lot to do with it). But if you did want me to stop, then I don't think you are gonna be able to give me a rational argument. If you met with Stalin after 1945, how would you give him a 'rational' argument to stop doing what's he's doing? You can't argue that being dictator leads to negative consequences for him personally, because in the end his actions went unpunished.
But if you were able to lie to him and get him to believe in a religion that forces him to do good things, then he might stop.
So the point is, having some people act irrationally CAN actually be good for everyone.
Yeah, there is time in human history where I can actually sort of agree with this, to a limited extent. I think religion (broadly defined here) was created (among other reasons) as a sort of early form of law enforcement or just a tool to keep society in line. As someone who studies the ancient world, I can say that it is a cruel and barbaric place. The modern concept of a state with laws and enforcement personnel to enforce said laws is a relatively new concept for humanity. What is a good stand in for that in the absence of real law enforcement? Religion. Invisible entities that see what you do, and can fuck your shit up if you do x or don't do y. I sort of get it. You need some way to keep society together in the absence of a real modern state.
The problem, especially now, is two fold. The first is the pragmatic one: It simply doesn't work that well. We see people from all religions out-right ignore some basic rules of their religion. Even the leaders of organized religions (presumably the most devout; cynically the non-believers who use religion for their own ends) are constantly doing things that just fly in the face of their religious "morals." The imaginary scary guys just aren't scary enough.
The second problem I think is more of a moral one, and therefore isn't such a clear cut answer. I'm just not convinced that brainwashing people that there are imaginary beings that see everything you do and will reward or punish you based on those actions is moral. If people are acting "morally" only out of the fear of being punished or in the hope of some reward, are they really being "moral?" I would argue they are not, but that is just an opinion.
On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote: I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional.
sorry, I meant more in the line of, "there is one set of morals that will never change"
I worded my question wrong. Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years. To think that the entire set of morals is immutable (i.e. there is a God and his morals cannot be wrong) is different IMO. That's what a lot of Christianity subscribes to, and it's quite disturbing that this idea in itself hasn't changed despite societal morals (and Christian morals themselves) changing constantly.
As for self-delusion, I think it is a very bad thing to suspend rational thought. If we were to suspend rational thought for many of the things that religion tells us to, we would never be in today's society. The reason we are in the position we are today is greatly due to the Enlightenment and the proliferation of rational thought. Until then, humanity had long stagnated socially and technologically.
Sort of, I consider myself a radical, absurd Christian; not because I think Jesus was literally the son of God, but because I think all belief, even in science or rationality, is inherently irrational to a degree, and that sometimes, "playing nonsense" makes the most of sense of all. By being open to the possibility of their being some sort of God, some might even say through pretending, I've found I've gotten to know a lot more people far more intimately, and it is through my experience with others that my belief is strengthened. Call it a "spiritual placebo" effect. I use the label "Christian" because my family is Christian, and it is through the Christian lens that I've come to know religiosity; my beliefs would most certainly not be welcome amongst the vast majority of Christians though.
These sorts of topics are a personal passion of mine, and I realize that a lot of it sounds like bullshit. That's ok though, everything is always merely a work in progress.
From what I've read in here, it seems you and I are similar on what topics we've read and have analyzed in order to fashion what we believe. And I find it funny because what you're saying is similar to what my girlfriend says when we talk about this topic (her favorite author is Malcom Gladwell). She thinks that we really neglect the amount of random events that happen in our lives to shape our being. But there could be something to those events, and that her embracing that and through what she calls her "spirituality", like a mind-body relationship, she's able to connect with people on deeper levels. Although she doesn't call herself a christian, she sees herself as being a very spiritual being.
She suggests that she feels a connection between her body and mind and that this in its essence is spirituality. I disagree. I do not know what causes or what that feeling is between my body and mind, albeit its there, but I cannot define what it is, or what causes it. I'm perfectly fine with not having a definition for the unknown and just accepting that I don't know why it's this way. I may never know, and even if I did know, it could be completely wrong. But just to be okay with not knowing is something our culture neglects. We encourage spirituality as a term to describe what we cannot understand. An example of this that we hear frequently is with genetics. How many times have you heard "oh you're not bald because that gene skips a generation." This is not how genetics works if you've ever been in 8th grade biology. Most people understand the idea of punnet squares, yet they suggest its a generation-skipping gene. Easy explanations overcome repeated trials of tests which show the contrary, that the most likely scenario behind genetics that we know so far is Gregor Mendel's theory. It's a juvenile comparison, but I think its pretty accurate in showing how we will neglect difficult answers for simpler ones, or just the simple idea of not-knowing in general.
Neither idea is inherently better than the other. And for all I know, if I accepted the idea of mind-body spirituality, I may be able to connect with other people on a higher level but the inner skeptic in me just can't do it.
On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote: I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional.
Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years.
Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute?
On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote: I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional.
No one says that there's a need to eradicate religion. It will sort itself out over time, possibly. It is not a bad thing to be self-delusional if you can't maintain your act otherwise, I agree, some people just have to be guided or lack necessary education and willpower to set goals and be responsible. Religion is often a good instrument for treating relapsed alcoholics and drug addicts, since it can be very powerful in a proper context and is relatively easy to grasp at a basic level.
People around me weren't religious and there's no religion in schools here (as it should be). We were told the biblical tales since Christmas/Easter is celebrated here (more in a "meet your family and chill out" way), but that's all it was, stories. I realized that the existence of god(s) doesn't make sense around the time I found out that baby Jesus doesn't bring the Christmas presents.
On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote: I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional.
Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years.
Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute?
On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote: I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional.
Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years.
Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute?
try murder for one.
Why? Probably natural selection on that one.
I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related?
On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote: I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional.
Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years.
Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute?
try murder for one.
Why? Probably natural selection on that one.
I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related?
I don't know why it's a moral absolute but if I had to guess, if murder was acceptable, I don't think humanity would have lasted long. Can you think of a society in human history where it was okay for someone to murder someone for no reason whatsoever? Can you imagine a society like that lasting long?
What happens to people who actually believe it is okay to murder? In almost every society in existence they are punished in some way.
Can you think of a situation where it is okay to rape someone? Another moral absolute.
e: for clarity, I'm talking about long long ago.
Obviously modern societies of the last few millenia have accepted murder as morally wrong. That's a common agreement. Is it absolute? Probably as close as you can get. For all intents and purposes it is absolute.
This question is kinda hard because it's hard to pinpoint exactly why it came about. There is most likely a biological basis behind it. If you think about it this way, psychopaths are naturally selected against. Humans are social creatures; murder reduces the chances of a social group surviving. Thus an inherent basis against murder is likely to be biological at its core IMO.
On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote: I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional.
Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years.
Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute?
try murder for one.
Why? Probably natural selection on that one.
I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related?
There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing.
On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote: I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional.
Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years.
Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute?
try murder for one.
Why? Probably natural selection on that one.
I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related?
There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing.
On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote: I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional.
Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years.
Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute?
try murder for one.
Why? Probably natural selection on that one.
The inquisition was basically murder and torture. To them it was morally acceptable. There also have been several instances of genocide throughout the ages.
What it comes down to is that there appears to be a way humans can manage to not identify others as humans and therefore making the systematic slaughtering of those seem just. It stems from tribalism. Of course it looks like an atrocity from our perspective, but to the people conducting the genocide, their behavior is morally acceptable.
On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote: I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional.
Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years.
Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute?
try murder for one.
Why? Probably natural selection on that one.
I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related?
There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing.
On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote: I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional.
Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years.
Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute?
try murder for one.
Why? Probably natural selection on that one.
I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related?
I don't know why it's a moral absolute but if I had to guess, if murder was acceptable, I don't think humanity would have lasted long. Can you think of a society in human history where it was okay for someone to murder someone for no reason whatsoever? Can you imagine a society like that lasting long?
What happens to people who actually believe it is okay to murder? In almost every society in existence they are punished in some way.
Can you think of a situation where it is okay to rape someone? Another moral absolute.
Well that really depends on how you define murder. You seem to be equating murder = everyone is ready and willing to kill everyone else. And you can't honestly believe that all human societies have universally, consistently, and successfully punished all murderers. I would consider some of the better Roman emperors to be murders. Stalin was definitely a murderer. Seemed to help his career.
Now let me be clear, I'm not saying I think it is ok to murder people. However, the natural selection argument (as a source of moral guidence) doesn't seem to hold up very well here (again, depending on how you define murder). I think quite a number of people have been successful because of murder, much less despite it.
And for natural selection to be a factor, you'd have to show that people who murder have a reduced chance to pass their genes on to another generation (i.e. procreate), as opposed to those who don't murder. I think, unfortunately, the opposite will often be found to be true (in human history).
On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote: I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional.
Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years.
Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute?
try murder for one.
Why? Probably natural selection on that one.
I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related?
There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing.
On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote: I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional.
Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years.
Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute?
try murder for one.
Why? Probably natural selection on that one.
The inquisition was basically murder and torture. To them it was morally acceptable. There also have been several instances of genocide throughout the ages.
What it comes down to is that there appears to be a way humans can manage to not identify others as humans and therefore making the systematic slaughtering of those seem just. It stems from tribalism. Of course it looks like an atrocity from our perspective, but to the people conducting the genocide, their behavior is morally acceptable.
On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote: I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional.
Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years.
Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute?
try murder for one.
Why? Probably natural selection on that one.
I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related?
There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing.
That statement is itself an absolute, though.
If there are no moral absolutes:
when is rape morally acceptable? murder?
As for rape: Deuteronomy 22:28–29
Just because someone was willing to do something does not mean it is morally acceptable.
Plenty of psychopaths think that it is morally correct to cull the population but that doesn't mean their morals should have any weight in society.
e: in other words, the existence of something does not excuse it.
On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote: I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional.
Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years.
Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute?
try murder for one.
Why? Probably natural selection on that one.
I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related?
There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing.
That statement is itself an absolute, though.
If there are no moral absolutes:
when is rape morally acceptable? murder?
Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality?
And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you?
On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote: I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional.
Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years.
Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute?
try murder for one.
Why? Probably natural selection on that one.
I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related?
There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing.
That statement is itself an absolute, though.
If there are no moral absolutes:
when is rape morally acceptable? murder?
Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality?
And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you?
no, and yes, it is still murder.
How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person.
You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them.
On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote: I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional.
Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years.
Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute?
try murder for one.
Why? Probably natural selection on that one.
I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related?
There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing.
That statement is itself an absolute, though.
If there are no moral absolutes:
when is rape morally acceptable? murder?
Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality?
And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you?
no, and yes, it is still murder.
How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person.
You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them.
Apostasy in current day Islam is punishable by death. That is murder of an innocent person, but in their view it is just.
On April 23 2013 04:54 Kalingingsong wrote: I'm go at this from a different angle.
Being an atheist, I do think the morality argument has some merit.
If I were the dictator of the earth, I may not care about murdering millions of people just to get my way (but of course, the environment and circumstances will probably have a lot to do with it). But if you did want me to stop, then I don't think you are gonna be able to give me a rational argument. If you met with Stalin after 1945, how would you give him a 'rational' argument to stop doing what's he's doing? You can't argue that being dictator leads to negative consequences for him personally, because in the end his actions went unpunished.
But if you were able to lie to him and get him to believe in a religion that forces him to do good things, then he might stop.
So the point is, having some people act irrationally CAN actually be good for everyone.
Yeah, there is time in human history where I can actually sort of agree with this, to a limited extent. I think religion (broadly defined here) was created (among other reasons) as a sort of early form of law enforcement or just a tool to keep society in line. As someone who studies the ancient world, I can say that it is a cruel and barbaric place. The modern concept of a state with laws and enforcement personnel to enforce said laws is a relatively new concept for humanity. What is a good stand in for that in the absence of real law enforcement? Religion. Invisible entities that see what you do, and can fuck your shit up if you do x or don't do y. I sort of get it. You need some way to keep society together in the absence of a real modern state.
The problem, especially now, is two fold. The first is the pragmatic one: It simply doesn't work that well. We see people from all religions out-right ignore some basic rules of their religion. Even the leaders of organized religions (presumably the most devout; cynically the non-believers who use religion for their own ends) are constantly doing things that just fly in the face of their religious "morals." The imaginary scary guys just aren't scary enough.
The second problem I think is more of a moral one, and therefore isn't such a clear cut answer. I'm just not convinced that brainwashing people that there are imaginary beings that see everything you do and will reward or punish you based on those actions is moral. If people are acting "morally" only out of the fear of being punished or in the hope of some reward, are they really being "moral?" I would argue they are not, but that is just an opinion.
ya definitely. It's also interesting to note that as society transitions from ancient/medieval to modern, different parts of society can't transition at the same rate. So you might end up with these residual conflicts when you have no choice but to impose a single norm on a society where there are pockets that still have to rely on these ancient norms to some extent.
It used to have some (possibly significant) utility as a system of law enforcement (back then there was no DNA evidence or highly technical investigation methods, people can get murdered and no one would know what the hell happened, so in order to keep order there is not much you can really do than to go on a propaganda campaign and try to threaten people with spiritual punishment), but since modern systems have gotten better with this the utility of the older religious system has declined somewhat. Still not sure if has gone entirely down to zero though.
It could be useful to keep it around in the background as a backup system for some people because it works better for them. But I'm just speculating though.
On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote: I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional.
Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years.
Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute?
try murder for one.
Why? Probably natural selection on that one.
I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related?
There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing.
That statement is itself an absolute, though.
If there are no moral absolutes:
when is rape morally acceptable? murder?
Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality?
And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you?
no, and yes, it is still murder.
How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person.
You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them.
Apostasy in current day Islam is punishable by death. That is murder of an innocent person, but in their view it is just.
I am aware.
Not moral.
I would classify Muslims who believe this the same way I would classify any psychopath.
e: by the way, if you use their moral context then you should at least classify apostasy as a crime, since in Islam it is a crime.
So while I DO think it's in absolute terms immoral, the person is not innocent in the context of Islam anyway.
On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote: I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional.
Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years.
Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute?
try murder for one.
Why? Probably natural selection on that one.
I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related?
There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing.
That statement is itself an absolute, though.
If there are no moral absolutes:
when is rape morally acceptable? murder?
Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality?
And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you?
no, and yes, it is still murder.
How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person.
You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them.
No, you've made no ground. In order for there to be a moral absolute, the why is critical here. Why is it wrong to murder innocent people? On what authority?
On April 23 2013 05:07 trias_e wrote: I don't think moral absolutes exist, but it might be better for people to think that (especially depending on what the moral absolutes are). I also don't think that this is exclusive to religion.
Atheists today often believe in moral absolutes as well (of course not all). Most believe that slavery is wrong, period, absolutely. Murder is wrong. ETC. Is there any justification for this? From what authority are these absolutes? But, even if they aren't justified, belief in them as being absolute is probably a good thing.
Faith is self-delusion. Religious folks will mostly admit this as well. When they say they have faith, it means they have to ignore evidence to believe something that is contradicted by that evidence. That sounds like self-delusion to me. But, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be self-delusional.
Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years.
Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute?
try murder for one.
Why? Probably natural selection on that one.
I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related?
There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing.
That statement is itself an absolute, though.
If there are no moral absolutes:
when is rape morally acceptable? murder?
Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality?
And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you?
no, and yes, it is still murder.
How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person.
You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them.
No, you've made no ground. In order for there to be a moral absolute, the why is critical here. Why is it wrong to murder innocent people? On what authority?
There doesn't need to be an authority.
Society simply needs to agree on it.
Which society has agreed that the murder of an innocent is not wrong? Can you name one?
On April 23 2013 05:20 wherebugsgo wrote: [quote] Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years.
Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute?
try murder for one.
Why? Probably natural selection on that one.
I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related?
There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing.
That statement is itself an absolute, though.
If there are no moral absolutes:
when is rape morally acceptable? murder?
Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality?
And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you?
no, and yes, it is still murder.
How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person.
You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them.
Apostasy in current day Islam is punishable by death. That is murder of an innocent person, but in their view it is just.
I am aware.
Not moral.
I would classify Muslims who believe this the same way I would classify any psychopath.
That doesn't make for absolute morals though. That just means that you think the morals you hold are absolute.
Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute?
try murder for one.
Why? Probably natural selection on that one.
I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related?
There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing.
That statement is itself an absolute, though.
If there are no moral absolutes:
when is rape morally acceptable? murder?
Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality?
And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you?
no, and yes, it is still murder.
How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person.
You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them.
Apostasy in current day Islam is punishable by death. That is murder of an innocent person, but in their view it is just.
I am aware.
Not moral.
I would classify Muslims who believe this the same way I would classify any psychopath.
That doesn't make for absolute morals though. That just means that you think the morals you hold are absolute.
read my edit.
In Islam apostasy is a crime. So, the example doesn't hold.
On April 23 2013 04:41 wherebugsgo wrote: So? It's not that much better than in its history. Plenty of official Christian doctrine, plenty of Christian institutions, represent Christianity when they, today, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities.
As for your atheist question, there probably weren't that many atheists back then, at least not public ones. You know why? Because most religions would kill them for being nonbelievers. There aren't many famous atheists in history because atheists have long been discriminated against, just like any other minority in existence.
Here's the difference, though: you are arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am a walking contradiction to that statement. I am not religious at all, and I think most people would agree that I am not by any means an immoral person. I'm not going to kill anyone, I'm not going to steal, and I'm certainly not going to infringe upon the rights of any other person. Yet, I'm not religious, nor have I ever looked toward religion for moral guidance.
In fact, your earlier posts hinted toward Christian moral superiority. Plenty of Christians use Christianity to say that gays, blacks, women, oral sex, abortion, Democrats, Muslims, Jews, and plenty of other minorities/others are morally inferior to them.
When have you seen atheism, a lack of belief in God, used as a justification for the same?
It has not been my experience that many churches now, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities. You may be able to find some who do - but it's a bit like my finding a atheist who believes something crazy and then claiming that's your atheism. More to the point, ignorance is ignorance - and while most churches weed that out, every large group of people has some bad ones. That doesn't excuse them - but it doesn't mean that's Christianity, either.
I'm not arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am arguing that it takes more than an individual to create a strong system of morality (which was what the OP was claiming). It takes a community. You're not killing or stealing, and everyone has their legal rights - great. But does that make you moral? You think so - but is that enough to make it true? And also, isn't the line "I think most people would agree that..." a fallacy, as you pointed out earlier? You can not kill, steal, or spoil anyone's rights and still be someone most people would agree is a terrible person - doubly so if you don't mind bending the meaning of the words "kill" or "steal" - which most people are willing to do under the right conditions.
Also, I hope you're not actually asking me to cite times I've seen it implied that people have used atheism to say that Christianity is morally inferior - because there are several in this thread. And that's not a bad thing, people ought to view their way of thinking as the best way. The bad part is when they use that inferiority to shut out a part of their mind which has valuable critical thinking to do. Many christians do this, walking away from discussion instead of addressing it. But many atheists are just as dismissive - citing "evidence" of christianity's wrongdoing through the ages (as though christianity was one living breathing entity, instead of a body of many different people at many different times) as a reason they don't have to listen to their arguments.
Belief in our superiority is natural. It's acting on that belief out of turn which becomes unfortunate. You can think I'm wrong all you want. It's when you say I'm wrong without due evidence to support you that you've done wrong. I can think muslims pray to the wrong god all I want - it's when I yell at them over it, or disrespect their beliefs publicly that I've crossed a line.
On April 23 2013 05:20 wherebugsgo wrote: [quote] Surely there are specific moral absolutes, and there have been plenty for thousands of years.
Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute?
try murder for one.
Why? Probably natural selection on that one.
I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related?
There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing.
That statement is itself an absolute, though.
If there are no moral absolutes:
when is rape morally acceptable? murder?
Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality?
And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you?
no, and yes, it is still murder.
How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person.
You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them.
No, you've made no ground. In order for there to be a moral absolute, the why is critical here. Why is it wrong to murder innocent people? On what authority?
There doesn't need to be an authority.
Society simply needs to agree on it.
Which society has agreed that the murder of an innocent is not wrong? Can you name one?
What is innocent? Maybe a child?
Pick a society that had a dynasty in some part in its history and you will find a society that killed innocent children to end a dynasty. Did some people think it was wrong? I'm sure they did. Did others think it was morally right? Sure.
How are you going to find a society that universally agrees on any one subject? That is impossible.
Leviticus 25:44-46 However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
Timothy 2: 11-15 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing - if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
On April 23 2013 04:41 wherebugsgo wrote: So? It's not that much better than in its history. Plenty of official Christian doctrine, plenty of Christian institutions, represent Christianity when they, today, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities.
As for your atheist question, there probably weren't that many atheists back then, at least not public ones. You know why? Because most religions would kill them for being nonbelievers. There aren't many famous atheists in history because atheists have long been discriminated against, just like any other minority in existence.
Here's the difference, though: you are arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am a walking contradiction to that statement. I am not religious at all, and I think most people would agree that I am not by any means an immoral person. I'm not going to kill anyone, I'm not going to steal, and I'm certainly not going to infringe upon the rights of any other person. Yet, I'm not religious, nor have I ever looked toward religion for moral guidance.
In fact, your earlier posts hinted toward Christian moral superiority. Plenty of Christians use Christianity to say that gays, blacks, women, oral sex, abortion, Democrats, Muslims, Jews, and plenty of other minorities/others are morally inferior to them.
When have you seen atheism, a lack of belief in God, used as a justification for the same?
It has not been my experience that many churches now, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities. You may be able to find some who do - but it's a bit like my finding a atheist who believes something crazy and then claiming that's your atheism. More to the point, ignorance is ignorance - and while most churches weed that out, every large group of people has some bad ones. That doesn't excuse them - but it doesn't mean that's Christianity, either.
I'm not arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am arguing that it takes more than an individual to create a strong system of morality (which was what the OP was claiming). It takes a community. You're not killing or stealing, and everyone has their legal rights - great. But does that make you moral? You think so - but is that enough to make it true? And also, isn't the line "I think most people would agree that..." a fallacy, as you pointed out earlier? You can not kill, steal, or spoil anyone's rights and still be someone most people would agree is a terrible person - doubly so if you don't mind bending the meaning of the words "kill" or "steal" - which most people are willing to do under the right conditions.
Also, I hope you're not actually asking me to cite times I've seen it implied that people have used atheism to say that Christianity is morally inferior - because there are several in this thread. And that's not a bad thing, people ought to view their way of thinking as the best way. The bad part is when they use that inferiority to shut out a part of their mind which has valuable critical thinking to do. Many christians do this, walking away from discussion instead of addressing it. But many atheists are just as dismissive - citing "evidence" of christianity's wrongdoing through the ages (as though christianity was one living breathing entity, instead of a body of many different people at many different times) as a reason they don't have to listen to their arguments.
Belief in our superiority is natural. It's acting on that belief out of turn which becomes unfortunate. You can think I'm wrong all you want. It's when you say I'm wrong without due evidence to support you that you've done wrong. I can think muslims pray to the wrong god all I want - it's when I yell at them over it, or disrespect their beliefs publicly that I've crossed a line.
So you're denying that the majority of Christian churches oppose gay marriage, which is a suppression of civil rights of a minority?
You're denying that the majority of Christian churches oppose abortion, which is a suppression of the reproduction rights of a minority?
You're denying that a significant subset of Christians opposed stem cell research, opposed the teaching of evolution in school, and have suppressed the abilities of countless minorities to do things such as run for political office? Please.
Based on human history, yes, I can confidently say that Christianity is no shining beacon of moral guidance.
Just out of curiosity, what are those, and why are they absolute?
try murder for one.
Why? Probably natural selection on that one.
I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related?
There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing.
That statement is itself an absolute, though.
If there are no moral absolutes:
when is rape morally acceptable? murder?
Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality?
And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you?
no, and yes, it is still murder.
How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person.
You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them.
No, you've made no ground. In order for there to be a moral absolute, the why is critical here. Why is it wrong to murder innocent people? On what authority?
There doesn't need to be an authority.
Society simply needs to agree on it.
Which society has agreed that the murder of an innocent is not wrong? Can you name one?
What is innocent? Maybe a child?
Pick a society that had a dynasty in some part in its history and you will find a society that killed innocent children to end a dynasty. Did some people think it was wrong? I'm sure they did. Did others think it was morally right? Sure.
How are you going to find a society that universally agrees on any one subject? That is impossible.
No it isn't impossible.
The society you live in is a direct contradiction to that very statement. People don't think murder is morally acceptable. They never have and to suggest otherwise is simply contrary to real world practical evidence. You can come up with fringe cases all you want, but unprovoked murder has never been and never will be morally acceptable.
I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related?
There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing.
That statement is itself an absolute, though.
If there are no moral absolutes:
when is rape morally acceptable? murder?
Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality?
And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you?
no, and yes, it is still murder.
How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person.
You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them.
Apostasy in current day Islam is punishable by death. That is murder of an innocent person, but in their view it is just.
I am aware.
Not moral.
I would classify Muslims who believe this the same way I would classify any psychopath.
That doesn't make for absolute morals though. That just means that you think the morals you hold are absolute.
read my edit.
In Islam apostasy is a crime. So, the example doesn't hold.
Alright, before I could give another example, I had to look up what murder is exactly defined as:
murder
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.
So by definition murder is an illegal/immoral (not necessarily the same, but usually the law reflects the morals of a society) killing of a human. Which makes legal/moral murder a paradox
I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related?
There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing.
That statement is itself an absolute, though.
If there are no moral absolutes:
when is rape morally acceptable? murder?
Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality?
And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you?
no, and yes, it is still murder.
How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person.
You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them.
Apostasy in current day Islam is punishable by death. That is murder of an innocent person, but in their view it is just.
I am aware.
Not moral.
I would classify Muslims who believe this the same way I would classify any psychopath.
That doesn't make for absolute morals though. That just means that you think the morals you hold are absolute.
read my edit.
In Islam apostasy is a crime. So, the example doesn't hold.
Alright, before I could give another example, I had to look up what murder is exactly defined as:
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.
So by definition murder is an illegal/immoral (not necessarily the same, but usually the law reflects the morals of a society) killing of a human. Which makes legal/moral murder a paradox
Probably same thing is true for rape, but guess what?
On April 23 2013 04:41 wherebugsgo wrote: So? It's not that much better than in its history. Plenty of official Christian doctrine, plenty of Christian institutions, represent Christianity when they, today, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities.
As for your atheist question, there probably weren't that many atheists back then, at least not public ones. You know why? Because most religions would kill them for being nonbelievers. There aren't many famous atheists in history because atheists have long been discriminated against, just like any other minority in existence.
Here's the difference, though: you are arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am a walking contradiction to that statement. I am not religious at all, and I think most people would agree that I am not by any means an immoral person. I'm not going to kill anyone, I'm not going to steal, and I'm certainly not going to infringe upon the rights of any other person. Yet, I'm not religious, nor have I ever looked toward religion for moral guidance.
In fact, your earlier posts hinted toward Christian moral superiority. Plenty of Christians use Christianity to say that gays, blacks, women, oral sex, abortion, Democrats, Muslims, Jews, and plenty of other minorities/others are morally inferior to them.
When have you seen atheism, a lack of belief in God, used as a justification for the same?
It has not been my experience that many churches now, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities. You may be able to find some who do - but it's a bit like my finding a atheist who believes something crazy and then claiming that's your atheism. More to the point, ignorance is ignorance - and while most churches weed that out, every large group of people has some bad ones. That doesn't excuse them - but it doesn't mean that's Christianity, either.
I'm not arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am arguing that it takes more than an individual to create a strong system of morality (which was what the OP was claiming). It takes a community. You're not killing or stealing, and everyone has their legal rights - great. But does that make you moral? You think so - but is that enough to make it true? And also, isn't the line "I think most people would agree that..." a fallacy, as you pointed out earlier? You can not kill, steal, or spoil anyone's rights and still be someone most people would agree is a terrible person - doubly so if you don't mind bending the meaning of the words "kill" or "steal" - which most people are willing to do under the right conditions.
Also, I hope you're not actually asking me to cite times I've seen it implied that people have used atheism to say that Christianity is morally inferior - because there are several in this thread. And that's not a bad thing, people ought to view their way of thinking as the best way. The bad part is when they use that inferiority to shut out a part of their mind which has valuable critical thinking to do. Many christians do this, walking away from discussion instead of addressing it. But many atheists are just as dismissive - citing "evidence" of christianity's wrongdoing through the ages (as though christianity was one living breathing entity, instead of a body of many different people at many different times) as a reason they don't have to listen to their arguments.
Belief in our superiority is natural. It's acting on that belief out of turn which becomes unfortunate. You can think I'm wrong all you want. It's when you say I'm wrong without due evidence to support you that you've done wrong. I can think muslims pray to the wrong god all I want - it's when I yell at them over it, or disrespect their beliefs publicly that I've crossed a line.
I'd argue Christianity is immoral in some of its most basic tenants. Now in the 21st century it seems like you can believe almost anything and still call yourself a Christian, so you may move the goal posts on me at any given time and still call yourself a Christian. Not much I can do about that. Here are a few starters for what, I believe, are core principles of any Christian, that are immoral in my view. Again, you may not actually believe any of these (but then I honestly don't know what it means to be Christian):
1. Jesus died for your sins.
This is immoral to me because it means someone can take the blame for your faults, and you are absolved of them. It is reminiscent of scapegoating, and even human sacrifice. We, as a species, have sinned, but this guy died for them, now we're in the clear. Yay.
2. People that don't believe what you believe are going to hell, no matter what. Specifically, that Jesus Christ is our lord and savior. Even if they are "good" people, they still burn for all eternity, because they don't happen to believe when someone tells them that a virgin had a baby 2000 years ago and that baby was the son of god.
A lot of religions are guilty of this, but we're talking about Christianity, so I'll stick with this. This is simply the standard "if you don't believe what I believe, you are screwed" mentality. I find this immoral because why should anyone believe what you believe, based on no evidence, yet be required to believe this odd story in order to not burn in hell for all eternity.
I have some others, but I'm dying to see what you say about those two.
On April 23 2013 05:46 Paljas wrote: [quote] There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing.
That statement is itself an absolute, though.
If there are no moral absolutes:
when is rape morally acceptable? murder?
Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality?
And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you?
no, and yes, it is still murder.
How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person.
You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them.
Apostasy in current day Islam is punishable by death. That is murder of an innocent person, but in their view it is just.
I am aware.
Not moral.
I would classify Muslims who believe this the same way I would classify any psychopath.
That doesn't make for absolute morals though. That just means that you think the morals you hold are absolute.
read my edit.
In Islam apostasy is a crime. So, the example doesn't hold.
Alright, before I could give another example, I had to look up what murder is exactly defined as:
murder
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.
So by definition murder is an illegal/immoral (not necessarily the same, but usually the law reflects the morals of a society) killing of a human. Which makes legal/moral murder a paradox
Probably same thing is true for rape, but guess what?
My point stands.
What point still stands? You said absolute morals exist and wanted examples of murders or killing of innocents.
There are plenty examples of human sacrifice, genocide, honor killings in human history, but you call the perpetrators psychopaths, since they do not subscribe to your morals.
I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related?
There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing.
That statement is itself an absolute, though.
If there are no moral absolutes:
when is rape morally acceptable? murder?
Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality?
And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you?
no, and yes, it is still murder.
How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person.
You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them.
No, you've made no ground. In order for there to be a moral absolute, the why is critical here. Why is it wrong to murder innocent people? On what authority?
There doesn't need to be an authority.
Society simply needs to agree on it.
Which society has agreed that the murder of an innocent is not wrong? Can you name one?
What is innocent? Maybe a child?
Pick a society that had a dynasty in some part in its history and you will find a society that killed innocent children to end a dynasty. Did some people think it was wrong? I'm sure they did. Did others think it was morally right? Sure.
How are you going to find a society that universally agrees on any one subject? That is impossible.
No it isn't impossible.
The society you live in is a direct contradiction to that very statement. People don't think murder is morally acceptable. They never have and to suggest otherwise is simply contrary to real world practical evidence. You can come up with fringe cases all you want, but unprovoked murder has never been and never will be morally acceptable.
You're dead wrong. There are people in this country that believe in the death penalty. That isn't murder?
Worse, you are asserting that the society in the time and place you currently live, has the correct moral code, and that all previous societies are incorrect, and any future changes might also be incorrect.
Innocence is subjective, therefore murder will always be subjective.
Edit: You still aren't getting to the why. You seem to suggest that if you can find something that everyone agrees on, no matter why, you will find something morally absolute. First, you won't find something everyone agrees on. You just won't. And as long as one person disagrees, you cannot claim a moral absolute. Furthermore, societies, as a whole, have agreed on a lot of things that we would now consider immoral. Just because a society agrees on it, doesn't make it morally correct. There may be something we all do right now that we think is perfectly fine, but a society 500 years from now will regard as incredibly morally reprehensible. Morals change over time and place.
Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality?
And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you?
no, and yes, it is still murder.
How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person.
You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them.
Apostasy in current day Islam is punishable by death. That is murder of an innocent person, but in their view it is just.
I am aware.
Not moral.
I would classify Muslims who believe this the same way I would classify any psychopath.
That doesn't make for absolute morals though. That just means that you think the morals you hold are absolute.
read my edit.
In Islam apostasy is a crime. So, the example doesn't hold.
Alright, before I could give another example, I had to look up what murder is exactly defined as:
murder
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.
So by definition murder is an illegal/immoral (not necessarily the same, but usually the law reflects the morals of a society) killing of a human. Which makes legal/moral murder a paradox
Probably same thing is true for rape, but guess what?
My point stands.
What point still stands? You said absolute morals exist and wanted examples of murders or killing of innocents.
There are plenty examples of human sacrifice, genocide, honor killings in human history, but you call the perpetrators psychopaths, since they do not subscribe to your morals.
But even in many of those societies those acts would not be considered moral.
And, as I said, the existence of an act does not mean it is moral. A person can murder someone in a given society. Cool, whatever. Doesn't mean it's a moral act. Something happening does not equate to it being moral.
I'm not sure what you mean. What does natural selection have to do with the morality of murder? Could you explain how they are related?
There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing.
That statement is itself an absolute, though.
If there are no moral absolutes:
when is rape morally acceptable? murder?
Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality?
And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you?
no, and yes, it is still murder.
How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person.
You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them.
No, you've made no ground. In order for there to be a moral absolute, the why is critical here. Why is it wrong to murder innocent people? On what authority?
There doesn't need to be an authority.
Society simply needs to agree on it.
Which society has agreed that the murder of an innocent is not wrong? Can you name one?
What is innocent? Maybe a child?
Pick a society that had a dynasty in some part in its history and you will find a society that killed innocent children to end a dynasty. Did some people think it was wrong? I'm sure they did. Did others think it was morally right? Sure.
How are you going to find a society that universally agrees on any one subject? That is impossible.
No it isn't impossible.
The society you live in is a direct contradiction to that very statement. People don't think murder is morally acceptable. They never have and to suggest otherwise is simply contrary to real world practical evidence. You can come up with fringe cases all you want, but unprovoked murder has never been and never will be morally acceptable.
You're dead wrong. There are people in this country that believe in the death penalty. That isn't murder?
Worse, you are asserting that the society in the time and place you currently live, has the correct moral code, and that all previous societies are incorrect, and any future changes might also be incorrect.
Innocence is subjective, therefore murder will always be subjective.
Now we're getting into semantics. Plenty of people would not classify the death penalty as murder.
It also doesn't fit my question since I asked for the murder of an INNOCENT person. You don't call for the death penalty on someone you think is innocent. (Even if you think murder is immoral)
This conversation is not going to go anywhere. We disagree. End of story.
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.
Believing without actually believing isn't going to get you anywhere but hell in christianity. I think you're incredibly wrong about atheism being a copout. A cop out is the definition of what you're doing, believing something in hopes that it'll happen, but if it doesn't whatever.
What if one of the other thousands of religions is right? What if the one that you currently believe in is right yet you're not really following all the beliefs like you should? If you're basing your knowledge off of the possible consequences of said belief i think thats really disingenuous to yourself.
Also how do you prove that there is no higher being? Thats not how the argument works. The higher being was proposed as an idea by people, therefor the people that claim he exists need to be the ones finding evidence for a higher beings existence. They've had plenty of time to come up with something, and I'm not even remotely convinced by any of it.
Pascals wager is something you really really should look up. It's awful and illogical.
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.
Believing without actually believing isn't going to get you anywhere, on top of this, I think you're incredibly wrong. A cop out is the definition of what you're doing, believing something in hopes that it'll happen, but if it doesn't whatever.
What if one of the other thousands of religions is right? What if the one that you currently believe in is right yet you're not really following all the beliefs like you should?
Pascals wager really is completely awful and completely illogical.
I always found that one funny. How can someone pretend that an almighty deity wouldn't be able to see right through those shenanigans.
Edit: You still aren't getting to the why. You seem to suggest that if you can find something that everyone agrees on, no matter why, you will find something morally absolute. First, you won't find something everyone agrees on. You just won't. And as long as one person disagrees, you cannot claim a moral absolute. Furthermore, societies, as a whole, have agreed on a lot of things that we would now consider immoral. Just because a society agrees on it, doesn't make it morally correct. There may be something we all do right now that we think is perfectly fine, but a society 500 years from now will regard as incredibly morally reprehensible. Morals change over time and place.
I'm not denying any of these things!
I'm just saying that there are SOME things that will not change.
Some things have not changed!
like, if you want to argue semantics:
in the contexts of all of those societies, none of those atrocities you mentioned were considered murder.
Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality?
And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you?
no, and yes, it is still murder.
How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person.
You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them.
Apostasy in current day Islam is punishable by death. That is murder of an innocent person, but in their view it is just.
I am aware.
Not moral.
I would classify Muslims who believe this the same way I would classify any psychopath.
That doesn't make for absolute morals though. That just means that you think the morals you hold are absolute.
read my edit.
In Islam apostasy is a crime. So, the example doesn't hold.
Alright, before I could give another example, I had to look up what murder is exactly defined as:
murder
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.
So by definition murder is an illegal/immoral (not necessarily the same, but usually the law reflects the morals of a society) killing of a human. Which makes legal/moral murder a paradox
Probably same thing is true for rape, but guess what?
My point stands.
What point still stands? You said absolute morals exist and wanted examples of murders or killing of innocents.
There are plenty examples of human sacrifice, genocide, honor killings in human history, but you call the perpetrators psychopaths, since they do not subscribe to your morals.
But even in many of those societies those acts would not be considered moral.
And, as I said, the existence of an act does not mean it is moral. A person can murder someone in a given society. Cool, whatever. Doesn't mean it's a moral act. Something happening does not equate to it being moral.
On April 23 2013 05:46 Paljas wrote: [quote] There are no moral absolutes. But you should belief that there are some. Because thats makes you a decent human beeing.
That statement is itself an absolute, though.
If there are no moral absolutes:
when is rape morally acceptable? murder?
Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality?
And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you?
no, and yes, it is still murder.
How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person.
You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them.
No, you've made no ground. In order for there to be a moral absolute, the why is critical here. Why is it wrong to murder innocent people? On what authority?
There doesn't need to be an authority.
Society simply needs to agree on it.
Which society has agreed that the murder of an innocent is not wrong? Can you name one?
What is innocent? Maybe a child?
Pick a society that had a dynasty in some part in its history and you will find a society that killed innocent children to end a dynasty. Did some people think it was wrong? I'm sure they did. Did others think it was morally right? Sure.
How are you going to find a society that universally agrees on any one subject? That is impossible.
No it isn't impossible.
The society you live in is a direct contradiction to that very statement. People don't think murder is morally acceptable. They never have and to suggest otherwise is simply contrary to real world practical evidence. You can come up with fringe cases all you want, but unprovoked murder has never been and never will be morally acceptable.
You're dead wrong. There are people in this country that believe in the death penalty. That isn't murder?
Worse, you are asserting that the society in the time and place you currently live, has the correct moral code, and that all previous societies are incorrect, and any future changes might also be incorrect.
Innocence is subjective, therefore murder will always be subjective.
Now we're getting into semantics. Plenty of people would not classify the death penalty as murder.
It also doesn't fit my question since I asked for the murder of an INNOCENT person. You don't call for the death penalty on someone you think is innocent. (Even if you think murder is immoral)
This conversation is not going to go anywhere. We disagree. End of story.
We're getting into semantics because that is the whole point of this discussion. No morality is absolute. Everyone is guilty of something by some moral code out there. What is innocent to you, is not innocent to someone else.
And there are plenty of people that WOULD classify the death penalty as murder, no matter what the circumstance (most of western europe). Therefore, you can't claim a moral absolute.
How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person.
You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them.
Apostasy in current day Islam is punishable by death. That is murder of an innocent person, but in their view it is just.
I am aware.
Not moral.
I would classify Muslims who believe this the same way I would classify any psychopath.
That doesn't make for absolute morals though. That just means that you think the morals you hold are absolute.
read my edit.
In Islam apostasy is a crime. So, the example doesn't hold.
Alright, before I could give another example, I had to look up what murder is exactly defined as:
murder
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.
So by definition murder is an illegal/immoral (not necessarily the same, but usually the law reflects the morals of a society) killing of a human. Which makes legal/moral murder a paradox
Probably same thing is true for rape, but guess what?
My point stands.
What point still stands? You said absolute morals exist and wanted examples of murders or killing of innocents.
There are plenty examples of human sacrifice, genocide, honor killings in human history, but you call the perpetrators psychopaths, since they do not subscribe to your morals.
But even in many of those societies those acts would not be considered moral.
And, as I said, the existence of an act does not mean it is moral. A person can murder someone in a given society. Cool, whatever. Doesn't mean it's a moral act. Something happening does not equate to it being moral.
On April 23 2013 06:29 HardlyNever wrote:
On April 23 2013 06:20 wherebugsgo wrote:
On April 23 2013 06:13 HardlyNever wrote:
On April 23 2013 06:08 wherebugsgo wrote:
On April 23 2013 06:06 HardlyNever wrote:
On April 23 2013 06:01 wherebugsgo wrote:
On April 23 2013 05:59 HardlyNever wrote:
On April 23 2013 05:49 wherebugsgo wrote: [quote]
That statement is itself an absolute, though.
If there are no moral absolutes:
when is rape morally acceptable? murder?
Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality?
And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you?
no, and yes, it is still murder.
How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person.
You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them.
No, you've made no ground. In order for there to be a moral absolute, the why is critical here. Why is it wrong to murder innocent people? On what authority?
There doesn't need to be an authority.
Society simply needs to agree on it.
Which society has agreed that the murder of an innocent is not wrong? Can you name one?
What is innocent? Maybe a child?
Pick a society that had a dynasty in some part in its history and you will find a society that killed innocent children to end a dynasty. Did some people think it was wrong? I'm sure they did. Did others think it was morally right? Sure.
How are you going to find a society that universally agrees on any one subject? That is impossible.
No it isn't impossible.
The society you live in is a direct contradiction to that very statement. People don't think murder is morally acceptable. They never have and to suggest otherwise is simply contrary to real world practical evidence. You can come up with fringe cases all you want, but unprovoked murder has never been and never will be morally acceptable.
You're dead wrong. There are people in this country that believe in the death penalty. That isn't murder?
Worse, you are asserting that the society in the time and place you currently live, has the correct moral code, and that all previous societies are incorrect, and any future changes might also be incorrect.
Innocence is subjective, therefore murder will always be subjective.
Now we're getting into semantics. Plenty of people would not classify the death penalty as murder.
It also doesn't fit my question since I asked for the murder of an INNOCENT person. You don't call for the death penalty on someone you think is innocent. (Even if you think murder is immoral)
This conversation is not going to go anywhere. We disagree. End of story.
We're getting into semantics because that is the whole point of this discussion. No morality is absolute. Everyone is guilty of something by some moral code out there. What is innocent to you, is not innocent to someone else.
And there are plenty of people that WOULD classify the death penalty as murder, no matter what the circumstance (most of western europe). Therefore, you can't claim a moral absolute.
Except it's not murder of AN INNOCENT PERSON.
Try to read my question harder next time.
Edit:
In case it wasn't clear.
Come up with a society that has existed or exists now, where a person is innocent of wrongdoing by the morality agreed upon by that specific society.
Come up with a situation in which it is morally acceptable to murder that person.
Jews in Nazi Germany? Not innocent in Nazi Germany. Thus the example of genocide in this case doesn't apply. Sure, they were innocent in our context. Doesn't succeed in this context.
This is what I mean about a moral absolute.
double edit: I think this effectively a pointless discussion and has been for a while. I'm regretting even answering the first response. I should have just ignored it-it's not intellectually interesting in the least and nothing productive is coming out of this.
Apostasy in current day Islam is punishable by death. That is murder of an innocent person, but in their view it is just.
I am aware.
Not moral.
I would classify Muslims who believe this the same way I would classify any psychopath.
That doesn't make for absolute morals though. That just means that you think the morals you hold are absolute.
read my edit.
In Islam apostasy is a crime. So, the example doesn't hold.
Alright, before I could give another example, I had to look up what murder is exactly defined as:
murder
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.
So by definition murder is an illegal/immoral (not necessarily the same, but usually the law reflects the morals of a society) killing of a human. Which makes legal/moral murder a paradox
Probably same thing is true for rape, but guess what?
My point stands.
What point still stands? You said absolute morals exist and wanted examples of murders or killing of innocents.
There are plenty examples of human sacrifice, genocide, honor killings in human history, but you call the perpetrators psychopaths, since they do not subscribe to your morals.
But even in many of those societies those acts would not be considered moral.
And, as I said, the existence of an act does not mean it is moral. A person can murder someone in a given society. Cool, whatever. Doesn't mean it's a moral act. Something happening does not equate to it being moral.
On April 23 2013 06:29 HardlyNever wrote:
On April 23 2013 06:20 wherebugsgo wrote:
On April 23 2013 06:13 HardlyNever wrote:
On April 23 2013 06:08 wherebugsgo wrote:
On April 23 2013 06:06 HardlyNever wrote:
On April 23 2013 06:01 wherebugsgo wrote:
On April 23 2013 05:59 HardlyNever wrote: [quote]
Who said we can't have absolute statements? What does that have to do with morality?
And people can justify almost anything given the right circumstance. Would you kill someone who was about to kill 10 people if you had no other way to stop them? Is that still murder to you?
no, and yes, it is still murder.
How about, more specific: murdering an innocent person.
You can get as specific as you like, there are definitely things you can find to be moral absolutes. It doesn't necessarily mean there are a lot of them.
No, you've made no ground. In order for there to be a moral absolute, the why is critical here. Why is it wrong to murder innocent people? On what authority?
There doesn't need to be an authority.
Society simply needs to agree on it.
Which society has agreed that the murder of an innocent is not wrong? Can you name one?
What is innocent? Maybe a child?
Pick a society that had a dynasty in some part in its history and you will find a society that killed innocent children to end a dynasty. Did some people think it was wrong? I'm sure they did. Did others think it was morally right? Sure.
How are you going to find a society that universally agrees on any one subject? That is impossible.
No it isn't impossible.
The society you live in is a direct contradiction to that very statement. People don't think murder is morally acceptable. They never have and to suggest otherwise is simply contrary to real world practical evidence. You can come up with fringe cases all you want, but unprovoked murder has never been and never will be morally acceptable.
You're dead wrong. There are people in this country that believe in the death penalty. That isn't murder?
Worse, you are asserting that the society in the time and place you currently live, has the correct moral code, and that all previous societies are incorrect, and any future changes might also be incorrect.
Innocence is subjective, therefore murder will always be subjective.
Now we're getting into semantics. Plenty of people would not classify the death penalty as murder.
It also doesn't fit my question since I asked for the murder of an INNOCENT person. You don't call for the death penalty on someone you think is innocent. (Even if you think murder is immoral)
This conversation is not going to go anywhere. We disagree. End of story.
We're getting into semantics because that is the whole point of this discussion. No morality is absolute. Everyone is guilty of something by some moral code out there. What is innocent to you, is not innocent to someone else.
And there are plenty of people that WOULD classify the death penalty as murder, no matter what the circumstance (most of western europe). Therefore, you can't claim a moral absolute.
Except it's not murder of AN INNOCENT PERSON.
Try to read my question harder next time.
Because you still haven't defined innocent. By some moral philosophies, simply being born the wrong religion is a crime, therefore making someone inherently not innocent. By standard Catholic doctrine, everyone is born with original sin, and therefore not innocent (this doesn't mean they should be killed, but simply that they aren't innocent).
Edit: Did you just disprove yourself in your edit above? You just pointed out that the very concept of innocence is a moving target, yet you are trying to pin moral absolutism on this moving concept of innocence? How can it be both a mutable definition, and a moral absolute?
This thread quickly went to shit. I'm glad some people at least answered the OP's question about how people became atheists, instead of arguing over the existence of god.
I was never raised religious (thank god) but I kinda had a feeling when I was 10-12 that he kinda existed. He made me feel bad every time I jerked off and I'd say I was sorry and w/e. But I started thinking about how dumb it was that that was all I had to do to get into heaven. Why should I believe in a religion based upon such a stupid idea as forgiveness for ANYTHING you could possibly do. Why should I believe in a religion that sends generally good, non-believing people to hell for eternity because they didn't believe in something which has continuously shown little to no physical evidence for its validity.
I started having questions about how dumb it all was. Why would god send people to hell for such petty reasons. Billions of people are going to hell in that case for not being Christian. Wtf is up with that. Why doesn't he appear to the billions of people to prove he's actually real so he can save them from hell. He must not care I guess.
I never associated myself as an actual atheist (just a non-practicing christian) until a few years ago. All the hate and ignorance that devout Christians have toward other religious groups or people with different sexual preferences ticked me off. I didn't want to be associated with those idiots. That was that.
I enjoy being an atheist. I don't have to apologize for my actions to imaginary people in the sky. I don't have to live in ignorance and blindly follow a 2000 year old book for guidance without questioning it AT ALL. I don't have to waste my time going to church or anything religious. I've had people tell me they feel sorry for me because I believe this is the only life I have and that there is no life after death. That pisses me off. Go feel sorry for someone who needs it.
Also I think that if god had wanted us to worship him unconditionally, he wouldn’t have given us free will.
Edit: And the Lord said unto John, "Come forth and receive eternal life." But John came fifth and won a toaster.
On April 23 2013 04:41 wherebugsgo wrote: So? It's not that much better than in its history. Plenty of official Christian doctrine, plenty of Christian institutions, represent Christianity when they, today, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities.
As for your atheist question, there probably weren't that many atheists back then, at least not public ones. You know why? Because most religions would kill them for being nonbelievers. There aren't many famous atheists in history because atheists have long been discriminated against, just like any other minority in existence.
Here's the difference, though: you are arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am a walking contradiction to that statement. I am not religious at all, and I think most people would agree that I am not by any means an immoral person. I'm not going to kill anyone, I'm not going to steal, and I'm certainly not going to infringe upon the rights of any other person. Yet, I'm not religious, nor have I ever looked toward religion for moral guidance.
In fact, your earlier posts hinted toward Christian moral superiority. Plenty of Christians use Christianity to say that gays, blacks, women, oral sex, abortion, Democrats, Muslims, Jews, and plenty of other minorities/others are morally inferior to them.
When have you seen atheism, a lack of belief in God, used as a justification for the same?
It has not been my experience that many churches now, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities. You may be able to find some who do - but it's a bit like my finding a atheist who believes something crazy and then claiming that's your atheism. More to the point, ignorance is ignorance - and while most churches weed that out, every large group of people has some bad ones. That doesn't excuse them - but it doesn't mean that's Christianity, either.
I'm not arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am arguing that it takes more than an individual to create a strong system of morality (which was what the OP was claiming). It takes a community. You're not killing or stealing, and everyone has their legal rights - great. But does that make you moral? You think so - but is that enough to make it true? And also, isn't the line "I think most people would agree that..." a fallacy, as you pointed out earlier? You can not kill, steal, or spoil anyone's rights and still be someone most people would agree is a terrible person - doubly so if you don't mind bending the meaning of the words "kill" or "steal" - which most people are willing to do under the right conditions.
Also, I hope you're not actually asking me to cite times I've seen it implied that people have used atheism to say that Christianity is morally inferior - because there are several in this thread. And that's not a bad thing, people ought to view their way of thinking as the best way. The bad part is when they use that inferiority to shut out a part of their mind which has valuable critical thinking to do. Many christians do this, walking away from discussion instead of addressing it. But many atheists are just as dismissive - citing "evidence" of christianity's wrongdoing through the ages (as though christianity was one living breathing entity, instead of a body of many different people at many different times) as a reason they don't have to listen to their arguments.
Belief in our superiority is natural. It's acting on that belief out of turn which becomes unfortunate. You can think I'm wrong all you want. It's when you say I'm wrong without due evidence to support you that you've done wrong. I can think muslims pray to the wrong god all I want - it's when I yell at them over it, or disrespect their beliefs publicly that I've crossed a line.
I'd argue Christianity is immoral in some of its most basic tenants. Now in the 21st century it seems like you can believe almost anything and still call yourself a Christian, so you may move the goal posts on me at any given time and still call yourself a Christian. Not much I can do about that. Here are a few starters for what, I believe, are core principles of any Christian, that are immoral in my view. Again, you may not actually believe any of these (but then I honestly don't know what it means to be Christian):
1. Jesus died for your sins.
This is immoral to me because it means someone can take the blame for your faults, and you are absolved of them. It is reminiscent of scapegoating, and even human sacrifice. We, as a species, have sinned, but this guy died for them, now we're in the clear. Yay.
2. People that don't believe what you believe are going to hell, no matter what. Specifically, that Jesus Christ is our lord and savior. Even if they are "good" people, they still burn for all eternity, because they don't happen to believe when someone tells them that a virgin had a baby 2000 years ago and that baby was the son of god.
A lot of religions are guilty of this, but we're talking about Christianity, so I'll stick with this. This is simply the standard "if you don't believe what I believe, you are screwed" mentality. I find this immoral because why should anyone believe what you believe, based on no evidence, yet be required to believe this odd story in order to not burn in hell for all eternity.
I have some others, but I'm dying to see what you say about those two.
1. Jesus died for your sins.
Jesus is not dead. The body died, but he lives. This is pretty basic Christianity. But the point you're making is that we killed him with our sin - yes, that's true. But where did "now we're in the clear, yay" come from? We still sin. It's still wrong to sin. What has changed is that we no longer die for it. And it wasn't scapegoating - we didn't *make* him do it (how do you make a god do anything?). He did it as a gift. That you state this in such ridiculous terms (given how little knowledge you have of the religion) is more than a little disrespectful.
2. People that don't believe what you believe are going to hell, no matter what.
Who goes to heaven and who goes to hell is not determined by us. Nor do I claim to understand the process. You would like me to account for how god determines who gets into heaven? I can't. I know what I've been told, which is that worshiping false gods is a sin, and yet I know many for whom I hope this sin is forgiven. You want me to tell you I know it will be? I can't. You want me to tell you I worship the god of fire and brimstone who will send some friends of mine to hell for their beliefs? I can't do that either. This is something I don't understand. But there are things I don't understand about Christianity. That doesn't make it wrong. Perhaps as item 3, you could ask me to start accounting for deaths of certain famous people. I'm sure I'm a knowledgeable source for such material.
On April 23 2013 04:41 wherebugsgo wrote: So? It's not that much better than in its history. Plenty of official Christian doctrine, plenty of Christian institutions, represent Christianity when they, today, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities.
As for your atheist question, there probably weren't that many atheists back then, at least not public ones. You know why? Because most religions would kill them for being nonbelievers. There aren't many famous atheists in history because atheists have long been discriminated against, just like any other minority in existence.
Here's the difference, though: you are arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am a walking contradiction to that statement. I am not religious at all, and I think most people would agree that I am not by any means an immoral person. I'm not going to kill anyone, I'm not going to steal, and I'm certainly not going to infringe upon the rights of any other person. Yet, I'm not religious, nor have I ever looked toward religion for moral guidance.
In fact, your earlier posts hinted toward Christian moral superiority. Plenty of Christians use Christianity to say that gays, blacks, women, oral sex, abortion, Democrats, Muslims, Jews, and plenty of other minorities/others are morally inferior to them.
When have you seen atheism, a lack of belief in God, used as a justification for the same?
It has not been my experience that many churches now, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities. You may be able to find some who do - but it's a bit like my finding a atheist who believes something crazy and then claiming that's your atheism. More to the point, ignorance is ignorance - and while most churches weed that out, every large group of people has some bad ones. That doesn't excuse them - but it doesn't mean that's Christianity, either.
I'm not arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am arguing that it takes more than an individual to create a strong system of morality (which was what the OP was claiming). It takes a community. You're not killing or stealing, and everyone has their legal rights - great. But does that make you moral? You think so - but is that enough to make it true? And also, isn't the line "I think most people would agree that..." a fallacy, as you pointed out earlier? You can not kill, steal, or spoil anyone's rights and still be someone most people would agree is a terrible person - doubly so if you don't mind bending the meaning of the words "kill" or "steal" - which most people are willing to do under the right conditions.
Also, I hope you're not actually asking me to cite times I've seen it implied that people have used atheism to say that Christianity is morally inferior - because there are several in this thread. And that's not a bad thing, people ought to view their way of thinking as the best way. The bad part is when they use that inferiority to shut out a part of their mind which has valuable critical thinking to do. Many christians do this, walking away from discussion instead of addressing it. But many atheists are just as dismissive - citing "evidence" of christianity's wrongdoing through the ages (as though christianity was one living breathing entity, instead of a body of many different people at many different times) as a reason they don't have to listen to their arguments.
Belief in our superiority is natural. It's acting on that belief out of turn which becomes unfortunate. You can think I'm wrong all you want. It's when you say I'm wrong without due evidence to support you that you've done wrong. I can think muslims pray to the wrong god all I want - it's when I yell at them over it, or disrespect their beliefs publicly that I've crossed a line.
I'd argue Christianity is immoral in some of its most basic tenants. Now in the 21st century it seems like you can believe almost anything and still call yourself a Christian, so you may move the goal posts on me at any given time and still call yourself a Christian. Not much I can do about that. Here are a few starters for what, I believe, are core principles of any Christian, that are immoral in my view. Again, you may not actually believe any of these (but then I honestly don't know what it means to be Christian):
1. Jesus died for your sins.
This is immoral to me because it means someone can take the blame for your faults, and you are absolved of them. It is reminiscent of scapegoating, and even human sacrifice. We, as a species, have sinned, but this guy died for them, now we're in the clear. Yay.
2. People that don't believe what you believe are going to hell, no matter what. Specifically, that Jesus Christ is our lord and savior. Even if they are "good" people, they still burn for all eternity, because they don't happen to believe when someone tells them that a virgin had a baby 2000 years ago and that baby was the son of god.
A lot of religions are guilty of this, but we're talking about Christianity, so I'll stick with this. This is simply the standard "if you don't believe what I believe, you are screwed" mentality. I find this immoral because why should anyone believe what you believe, based on no evidence, yet be required to believe this odd story in order to not burn in hell for all eternity.
I have some others, but I'm dying to see what you say about those two.
1. Jesus died for your sins.
Jesus is not dead. The body died, but he lives. This is pretty basic Christianity. But the point you're making is that we killed him with our sin - yes, that's true. But where did "now we're in the clear, yay" come from? We still sin. It's still wrong to sin. What has changed is that we no longer die for it. And it wasn't scapegoating - we didn't *make* him do it (how do you make a god do anything?). He did it as a gift. That you state this in such ridiculous terms (given how little knowledge you have of the religion) is more than a little disrespectful.
2. People that don't believe what you believe are going to hell, no matter what.
Who goes to heaven and who goes to hell is not determined by us. Nor do I claim to understand the process. You would like me to account for how god determines who gets into heaven? I can't. I know what I've been told, which is that worshiping false gods is a sin, and yet I know many for whom I hope this sin is forgiven. You want me to tell you I know it will be? I can't. You want me to tell you I worship the god of fire and brimstone who will send some friends of mine to hell for their beliefs? I can't do that either. This is something I don't understand. But there are things I don't understand about Christianity. That doesn't make it wrong. Perhaps as item 3, you could ask me to start accounting for deaths of certain famous people. I'm sure I'm a knowledgeable source for such material.
What you've described is a heavily neutered form of Christianity.
You could probably come up with some version of it that cannot really be easily dismissed, but then again there would be no real reason for believing in it. Similar to how there's no reason for you to believe in Zeus, or Odin, or Vishnu, or the FSM. None of those things matter in the slightest to you: you don't spend a lick of time thinking about them.
I don't think I can answer because I've never actually been a theist. I was raised is a pretty relaxed Jewish family, though I did go to weekly religious school and have a bar mitzvah. I can't remember ever believing God actually existed.
I remember once when I was pretty young I asked the teacher if I could be Jewish if I didn't believe in God, answer was no obviously lol. Still is nice to observe some of the traditions though (had my yearly matzoh fix a few weeks back for Passover, and even gave up bread for the week because why not.)
On April 23 2013 04:41 wherebugsgo wrote: So? It's not that much better than in its history. Plenty of official Christian doctrine, plenty of Christian institutions, represent Christianity when they, today, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities.
As for your atheist question, there probably weren't that many atheists back then, at least not public ones. You know why? Because most religions would kill them for being nonbelievers. There aren't many famous atheists in history because atheists have long been discriminated against, just like any other minority in existence.
Here's the difference, though: you are arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am a walking contradiction to that statement. I am not religious at all, and I think most people would agree that I am not by any means an immoral person. I'm not going to kill anyone, I'm not going to steal, and I'm certainly not going to infringe upon the rights of any other person. Yet, I'm not religious, nor have I ever looked toward religion for moral guidance.
In fact, your earlier posts hinted toward Christian moral superiority. Plenty of Christians use Christianity to say that gays, blacks, women, oral sex, abortion, Democrats, Muslims, Jews, and plenty of other minorities/others are morally inferior to them.
When have you seen atheism, a lack of belief in God, used as a justification for the same?
It has not been my experience that many churches now, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities. You may be able to find some who do - but it's a bit like my finding a atheist who believes something crazy and then claiming that's your atheism. More to the point, ignorance is ignorance - and while most churches weed that out, every large group of people has some bad ones. That doesn't excuse them - but it doesn't mean that's Christianity, either.
I'm not arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am arguing that it takes more than an individual to create a strong system of morality (which was what the OP was claiming). It takes a community. You're not killing or stealing, and everyone has their legal rights - great. But does that make you moral? You think so - but is that enough to make it true? And also, isn't the line "I think most people would agree that..." a fallacy, as you pointed out earlier? You can not kill, steal, or spoil anyone's rights and still be someone most people would agree is a terrible person - doubly so if you don't mind bending the meaning of the words "kill" or "steal" - which most people are willing to do under the right conditions.
Also, I hope you're not actually asking me to cite times I've seen it implied that people have used atheism to say that Christianity is morally inferior - because there are several in this thread. And that's not a bad thing, people ought to view their way of thinking as the best way. The bad part is when they use that inferiority to shut out a part of their mind which has valuable critical thinking to do. Many christians do this, walking away from discussion instead of addressing it. But many atheists are just as dismissive - citing "evidence" of christianity's wrongdoing through the ages (as though christianity was one living breathing entity, instead of a body of many different people at many different times) as a reason they don't have to listen to their arguments.
Belief in our superiority is natural. It's acting on that belief out of turn which becomes unfortunate. You can think I'm wrong all you want. It's when you say I'm wrong without due evidence to support you that you've done wrong. I can think muslims pray to the wrong god all I want - it's when I yell at them over it, or disrespect their beliefs publicly that I've crossed a line.
I'd argue Christianity is immoral in some of its most basic tenants. Now in the 21st century it seems like you can believe almost anything and still call yourself a Christian, so you may move the goal posts on me at any given time and still call yourself a Christian. Not much I can do about that. Here are a few starters for what, I believe, are core principles of any Christian, that are immoral in my view. Again, you may not actually believe any of these (but then I honestly don't know what it means to be Christian):
1. Jesus died for your sins.
This is immoral to me because it means someone can take the blame for your faults, and you are absolved of them. It is reminiscent of scapegoating, and even human sacrifice. We, as a species, have sinned, but this guy died for them, now we're in the clear. Yay.
2. People that don't believe what you believe are going to hell, no matter what. Specifically, that Jesus Christ is our lord and savior. Even if they are "good" people, they still burn for all eternity, because they don't happen to believe when someone tells them that a virgin had a baby 2000 years ago and that baby was the son of god.
A lot of religions are guilty of this, but we're talking about Christianity, so I'll stick with this. This is simply the standard "if you don't believe what I believe, you are screwed" mentality. I find this immoral because why should anyone believe what you believe, based on no evidence, yet be required to believe this odd story in order to not burn in hell for all eternity.
I have some others, but I'm dying to see what you say about those two.
1. Jesus died for your sins.
Jesus is not dead. The body died, but he lives. This is pretty basic Christianity. But the point you're making is that we killed him with our sin - yes, that's true. But where did "now we're in the clear, yay" come from? We still sin. It's still wrong to sin. What has changed is that we no longer die for it. And it wasn't scapegoating - we didn't *make* him do it (how do you make a god do anything?). He did it as a gift. That you state this in such ridiculous terms (given how little knowledge you have of the religion) is more than a little disrespectful.
2. People that don't believe what you believe are going to hell, no matter what.
Who goes to heaven and who goes to hell is not determined by us. Nor do I claim to understand the process. You would like me to account for how god determines who gets into heaven? I can't. I know what I've been told, which is that worshiping false gods is a sin, and yet I know many for whom I hope this sin is forgiven. You want me to tell you I know it will be? I can't. You want me to tell you I worship the god of fire and brimstone who will send some friends of mine to hell for their beliefs? I can't do that either. This is something I don't understand. But there are things I don't understand about Christianity. That doesn't make it wrong. Perhaps as item 3, you could ask me to start accounting for deaths of certain famous people. I'm sure I'm a knowledgeable source for such material.
1. Ok, this whole thing never made sense to me. And your answer doesn't make it any clearer. Why did he die for our sins? I don't get it. What did that accomplish, and why is it important? Are you saying previously that when people sinned they died? And I'm pretty sure Pontius Pilate ordered him to be executed. Are you saying he orchestrated the whole thing? What evidence is there for that? Maybe you can explain it.
2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind.
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.
It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans.
2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind.
So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it?
Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand.
talked to people. reasoned that I didn't need religion to be reasonable cause I know I'm a good person. however, a little bit after I also reasoned there isn't enough proof to be atheist so instead don't even deny the existence of God.
On April 23 2013 04:41 wherebugsgo wrote: So? It's not that much better than in its history. Plenty of official Christian doctrine, plenty of Christian institutions, represent Christianity when they, today, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities.
As for your atheist question, there probably weren't that many atheists back then, at least not public ones. You know why? Because most religions would kill them for being nonbelievers. There aren't many famous atheists in history because atheists have long been discriminated against, just like any other minority in existence.
Here's the difference, though: you are arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am a walking contradiction to that statement. I am not religious at all, and I think most people would agree that I am not by any means an immoral person. I'm not going to kill anyone, I'm not going to steal, and I'm certainly not going to infringe upon the rights of any other person. Yet, I'm not religious, nor have I ever looked toward religion for moral guidance.
In fact, your earlier posts hinted toward Christian moral superiority. Plenty of Christians use Christianity to say that gays, blacks, women, oral sex, abortion, Democrats, Muslims, Jews, and plenty of other minorities/others are morally inferior to them.
When have you seen atheism, a lack of belief in God, used as a justification for the same?
It has not been my experience that many churches now, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities. You may be able to find some who do - but it's a bit like my finding a atheist who believes something crazy and then claiming that's your atheism. More to the point, ignorance is ignorance - and while most churches weed that out, every large group of people has some bad ones. That doesn't excuse them - but it doesn't mean that's Christianity, either.
I'm not arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am arguing that it takes more than an individual to create a strong system of morality (which was what the OP was claiming). It takes a community. You're not killing or stealing, and everyone has their legal rights - great. But does that make you moral? You think so - but is that enough to make it true? And also, isn't the line "I think most people would agree that..." a fallacy, as you pointed out earlier? You can not kill, steal, or spoil anyone's rights and still be someone most people would agree is a terrible person - doubly so if you don't mind bending the meaning of the words "kill" or "steal" - which most people are willing to do under the right conditions.
Also, I hope you're not actually asking me to cite times I've seen it implied that people have used atheism to say that Christianity is morally inferior - because there are several in this thread. And that's not a bad thing, people ought to view their way of thinking as the best way. The bad part is when they use that inferiority to shut out a part of their mind which has valuable critical thinking to do. Many christians do this, walking away from discussion instead of addressing it. But many atheists are just as dismissive - citing "evidence" of christianity's wrongdoing through the ages (as though christianity was one living breathing entity, instead of a body of many different people at many different times) as a reason they don't have to listen to their arguments.
Belief in our superiority is natural. It's acting on that belief out of turn which becomes unfortunate. You can think I'm wrong all you want. It's when you say I'm wrong without due evidence to support you that you've done wrong. I can think muslims pray to the wrong god all I want - it's when I yell at them over it, or disrespect their beliefs publicly that I've crossed a line.
I'd argue Christianity is immoral in some of its most basic tenants. Now in the 21st century it seems like you can believe almost anything and still call yourself a Christian, so you may move the goal posts on me at any given time and still call yourself a Christian. Not much I can do about that. Here are a few starters for what, I believe, are core principles of any Christian, that are immoral in my view. Again, you may not actually believe any of these (but then I honestly don't know what it means to be Christian):
1. Jesus died for your sins.
This is immoral to me because it means someone can take the blame for your faults, and you are absolved of them. It is reminiscent of scapegoating, and even human sacrifice. We, as a species, have sinned, but this guy died for them, now we're in the clear. Yay.
2. People that don't believe what you believe are going to hell, no matter what. Specifically, that Jesus Christ is our lord and savior. Even if they are "good" people, they still burn for all eternity, because they don't happen to believe when someone tells them that a virgin had a baby 2000 years ago and that baby was the son of god.
A lot of religions are guilty of this, but we're talking about Christianity, so I'll stick with this. This is simply the standard "if you don't believe what I believe, you are screwed" mentality. I find this immoral because why should anyone believe what you believe, based on no evidence, yet be required to believe this odd story in order to not burn in hell for all eternity.
I have some others, but I'm dying to see what you say about those two.
1. Jesus died for your sins.
Jesus is not dead. The body died, but he lives. This is pretty basic Christianity. But the point you're making is that we killed him with our sin - yes, that's true. But where did "now we're in the clear, yay" come from? We still sin. It's still wrong to sin. What has changed is that we no longer die for it. And it wasn't scapegoating - we didn't *make* him do it (how do you make a god do anything?). He did it as a gift. That you state this in such ridiculous terms (given how little knowledge you have of the religion) is more than a little disrespectful.
2. People that don't believe what you believe are going to hell, no matter what.
Who goes to heaven and who goes to hell is not determined by us. Nor do I claim to understand the process. You would like me to account for how god determines who gets into heaven? I can't. I know what I've been told, which is that worshiping false gods is a sin, and yet I know many for whom I hope this sin is forgiven. You want me to tell you I know it will be? I can't. You want me to tell you I worship the god of fire and brimstone who will send some friends of mine to hell for their beliefs? I can't do that either. This is something I don't understand. But there are things I don't understand about Christianity. That doesn't make it wrong. Perhaps as item 3, you could ask me to start accounting for deaths of certain famous people. I'm sure I'm a knowledgeable source for such material.
1. Ok, this whole thing never made sense to me. And your answer doesn't make it any clearer. Why did he die for our sins? I don't get it. What did that accomplish, and why is it important? Are you saying previously that when people sinned they died? And I'm pretty sure Pontius Pilate ordered him to be executed. Are you saying he orchestrated the whole thing? What evidence is there for that? Maybe you can explain it.
2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind.
Do you see that in your pot you have made yourself/society the judges of God's morality? You disbelieve in God because he does not act as you would like him to.
I'm not going to get tangled in this, but i think it's interesting how many people reject God rather than really trying to understand. Which might be related to all the "I turned 12, mastered logic and disproved the existence of God" posts.
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.
It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans.
2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind.
So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it?
Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand.
No, I believe it is immoral for someone to believe that if someone does not believe what they believe, that non-believer suffers for all eternity (that is a lot of "believes"). I don't believe in any religion, and I don't particularly like most religious people, but I think it would be immoral for me to say or believe that anyone who doesn't agree with my position of agnostic atheism will suffer for all eternity. That strikes me as morally wrong.
And if you are just tuning in to the discussion, it should be quite clear that I think morality is subjective. But he asked what I felt about Christian doctrine was immoral, so I told him. It doesn't mean it is absolutely true.
I was raised to have as much freedom as I'd like. With regards to pretty much every aspect of my life, including religion. I haven't come across any compelling rational argument to be religious. So I am not.
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.
It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans.
2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind.
So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it?
Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand.
No, I believe it is immoral for someone to believe that if someone does not believe what they believe, that non-believer suffers for all eternity (that is a lot of "believes"). I don't believe in any religion, and I don't particularly like most religious people, but I think it would be immoral for me to say or believe that anyone who doesn't agree with my position of agnostic atheism will suffer for all eternity. That strikes me as morally wrong.
And if you are just tuning in to the discussion, it should be quite clear that I think morality is subjective. But he asked what I felt about Christian doctrine was immoral, so I told him. It doesn't mean it is absolutely true.
But if it's true that non-believers suffer for all eternity, how is HE being immoral for believing something that is true? You're equating belief in something with immoral action, but as I said I believe that a lot of people suffered and died in the Holocaust. It's true that a lot of people suffered and died in the Holocaust, and it's not immoral for me to believe that (except according to you, it IS immoral for me to believe that).
Now, I could understand your position better if you believed it was immoral to WANT non-believers to suffer for all eternity. But just believing it would happen seems to be a strange thing to be considered immoral.
When I was in England every single person under 25 I spoke to was irreligious. Religion is dead in the younger generations of developed countries that aren't immigrants.
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.
It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans.
2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind.
So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it?
Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand.
No, I believe it is immoral for someone to believe that if someone does not believe what they believe, that non-believer suffers for all eternity (that is a lot of "believes"). I don't believe in any religion, and I don't particularly like most religious people, but I think it would be immoral for me to say or believe that anyone who doesn't agree with my position of agnostic atheism will suffer for all eternity. That strikes me as morally wrong.
And if you are just tuning in to the discussion, it should be quite clear that I think morality is subjective. But he asked what I felt about Christian doctrine was immoral, so I told him. It doesn't mean it is absolutely true.
But if it's true that non-believers suffer for all eternity, how is HE being immoral for believing something that is true? You're equating belief in something with immoral action, but as I said I believe that a lot of people suffered and died in the Holocaust. It's true that a lot of people suffered and died in the Holocaust, and it's not immoral for me to believe that (except according to you, it IS immoral for me to believe that).
Now, I could understand your position better if you believed it was immoral to WANT non-believers to suffer for all eternity. But just believing it would happen seems to be a strange thing to be considered immoral.
It is a question of evidence, which maybe I hinted at but didn't make quite clear. The different between the Holocaust and "hell" is evidence. One has evidence for its existence, the other does not.
And because there is no evidence, it will lead to people believing in many different scenarios. So, to put it more clearly, say I believe in this thing that has no evidence, you believe in that thing that has no evidence. But if you don't believe in my thing that has no evidence, I believe you will suffer eternally. Well, if the other person believes a similar thing, they are at a bit of an impasse. It is about not being able to understand another perspective, when your (religious) perspective is based on no evidence. I think that is wrong.
Of course, you could say the true believer has their own "evidence" like scripture, personal experiences, etc. However, again, not being able to see the subjectivity of that evidence and accept the possibility that they could be wrong, is immoral to me.
Edit; Also, people only believe what they want to believe, no matter what. Now sometimes this means they have to accept hard truths, or things they wish weren't true, but they still believe them out of wanting to believe them for one reason or another. Anyone who believes that non-believers suffer for all eternity WANTS to believe that, for some reason.
A belief in a God or a higher power is more important than the religion that may or may not come a long with it. I choose to believe that something greater is out there, but as for religious scripture and community? I don't want anything to do with it.
We are all fatalistically subject to physical laws and nature. There is no escaping them. They determine what you are, what you experience happening around you and thus ultimately the experiences you base your decisions on.
I don't know what you want to call it, physical laws, mother nature, god, fate? Maybe it's four words for the same thing.
My parents taught me about Santa and The Tooth Fairy, but I found out they were made up by the time I was 6 years old. I put God in that category as well after that. I didn't really think about whether or not God was real until I was about 13. My friend's dad was an engineer and he taught us all kinds of things about how the world works.
I soon decided that everything has or will have a scientific explanation. You don't need God to make the world work. Even asking about how the universe itself came to be doesn't matter. I'll paraphrase Carl Sagan; if God made the universe, then who made God? If God has always existed, why can't the universe have always existed?
On April 23 2013 04:41 wherebugsgo wrote: So? It's not that much better than in its history. Plenty of official Christian doctrine, plenty of Christian institutions, represent Christianity when they, today, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities.
As for your atheist question, there probably weren't that many atheists back then, at least not public ones. You know why? Because most religions would kill them for being nonbelievers. There aren't many famous atheists in history because atheists have long been discriminated against, just like any other minority in existence.
Here's the difference, though: you are arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am a walking contradiction to that statement. I am not religious at all, and I think most people would agree that I am not by any means an immoral person. I'm not going to kill anyone, I'm not going to steal, and I'm certainly not going to infringe upon the rights of any other person. Yet, I'm not religious, nor have I ever looked toward religion for moral guidance.
In fact, your earlier posts hinted toward Christian moral superiority. Plenty of Christians use Christianity to say that gays, blacks, women, oral sex, abortion, Democrats, Muslims, Jews, and plenty of other minorities/others are morally inferior to them.
When have you seen atheism, a lack of belief in God, used as a justification for the same?
It has not been my experience that many churches now, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities. You may be able to find some who do - but it's a bit like my finding a atheist who believes something crazy and then claiming that's your atheism. More to the point, ignorance is ignorance - and while most churches weed that out, every large group of people has some bad ones. That doesn't excuse them - but it doesn't mean that's Christianity, either.
I'm not arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am arguing that it takes more than an individual to create a strong system of morality (which was what the OP was claiming). It takes a community. You're not killing or stealing, and everyone has their legal rights - great. But does that make you moral? You think so - but is that enough to make it true? And also, isn't the line "I think most people would agree that..." a fallacy, as you pointed out earlier? You can not kill, steal, or spoil anyone's rights and still be someone most people would agree is a terrible person - doubly so if you don't mind bending the meaning of the words "kill" or "steal" - which most people are willing to do under the right conditions.
Also, I hope you're not actually asking me to cite times I've seen it implied that people have used atheism to say that Christianity is morally inferior - because there are several in this thread. And that's not a bad thing, people ought to view their way of thinking as the best way. The bad part is when they use that inferiority to shut out a part of their mind which has valuable critical thinking to do. Many christians do this, walking away from discussion instead of addressing it. But many atheists are just as dismissive - citing "evidence" of christianity's wrongdoing through the ages (as though christianity was one living breathing entity, instead of a body of many different people at many different times) as a reason they don't have to listen to their arguments.
Belief in our superiority is natural. It's acting on that belief out of turn which becomes unfortunate. You can think I'm wrong all you want. It's when you say I'm wrong without due evidence to support you that you've done wrong. I can think muslims pray to the wrong god all I want - it's when I yell at them over it, or disrespect their beliefs publicly that I've crossed a line.
I'd argue Christianity is immoral in some of its most basic tenants. Now in the 21st century it seems like you can believe almost anything and still call yourself a Christian, so you may move the goal posts on me at any given time and still call yourself a Christian. Not much I can do about that. Here are a few starters for what, I believe, are core principles of any Christian, that are immoral in my view. Again, you may not actually believe any of these (but then I honestly don't know what it means to be Christian):
1. Jesus died for your sins.
This is immoral to me because it means someone can take the blame for your faults, and you are absolved of them. It is reminiscent of scapegoating, and even human sacrifice. We, as a species, have sinned, but this guy died for them, now we're in the clear. Yay.
2. People that don't believe what you believe are going to hell, no matter what. Specifically, that Jesus Christ is our lord and savior. Even if they are "good" people, they still burn for all eternity, because they don't happen to believe when someone tells them that a virgin had a baby 2000 years ago and that baby was the son of god.
A lot of religions are guilty of this, but we're talking about Christianity, so I'll stick with this. This is simply the standard "if you don't believe what I believe, you are screwed" mentality. I find this immoral because why should anyone believe what you believe, based on no evidence, yet be required to believe this odd story in order to not burn in hell for all eternity.
I have some others, but I'm dying to see what you say about those two.
1. Jesus died for your sins.
Jesus is not dead. The body died, but he lives. This is pretty basic Christianity. But the point you're making is that we killed him with our sin - yes, that's true. But where did "now we're in the clear, yay" come from? We still sin. It's still wrong to sin. What has changed is that we no longer die for it. And it wasn't scapegoating - we didn't *make* him do it (how do you make a god do anything?). He did it as a gift. That you state this in such ridiculous terms (given how little knowledge you have of the religion) is more than a little disrespectful.
2. People that don't believe what you believe are going to hell, no matter what.
Who goes to heaven and who goes to hell is not determined by us. Nor do I claim to understand the process. You would like me to account for how god determines who gets into heaven? I can't. I know what I've been told, which is that worshiping false gods is a sin, and yet I know many for whom I hope this sin is forgiven. You want me to tell you I know it will be? I can't. You want me to tell you I worship the god of fire and brimstone who will send some friends of mine to hell for their beliefs? I can't do that either. This is something I don't understand. But there are things I don't understand about Christianity. That doesn't make it wrong. Perhaps as item 3, you could ask me to start accounting for deaths of certain famous people. I'm sure I'm a knowledgeable source for such material.
What you've described is a heavily neutered form of Christianity.
You could probably come up with some version of it that cannot really be easily dismissed, but then again there would be no real reason for believing in it. Similar to how there's no reason for you to believe in Zeus, or Odin, or Vishnu, or the FSM. None of those things matter in the slightest to you: you don't spend a lick of time thinking about them.
Interesting - in two basic points of christian theology I've completely neutered it? Are there factions of Christianity which believes that God is not ultimately in charge of sorting out those who go to heaven from those who go to hell - people who don't hope for a merciful god?
You're right, I don't spend any time thinking about other gods. I can't prove that they're wrong or that I'm right, so I just put it out of my mind. It's better than convincing myself I have definitely disproven something I haven't (hint).
On April 23 2013 04:41 wherebugsgo wrote: So? It's not that much better than in its history. Plenty of official Christian doctrine, plenty of Christian institutions, represent Christianity when they, today, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities.
As for your atheist question, there probably weren't that many atheists back then, at least not public ones. You know why? Because most religions would kill them for being nonbelievers. There aren't many famous atheists in history because atheists have long been discriminated against, just like any other minority in existence.
Here's the difference, though: you are arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am a walking contradiction to that statement. I am not religious at all, and I think most people would agree that I am not by any means an immoral person. I'm not going to kill anyone, I'm not going to steal, and I'm certainly not going to infringe upon the rights of any other person. Yet, I'm not religious, nor have I ever looked toward religion for moral guidance.
In fact, your earlier posts hinted toward Christian moral superiority. Plenty of Christians use Christianity to say that gays, blacks, women, oral sex, abortion, Democrats, Muslims, Jews, and plenty of other minorities/others are morally inferior to them.
When have you seen atheism, a lack of belief in God, used as a justification for the same?
It has not been my experience that many churches now, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities. You may be able to find some who do - but it's a bit like my finding a atheist who believes something crazy and then claiming that's your atheism. More to the point, ignorance is ignorance - and while most churches weed that out, every large group of people has some bad ones. That doesn't excuse them - but it doesn't mean that's Christianity, either.
I'm not arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am arguing that it takes more than an individual to create a strong system of morality (which was what the OP was claiming). It takes a community. You're not killing or stealing, and everyone has their legal rights - great. But does that make you moral? You think so - but is that enough to make it true? And also, isn't the line "I think most people would agree that..." a fallacy, as you pointed out earlier? You can not kill, steal, or spoil anyone's rights and still be someone most people would agree is a terrible person - doubly so if you don't mind bending the meaning of the words "kill" or "steal" - which most people are willing to do under the right conditions.
Also, I hope you're not actually asking me to cite times I've seen it implied that people have used atheism to say that Christianity is morally inferior - because there are several in this thread. And that's not a bad thing, people ought to view their way of thinking as the best way. The bad part is when they use that inferiority to shut out a part of their mind which has valuable critical thinking to do. Many christians do this, walking away from discussion instead of addressing it. But many atheists are just as dismissive - citing "evidence" of christianity's wrongdoing through the ages (as though christianity was one living breathing entity, instead of a body of many different people at many different times) as a reason they don't have to listen to their arguments.
Belief in our superiority is natural. It's acting on that belief out of turn which becomes unfortunate. You can think I'm wrong all you want. It's when you say I'm wrong without due evidence to support you that you've done wrong. I can think muslims pray to the wrong god all I want - it's when I yell at them over it, or disrespect their beliefs publicly that I've crossed a line.
I'd argue Christianity is immoral in some of its most basic tenants. Now in the 21st century it seems like you can believe almost anything and still call yourself a Christian, so you may move the goal posts on me at any given time and still call yourself a Christian. Not much I can do about that. Here are a few starters for what, I believe, are core principles of any Christian, that are immoral in my view. Again, you may not actually believe any of these (but then I honestly don't know what it means to be Christian):
1. Jesus died for your sins.
This is immoral to me because it means someone can take the blame for your faults, and you are absolved of them. It is reminiscent of scapegoating, and even human sacrifice. We, as a species, have sinned, but this guy died for them, now we're in the clear. Yay.
2. People that don't believe what you believe are going to hell, no matter what. Specifically, that Jesus Christ is our lord and savior. Even if they are "good" people, they still burn for all eternity, because they don't happen to believe when someone tells them that a virgin had a baby 2000 years ago and that baby was the son of god.
A lot of religions are guilty of this, but we're talking about Christianity, so I'll stick with this. This is simply the standard "if you don't believe what I believe, you are screwed" mentality. I find this immoral because why should anyone believe what you believe, based on no evidence, yet be required to believe this odd story in order to not burn in hell for all eternity.
I have some others, but I'm dying to see what you say about those two.
1. Jesus died for your sins.
Jesus is not dead. The body died, but he lives. This is pretty basic Christianity. But the point you're making is that we killed him with our sin - yes, that's true. But where did "now we're in the clear, yay" come from? We still sin. It's still wrong to sin. What has changed is that we no longer die for it. And it wasn't scapegoating - we didn't *make* him do it (how do you make a god do anything?). He did it as a gift. That you state this in such ridiculous terms (given how little knowledge you have of the religion) is more than a little disrespectful.
2. People that don't believe what you believe are going to hell, no matter what.
Who goes to heaven and who goes to hell is not determined by us. Nor do I claim to understand the process. You would like me to account for how god determines who gets into heaven? I can't. I know what I've been told, which is that worshiping false gods is a sin, and yet I know many for whom I hope this sin is forgiven. You want me to tell you I know it will be? I can't. You want me to tell you I worship the god of fire and brimstone who will send some friends of mine to hell for their beliefs? I can't do that either. This is something I don't understand. But there are things I don't understand about Christianity. That doesn't make it wrong. Perhaps as item 3, you could ask me to start accounting for deaths of certain famous people. I'm sure I'm a knowledgeable source for such material.
1. Ok, this whole thing never made sense to me. And your answer doesn't make it any clearer. Why did he die for our sins? I don't get it. What did that accomplish, and why is it important? Are you saying previously that when people sinned they died? And I'm pretty sure Pontius Pilate ordered him to be executed. Are you saying he orchestrated the whole thing? What evidence is there for that? Maybe you can explain it.
2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind.
1. Jesus' death is the end of death. Before that, yes, people died according to scripture. Maybe this is some kind of metaphorical truth that I just don't understand, but I was taught that it actually meant the end of death (i.e. before that, then, people must have died). Pontius Pilate objected to having Jesus executed - he didn't "orchestrate" anything - but the people demanded he be crucified anyway. Herod was the one who had him hunted down, but Pontius Pilate was a reasonable judge who didn't want to sentence a man who apparently had committed no crime.
2. I believe god has mastery over who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. I believe it is out of my hands. This is similar to my feelings towards the death penalty. I'm not happy that anyone must be punished in such a fashion, but ultimately, I live and die under power other than my own. I do not like capital punishment, but I certainly believe it's happening. It's the same thing. I do not understand hell, but I certainly believe there are people there.
Personally, I think that people who do not believe should not be sentenced based on that alone. And I don't understand how a benevolent diety could send good people to hell. But, it's also not something I have power over, so maybe it's just like that anyway. I don't understand it, so I can't tell you how it works.
Think of it like this - how does your brain work? You don't know, right? But you assume it works somehow, and somehow the data gets in there and allows you to make the decisions you need to make. And you hope it works the way you think it does (i.e. that you're perceiving truth, and that your senses are not entirely contrived to view a reality that is slanted).
Aside from childhood, before developing, I never really 'believed' or even thought mainstream religion was plausible.
Neither do I think that the promises given are desirable. I don't like the idea that you should be incentivised/terrified of some deity in order to do good deeds, that detracts from their goodness. I don't like the idea of eternal life, existence is a journey that goes through peaks and troughs, that is made all the more exciting by the knowledge that at some stage, the rollercoaster will end and you have to get off.
I'm always amazed at how contentious and semantical these threads inevitably become. In the end, wouldn't we all agree that our mutual goal is to discover what is reality as best as possible and accordingly live in such a way that will optimize our own benefit? Isn't that really the heart of all our motivation? (If someone feels otherwise, please say so. I think everyone else is like me in this regard, but I would be interested to learn otherwise.) So why do we often get angry and speak heatedly with people who think reality is different than we do? (Granted, this is more of a general trend I see. You folks in this thread have been fairly reasonable.)
Anyway, that's just my opinion on arguments in general. It's silly to not be respectful to people just because they have different beliefs. (Unless your beliefs don't incorporate respect for others as a value, however I think that's a fairly uncommon belief.)
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.
It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans.
2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind.
So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it?
Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand.
No, I believe it is immoral for someone to believe that if someone does not believe what they believe, that non-believer suffers for all eternity (that is a lot of "believes"). I don't believe in any religion, and I don't particularly like most religious people, but I think it would be immoral for me to say or believe that anyone who doesn't agree with my position of agnostic atheism will suffer for all eternity. That strikes me as morally wrong.
And if you are just tuning in to the discussion, it should be quite clear that I think morality is subjective. But he asked what I felt about Christian doctrine was immoral, so I told him. It doesn't mean it is absolutely true.
But if it's true that non-believers suffer for all eternity, how is HE being immoral for believing something that is true? You're equating belief in something with immoral action, but as I said I believe that a lot of people suffered and died in the Holocaust. It's true that a lot of people suffered and died in the Holocaust, and it's not immoral for me to believe that (except according to you, it IS immoral for me to believe that).
Now, I could understand your position better if you believed it was immoral to WANT non-believers to suffer for all eternity. But just believing it would happen seems to be a strange thing to be considered immoral.
Of course, you could say the true believer has their own "evidence" like scripture, personal experiences, etc. However, again, not being able to see the subjectivity of that evidence and accept the possibility that they could be wrong, is immoral to me.
Edit; Also, people only believe what they want to believe, no matter what. Now sometimes this means they have to accept hard truths, or things they wish weren't true, but they still believe them out of wanting to believe them for one reason or another. Anyone who believes that non-believers suffer for all eternity WANTS to believe that, for some reason.
That's interesting. You think it's immoral for someone to believe something based on faulty evidence?
What's your reasoning for this? Cause I want to believe that I'm going to be supremely happy from this instant into eternity, but I don't think I actually believe that.
I never jumped on the Atheist bandwagon, but I really think that religion puts God into a box. If God exists, then it wouldn't be logical to claim God as your own, or to limit God to any particular attributes. God would determine his own attributes, but when most people think of "God" or "Jesus", they think more of a super-being that operates within the realm of time and space, but can bend reality to his will. A super-being is easier to imagine because he would have a personality and would be relatable from, say, a particular specific cultural viewpoint, whereas a "God" would transcend any and all cultural viewpoints, and could not be quantified in human terms, which is exactly what religion attempts to do.
I was raised in a secular home which held catholic traditions. I'm baptized, for instance. I'm glad that I was never really indoctrinated though, my parents never really mentioned Jesus for instance, at least not while suggesting to me that Jesus existed. Where I live, religion was never really part of people's public lives either, so I was not even exposed to it. I was maybe 11-12 when I realized that people believed in that stuff. For a while, I didn't really mind it. Being a curious kid though, I started looking it up online and it's with great disappointment that I learned, a few years later, that people with beliefs which I consider ridiculous, are all over. I was about 16-18 when I started calling myself an atheist, even though I had always been one.
At first I was young and kind of a troll, so I would mock people for believing in Santa even though they were grown adults. The issue of religion seemed like a big joke to me, which it still does for very different reasons. As an academic, reading the arguments for "intelligent design" and Christianity in general always left me absolutely and incredibly amazed at how unrefined the logic and reasoning were. In an argumentative text, they would get absolutely demolished by any competent critic. I've found out that the best argument for religion was that you just have to believe, you just have to have faith - because trying to make sense of "God" just leads to nonsense which doesn't hold at all at worst or is easy to refute at best.
My interest in politics has given a fresh, practical twist to my view on religion, though. Of course, I believe that people have the right to believe whatever they want. Religion in itself is not bad. In some cases, the belief which I would consider to be based on falsehoods actually has a positive effect. However, I would say that religion typically behaves more like a disease (sorry!). In most people, it may seem asymptomatic. However, religion is easy to transmit to others, along with its set of morals and ethics - which can be very, very dangerous and vile.
As a person who values rationality and the never-ending attempt to know the truth (while always keeping a healthy dose of modesty), I find the unconditional belief, or faith, to be disgraceful and an insult to the massive human brain that we all have. Question -everything-. However, I'll say that I have a lot more respect for religions which carry morals and ethics which I consider to be good enough for today's world.
What I'm trying to say is that my atheism was reinforced by the fact that Christianity and Islam appear, to me, to be wholly inadequate in their moral codes. The sexism, the racism, the slavery, the violence, the hatred... the magic?... So, not only do I simply not believe in the existence of God, there are many things suggesting to me that people are following false idols. If your GOD is telling you to fight against gay marriage and your GOD also tells you that he loves us all unconditionally, your GOD lies. If a deity did exist, I'd expect it would be significantly less shallow.
Edit: Also the whole thing where religious folks try to prove that their religion is true by citing their scripture shows how deeply indoctrinated they are, as they've reached a point where the level of evidence they themselves require to believe their stuff is essentially no evidence at all. To me, this is kind of creepy... It's like watching people who have joined cults and have completely lost their former personality. It's almost scary to me, because I think it just displays how fragile our minds are...
On April 23 2013 13:17 LockeTazeline wrote: I'm always amazed at how contentious and semantical these threads inevitably become. In the end, wouldn't we all agree that our mutual goal is to discover what is reality as best as possible and accordingly live in such a way that will optimize our own benefit? Isn't that really the heart of all our motivation? (If someone feels otherwise, please say so. I think everyone else is like me in this regard, but I would be interested to learn otherwise.) So why do we often get angry and speak heatedly with people who think reality is different than we do? (Granted, this is more of a general trend I see. You folks in this thread have been fairly reasonable.)
Anyway, that's just my opinion on arguments in general. It's silly to not be respectful to people just because they have different beliefs. (Unless your beliefs don't incorporate respect for others as a value, however I think that's a fairly uncommon belief.)
I disagree that our mutual goal is to discover what is reality as best as possible. Theists are not interested in what is true, they are interested in what makes them feel good. Whether or not reality agrees with their beliefs is irreverent.
I do agree with you(for the most part) that it's silly not to be respectful to people, though respecting an individual does not mean you need to respect their beliefs. The idea that someones 'faith' is sacred ground that you're not allowed to questions is moronic.
If you believe in Santa Clause, your belief is stupid. If you believe in the tooth fairy, your belief is stupid. If you believe in God, your belief is stupid, and likely harmful. It seems easy to say leave everyone alone to believe what they want, but it's pretty hard to do so when the religious organizations are retarding public knowledge, discriminating against gays(and other groups), and harbouring child molesters.
I didn't grow up in a religious environment so I never really was religious. I don't remember ever believing in a god or other religious stuff. I did hear about Adam and Eva a thousand times but I really never took it as an answer to something. Plus I never knew a person my age who was noticeably religious so I just thought that young people nowadays are not religious. At least in Finland. Of course when I grew up I realized that there still are plenty of religious people, even in modern societies like USA. That was really surprising. And that creationism is taught in science classes somewhere? That's was even more surprising and almost disappointing when I learned that. So for me, being an atheist was an obvious thing.
On April 23 2013 02:49 Kalingingsong wrote: I was brainwashed by Mao ZheDong.
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.
I was not comparing being homosexual to being an atheist. I was merely describing the feeling of realization I experienced.
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.
It not a matter of who has worse morality than Catholicism, any morality that are based in religion can be really conflicting with morals of other people or other religion. I really think Religion misunderstand morality and interchanged it with beliefs. Claiming their beliefs to be moral. Say eating pork is immoral for a Muslim but we non muslims in general see it is ridiculous. Jerking off is immoral for a catholic but what if it was a wet dream? If we remove all the beliefs of such religions then everything would be fine. Thus no need for religion to be "moral", you just need to think it through.
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.
It not a matter of who has worse morality than Catholicism, any morality that are based in religion can be really conflicting with morals of other people or other religion. I really think Religion misunderstand morality and interchanged it with beliefs. Claiming their beliefs to be moral. Say eating pork is immoral for a Muslim but we non muslims in general see it is ridiculous. Jerking off is immoral for a catholic but what if it was a wet dream? If we remove all the beliefs of such religions then everything would be fine. Thus no need for religion to be "moral", you just need to think it through.
But society functions based on people imposing their morality on one another. I'm sure you can see that plenty of people could 'think it through' and come to the conclusion that that are totally justified in killing someone.
To be less sensational, if someone cons you out of all your money, they might consider that you aren't deserving to keep what you are too dumb to protect. But society has defined that as illegal.
Everyone has been very down on religion (particularly catholicism) as having a bad moral track record, but what about atheism/secularism's track record? If we're judging a worldview based on it's adherent's actions then we could easily fill pages on the evils committed by people who weren't following any particular God.
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.
It not a matter of who has worse morality than Catholicism, any morality that are based in religion can be really conflicting with morals of other people or other religion. I really think Religion misunderstand morality and interchanged it with beliefs. Claiming their beliefs to be moral. Say eating pork is immoral for a Muslim but we non muslims in general see it is ridiculous. Jerking off is immoral for a catholic but what if it was a wet dream? If we remove all the beliefs of such religions then everything would be fine. Thus no need for religion to be "moral", you just need to think it through.
But society functions based on people imposing their morality on one another. I'm sure you can see that plenty of people could 'think it through' and come to the conclusion that that are totally justified in killing someone.
To be less sensational, if someone cons you out of all your money, they might consider that you aren't deserving to keep what you are too dumb to protect. But society has defined that as illegal.
Everyone has been very down on religion (particularly catholicism) as having a bad moral track record, but what about atheism/secularism's track record? If we're judging a worldview based on it's adherent's actions then we could easily fill pages on the evils committed by people who weren't following any particular God.
I really think that would be the case 50? 100? years ago when education is not readily available and people are more "gullible"? The Internet is here. We are more dependent to technology. Media is on top of things. Little news, events spread like wildfire via social media. In a way it teaches us what is acceptable or not. It is being judge by the whole wide world. The effects of religion in modern society is getting less important as science provides us explanation. Religion in modern society makes people go backward if they preach their nonsense. It is good if they herd people to be good but to what extent? To be closed minded? It is not about atheism vs theism track record, its about what works now, what is effective or more productive.
On April 23 2013 04:41 wherebugsgo wrote: So? It's not that much better than in its history. Plenty of official Christian doctrine, plenty of Christian institutions, represent Christianity when they, today, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities.
As for your atheist question, there probably weren't that many atheists back then, at least not public ones. You know why? Because most religions would kill them for being nonbelievers. There aren't many famous atheists in history because atheists have long been discriminated against, just like any other minority in existence.
Here's the difference, though: you are arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am a walking contradiction to that statement. I am not religious at all, and I think most people would agree that I am not by any means an immoral person. I'm not going to kill anyone, I'm not going to steal, and I'm certainly not going to infringe upon the rights of any other person. Yet, I'm not religious, nor have I ever looked toward religion for moral guidance.
In fact, your earlier posts hinted toward Christian moral superiority. Plenty of Christians use Christianity to say that gays, blacks, women, oral sex, abortion, Democrats, Muslims, Jews, and plenty of other minorities/others are morally inferior to them.
When have you seen atheism, a lack of belief in God, used as a justification for the same?
It has not been my experience that many churches now, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities. You may be able to find some who do - but it's a bit like my finding a atheist who believes something crazy and then claiming that's your atheism. More to the point, ignorance is ignorance - and while most churches weed that out, every large group of people has some bad ones. That doesn't excuse them - but it doesn't mean that's Christianity, either.
I'm not arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am arguing that it takes more than an individual to create a strong system of morality (which was what the OP was claiming). It takes a community. You're not killing or stealing, and everyone has their legal rights - great. But does that make you moral? You think so - but is that enough to make it true? And also, isn't the line "I think most people would agree that..." a fallacy, as you pointed out earlier? You can not kill, steal, or spoil anyone's rights and still be someone most people would agree is a terrible person - doubly so if you don't mind bending the meaning of the words "kill" or "steal" - which most people are willing to do under the right conditions.
Also, I hope you're not actually asking me to cite times I've seen it implied that people have used atheism to say that Christianity is morally inferior - because there are several in this thread. And that's not a bad thing, people ought to view their way of thinking as the best way. The bad part is when they use that inferiority to shut out a part of their mind which has valuable critical thinking to do. Many christians do this, walking away from discussion instead of addressing it. But many atheists are just as dismissive - citing "evidence" of christianity's wrongdoing through the ages (as though christianity was one living breathing entity, instead of a body of many different people at many different times) as a reason they don't have to listen to their arguments.
Belief in our superiority is natural. It's acting on that belief out of turn which becomes unfortunate. You can think I'm wrong all you want. It's when you say I'm wrong without due evidence to support you that you've done wrong. I can think muslims pray to the wrong god all I want - it's when I yell at them over it, or disrespect their beliefs publicly that I've crossed a line.
I'd argue Christianity is immoral in some of its most basic tenants. Now in the 21st century it seems like you can believe almost anything and still call yourself a Christian, so you may move the goal posts on me at any given time and still call yourself a Christian. Not much I can do about that. Here are a few starters for what, I believe, are core principles of any Christian, that are immoral in my view. Again, you may not actually believe any of these (but then I honestly don't know what it means to be Christian):
1. Jesus died for your sins.
This is immoral to me because it means someone can take the blame for your faults, and you are absolved of them. It is reminiscent of scapegoating, and even human sacrifice. We, as a species, have sinned, but this guy died for them, now we're in the clear. Yay.
2. People that don't believe what you believe are going to hell, no matter what. Specifically, that Jesus Christ is our lord and savior. Even if they are "good" people, they still burn for all eternity, because they don't happen to believe when someone tells them that a virgin had a baby 2000 years ago and that baby was the son of god.
A lot of religions are guilty of this, but we're talking about Christianity, so I'll stick with this. This is simply the standard "if you don't believe what I believe, you are screwed" mentality. I find this immoral because why should anyone believe what you believe, based on no evidence, yet be required to believe this odd story in order to not burn in hell for all eternity.
I have some others, but I'm dying to see what you say about those two.
1. Jesus died for your sins.
Jesus is not dead. The body died, but he lives. This is pretty basic Christianity. But the point you're making is that we killed him with our sin - yes, that's true. But where did "now we're in the clear, yay" come from? We still sin. It's still wrong to sin. What has changed is that we no longer die for it. And it wasn't scapegoating - we didn't *make* him do it (how do you make a god do anything?). He did it as a gift. That you state this in such ridiculous terms (given how little knowledge you have of the religion) is more than a little disrespectful.
2. People that don't believe what you believe are going to hell, no matter what.
Who goes to heaven and who goes to hell is not determined by us. Nor do I claim to understand the process. You would like me to account for how god determines who gets into heaven? I can't. I know what I've been told, which is that worshiping false gods is a sin, and yet I know many for whom I hope this sin is forgiven. You want me to tell you I know it will be? I can't. You want me to tell you I worship the god of fire and brimstone who will send some friends of mine to hell for their beliefs? I can't do that either. This is something I don't understand. But there are things I don't understand about Christianity. That doesn't make it wrong. Perhaps as item 3, you could ask me to start accounting for deaths of certain famous people. I'm sure I'm a knowledgeable source for such material.
What you've described is a heavily neutered form of Christianity.
You could probably come up with some version of it that cannot really be easily dismissed, but then again there would be no real reason for believing in it. Similar to how there's no reason for you to believe in Zeus, or Odin, or Vishnu, or the FSM. None of those things matter in the slightest to you: you don't spend a lick of time thinking about them.
Interesting - in two basic points of christian theology I've completely neutered it? Are there factions of Christianity which believes that God is not ultimately in charge of sorting out those who go to heaven from those who go to hell - people who don't hope for a merciful god?
You're right, I don't spend any time thinking about other gods. I can't prove that they're wrong or that I'm right, so I just put it out of my mind. It's better than convincing myself I have definitely disproven something I haven't (hint).
On April 23 2013 04:41 wherebugsgo wrote: So? It's not that much better than in its history. Plenty of official Christian doctrine, plenty of Christian institutions, represent Christianity when they, today, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities.
As for your atheist question, there probably weren't that many atheists back then, at least not public ones. You know why? Because most religions would kill them for being nonbelievers. There aren't many famous atheists in history because atheists have long been discriminated against, just like any other minority in existence.
Here's the difference, though: you are arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am a walking contradiction to that statement. I am not religious at all, and I think most people would agree that I am not by any means an immoral person. I'm not going to kill anyone, I'm not going to steal, and I'm certainly not going to infringe upon the rights of any other person. Yet, I'm not religious, nor have I ever looked toward religion for moral guidance.
In fact, your earlier posts hinted toward Christian moral superiority. Plenty of Christians use Christianity to say that gays, blacks, women, oral sex, abortion, Democrats, Muslims, Jews, and plenty of other minorities/others are morally inferior to them.
When have you seen atheism, a lack of belief in God, used as a justification for the same?
It has not been my experience that many churches now, in 2013, deny civil rights and suppress minorities. You may be able to find some who do - but it's a bit like my finding a atheist who believes something crazy and then claiming that's your atheism. More to the point, ignorance is ignorance - and while most churches weed that out, every large group of people has some bad ones. That doesn't excuse them - but it doesn't mean that's Christianity, either.
I'm not arguing that morality only exists within the context of religion. I am arguing that it takes more than an individual to create a strong system of morality (which was what the OP was claiming). It takes a community. You're not killing or stealing, and everyone has their legal rights - great. But does that make you moral? You think so - but is that enough to make it true? And also, isn't the line "I think most people would agree that..." a fallacy, as you pointed out earlier? You can not kill, steal, or spoil anyone's rights and still be someone most people would agree is a terrible person - doubly so if you don't mind bending the meaning of the words "kill" or "steal" - which most people are willing to do under the right conditions.
Also, I hope you're not actually asking me to cite times I've seen it implied that people have used atheism to say that Christianity is morally inferior - because there are several in this thread. And that's not a bad thing, people ought to view their way of thinking as the best way. The bad part is when they use that inferiority to shut out a part of their mind which has valuable critical thinking to do. Many christians do this, walking away from discussion instead of addressing it. But many atheists are just as dismissive - citing "evidence" of christianity's wrongdoing through the ages (as though christianity was one living breathing entity, instead of a body of many different people at many different times) as a reason they don't have to listen to their arguments.
Belief in our superiority is natural. It's acting on that belief out of turn which becomes unfortunate. You can think I'm wrong all you want. It's when you say I'm wrong without due evidence to support you that you've done wrong. I can think muslims pray to the wrong god all I want - it's when I yell at them over it, or disrespect their beliefs publicly that I've crossed a line.
I'd argue Christianity is immoral in some of its most basic tenants. Now in the 21st century it seems like you can believe almost anything and still call yourself a Christian, so you may move the goal posts on me at any given time and still call yourself a Christian. Not much I can do about that. Here are a few starters for what, I believe, are core principles of any Christian, that are immoral in my view. Again, you may not actually believe any of these (but then I honestly don't know what it means to be Christian):
1. Jesus died for your sins.
This is immoral to me because it means someone can take the blame for your faults, and you are absolved of them. It is reminiscent of scapegoating, and even human sacrifice. We, as a species, have sinned, but this guy died for them, now we're in the clear. Yay.
2. People that don't believe what you believe are going to hell, no matter what. Specifically, that Jesus Christ is our lord and savior. Even if they are "good" people, they still burn for all eternity, because they don't happen to believe when someone tells them that a virgin had a baby 2000 years ago and that baby was the son of god.
A lot of religions are guilty of this, but we're talking about Christianity, so I'll stick with this. This is simply the standard "if you don't believe what I believe, you are screwed" mentality. I find this immoral because why should anyone believe what you believe, based on no evidence, yet be required to believe this odd story in order to not burn in hell for all eternity.
I have some others, but I'm dying to see what you say about those two.
1. Jesus died for your sins.
Jesus is not dead. The body died, but he lives. This is pretty basic Christianity. But the point you're making is that we killed him with our sin - yes, that's true. But where did "now we're in the clear, yay" come from? We still sin. It's still wrong to sin. What has changed is that we no longer die for it. And it wasn't scapegoating - we didn't *make* him do it (how do you make a god do anything?). He did it as a gift. That you state this in such ridiculous terms (given how little knowledge you have of the religion) is more than a little disrespectful.
2. People that don't believe what you believe are going to hell, no matter what.
Who goes to heaven and who goes to hell is not determined by us. Nor do I claim to understand the process. You would like me to account for how god determines who gets into heaven? I can't. I know what I've been told, which is that worshiping false gods is a sin, and yet I know many for whom I hope this sin is forgiven. You want me to tell you I know it will be? I can't. You want me to tell you I worship the god of fire and brimstone who will send some friends of mine to hell for their beliefs? I can't do that either. This is something I don't understand. But there are things I don't understand about Christianity. That doesn't make it wrong. Perhaps as item 3, you could ask me to start accounting for deaths of certain famous people. I'm sure I'm a knowledgeable source for such material.
1. Ok, this whole thing never made sense to me. And your answer doesn't make it any clearer. Why did he die for our sins? I don't get it. What did that accomplish, and why is it important? Are you saying previously that when people sinned they died? And I'm pretty sure Pontius Pilate ordered him to be executed. Are you saying he orchestrated the whole thing? What evidence is there for that? Maybe you can explain it.
2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind.
1. Jesus' death is the end of death. Before that, yes, people died according to scripture. Maybe this is some kind of metaphorical truth that I just don't understand, but I was taught that it actually meant the end of death (i.e. before that, then, people must have died). Pontius Pilate objected to having Jesus executed - he didn't "orchestrate" anything - but the people demanded he be crucified anyway. Herod was the one who had him hunted down, but Pontius Pilate was a reasonable judge who didn't want to sentence a man who apparently had committed no crime.
2. I believe god has mastery over who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. I believe it is out of my hands. This is similar to my feelings towards the death penalty. I'm not happy that anyone must be punished in such a fashion, but ultimately, I live and die under power other than my own. I do not like capital punishment, but I certainly believe it's happening. It's the same thing. I do not understand hell, but I certainly believe there are people there.
Personally, I think that people who do not believe should not be sentenced based on that alone. And I don't understand how a benevolent diety could send good people to hell. But, it's also not something I have power over, so maybe it's just like that anyway. I don't understand it, so I can't tell you how it works.
Think of it like this - how does your brain work? You don't know, right? But you assume it works somehow, and somehow the data gets in there and allows you to make the decisions you need to make. And you hope it works the way you think it does (i.e. that you're perceiving truth, and that your senses are not entirely contrived to view a reality that is slanted).
I guess this is why I can never be religious. I just lack that "faith" or whatever you want to call it (that is a nice term for it, imo). How can you say you don't understand it, yet were told it, so you just believe it? That... I can't even really put into words what that is to me. Why... I'm at a loss.
If someone came up to me and said this works this way. And I asked how, and either they didn't understand it, so they couldn't explain it themselves, or they gave an explanation that didn't make sense to me, the last thing I would do is believe it. How is that a rational course of action? I heard this thing, I don't understand it, I can't explain it, but I believe it as absolutely true. What? How is that even possible.
No, it isn't like the brain. I have some idea how it works, and more importantly, I see evidence of it working all around me (other people have brains, they work). You have no evidence for the idea that people once died, but since the death of Jesus, now they don't die. You can't possible have evidence for that, because you don't even understand what that idea means, so there is no way you can even begin to look for evidence for it.
I guess it is just a mentality that is completely foreign to me, so I'll never understand, and I am truly thankful for that. I don't see much point in furthering this conversation, because it seems to be reduced to the standard "you just have to believe" that most religious conversations are reduced to. Well, I don't believe, and you do, and I guess we'll have to leave it at that.
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.
It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans.
2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind.
So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it?
Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand.
'
It is logically flawed. If you think that god answers the question of existence, you are wrong. It only moves the question from our universe to god. He created our universe, but who created him? If you're going to say that god is eternal, you might as well say that the omniverse itself is eternal.
If you think that god gives objective purpose, you are wrong. Meaning and purpose are still subjective. Even if he exists, you can accept gods commands as your purpose and find meaning in them, or you can not. Just like everything else. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, it wouldn't give me any purpose. It would just force me to do a bunch of stupid shit to avoid being tortured forever.
If you think that god gives objective morality, you are wrong. You can find his commands moral, or you can not, just like with everything else. It doesn't change anything. There is no argument for why gods morality is objectively moral, or why his commands give objective meaning and purpose. According to the religions, they just are. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, the rules in those books would not become any more or less moral.
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.
It not a matter of who has worse morality than Catholicism, any morality that are based in religion can be really conflicting with morals of other people or other religion. I really think Religion misunderstand morality and interchanged it with beliefs. Claiming their beliefs to be moral. Say eating pork is immoral for a Muslim but we non muslims in general see it is ridiculous. Jerking off is immoral for a catholic but what if it was a wet dream? If we remove all the beliefs of such religions then everything would be fine. Thus no need for religion to be "moral", you just need to think it through.
But society functions based on people imposing their morality on one another. I'm sure you can see that plenty of people could 'think it through' and come to the conclusion that that are totally justified in killing someone.
To be less sensational, if someone cons you out of all your money, they might consider that you aren't deserving to keep what you are too dumb to protect. But society has defined that as illegal.
Everyone has been very down on religion (particularly catholicism) as having a bad moral track record, but what about atheism/secularism's track record? If we're judging a worldview based on it's adherent's actions then we could easily fill pages on the evils committed by people who weren't following any particular God.
I really think that would be the case 50? 100? years ago when education is not readily available and people are more "gullible"? The Internet is here. We are more dependent to technology. Media is on top of things. Little news, events spread like wildfire via social media. In a way it teaches us what is acceptable or not. It is being judge by the whole wide world. The effects of religion in modern society is getting less important as science provides us explanation. Religion in modern society makes people go backward if they preach their nonsense. It is good if they herd people to be good but to what extent? To be closed minded? It is not about atheism vs theism track record, its about what works now, what is effective or more productive.
I have had my fair share of education, but I don't remember any of it being about my morality. How does education lead to us being better people?
I certainly don't think that the internet is helping people be more moral! Even in the news, it's more about being judgemental of other people rather than what is right and what is wrong, as for social media, the day my facebook feed get's to decide what is moral will be a sad day. Morality defined by the most vocally ignorant?
Religion in modern society makes people go backward if they preach their nonsense.
uuh... do you actually read how that makes you sound?
Here's an interesting fact, in england, the universities with the largest Christian unions are typically the more academic ones, like oxford and cambridge. (I could go in to why, but at very least it shows being intelligent and educated doesn't 'cure' religion)
Being educated dose reduce the chance of you being religious, because the reality of the universe often contradicts religious claims.That's why religion is dying, but it wasn't in the past. It's also why religion is more widespread in less educated places like Africa and the middle east.
However, it does not cure it. No matter how much you learn about the universe, you can always come up with a supernatural explanation that can't be disproved.
The only cure is critical thinking. When you have that, and you apply it to everything, including religion, the only way to be religious is to be deceived; to be given false evidence, and to have real evidence hidden from you. With critical thinking, you realize that religions have no more evidence than fairies, ogres, or elves, or anything else from the literally infinitely long list of things that could possibly exist. I can come up with an infinite amount of things that could exist, and that can not be disproved. The only way to filter all of that trash out is with critical thinking.
Also, being religious increases the risk of being immoral, because most religious texts and teachings are immoral. If you are religious, you are more likely to take those texts to heart. Most people will reject it and use their own morality instead, but some will be effected by it.
As we can clearly see, education reduces the chance of being religious, since the more educated countries are less religious. .
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.
It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans.
2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind.
So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it?
Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand.
'
It is logically flawed. If you think that god answers the question of existence, you are wrong. It only moves the question from our universe to god. He created our universe, but who created him? If you're going to say that god is eternal, you might as well say that the omniverse itself is eternal.
If you think that god gives objective purpose, you are wrong. Meaning and purpose are still subjective. Even if he exists, you can accept gods commands as your purpose and find meaning in them, or you can not. Just like everything else. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, it wouldn't give me any purpose. It would just force me to do a bunch of stupid shit to avoid being tortured forever.
If you think that god gives objective morality, you are wrong. You can find his commands moral, or you can not, just like with everything else. It doesn't change anything. There is no argument for why gods morality is objectively moral, or why his commands give objective meaning and purpose. According to the religions, they just are. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, the rules in those books would not become any more or less moral.
Actually, if God creates you for a purpose, then you have a purpose. I might write a python code to do model the movement of electrons in a short pulse laser, it would have purpose. Now you have a choice to reject that purpose, but that doesn't change that (if God exists) he created you for a reason.
I can't prove to you that meaning and purpose are objective, but if you assume the existance of God, objective purpose and meaning follow.
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.
It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans.
2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind.
So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it?
Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand.
'
It is logically flawed. If you think that god answers the question of existence, you are wrong. It only moves the question from our universe to god. He created our universe, but who created him? If you're going to say that god is eternal, you might as well say that the omniverse itself is eternal.
If you think that god gives objective purpose, you are wrong. Meaning and purpose are still subjective. Even if he exists, you can accept gods commands as your purpose and find meaning in them, or you can not. Just like everything else. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, it wouldn't give me any purpose. It would just force me to do a bunch of stupid shit to avoid being tortured forever.
If you think that god gives objective morality, you are wrong. You can find his commands moral, or you can not, just like with everything else. It doesn't change anything. There is no argument for why gods morality is objectively moral, or why his commands give objective meaning and purpose. According to the religions, they just are. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, the rules in those books would not become any more or less moral.
Actually, if God creates you for a purpose, then you have a purpose. I might write a python code to do model the movement of electrons in a short pulse laser, it would have purpose. Now you have a choice to reject that purpose, but that doesn't change that (if God exists) he created you for a reason.
I can't prove to you that meaning and purpose are objective, but if you assume the existance of God, objective purpose and meaning follow.
Hope that clears that up?
Purpose and meaning are still as subjective as they were before. My parents may have created me for a purpose, and I may get a purpose from them. Or I may not. I could easily reject what they want me to do. If you're going to call that objective purpose, then you've proven that god wouldn't give any more purpose than what already exists anyway, which is what I'm saying.
Same thing if a scientist creates a life form, and tells it to do stuff. He created the life form for a purpose. This gives just as much, or little, purpose as if a god created humanity.
On April 23 2013 23:47 vOdToasT wrote: Being educated dose reduce the chance of you being religious, because the reality of the universe often contradicts religious claims. That's why religion is dying, but it wasn't in the past. It's also why religion is more widespread in less educated places like Africa and the middle east.
However, it does not cure it. No matter how much you learn about the universe, you can always come up with a supernatural explanation that can't be disproved.
The only cure is critical thinking. When you have that, and you apply it to everything, including religion, the only way to be religious is to be deceived; to be given false evidence, and to have real evidence hidden from you. With critical thinking, you realize that religions have no more evidence than fairies, ogres, or elves, or anything else from the literally infinitely long list of things that could possibly exist. I can come up with an infinite amount of things that could exist, and that can not be disproved. The only way to filter all of that trash out is with critical thinking.
So critically speaking, did Jesus: A) exist B) teach things C) rise from the dead?
I've thought about these things long (and yes.. critically) and I firmly believe that he did. So do many other intelligent people. Even reading wiki on those topics will show you that the issue more complicated than "clever people think Jesus was a myth and stoopid people still believe in him."
On April 23 2013 23:47 vOdToasT wrote: Being educated dose reduce the chance of you being religious, because the reality of the universe often contradicts religious claims. That's why religion is dying, but it wasn't in the past. It's also why religion is more widespread in less educated places like Africa and the middle east.
However, it does not cure it. No matter how much you learn about the universe, you can always come up with a supernatural explanation that can't be disproved.
The only cure is critical thinking. When you have that, and you apply it to everything, including religion, the only way to be religious is to be deceived; to be given false evidence, and to have real evidence hidden from you. With critical thinking, you realize that religions have no more evidence than fairies, ogres, or elves, or anything else from the literally infinitely long list of things that could possibly exist. I can come up with an infinite amount of things that could exist, and that can not be disproved. The only way to filter all of that trash out is with critical thinking.
So critically speaking, did Jesus: A) exist B) teach things C) rise from the dead?
I've thought about these things long (and yes.. critically) and I firmly believe that he did. So do many other intelligent people. Even reading wiki on those topics will show you that the issue more complicated than "clever people think Jesus was a myth and stoopid people still believe in him."
You're probably biased (and therefor not thinking critically). I also don't think you're completely intellectually honest. Or, you are simply ignorant. People from lots of religions say they thought about their religion long and critically, but they can't all be right. However, they can all be wrong. And comically enough, almost all of them pick the religion of the country they were born in.
But if you have good evidence for your beliefs, I want to know what that evidence is. Send me a PM with your reasons for believing this. If you're actually right, I will convert.
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.
It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans.
2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind.
So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it?
Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand.
'
It is logically flawed. If you think that god answers the question of existence, you are wrong. It only moves the question from our universe to god. He created our universe, but who created him? If you're going to say that god is eternal, you might as well say that the omniverse itself is eternal.
If you think that god gives objective purpose, you are wrong. Meaning and purpose are still subjective. Even if he exists, you can accept gods commands as your purpose and find meaning in them, or you can not. Just like everything else. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, it wouldn't give me any purpose. It would just force me to do a bunch of stupid shit to avoid being tortured forever.
If you think that god gives objective morality, you are wrong. You can find his commands moral, or you can not, just like with everything else. It doesn't change anything. There is no argument for why gods morality is objectively moral, or why his commands give objective meaning and purpose. According to the religions, they just are. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, the rules in those books would not become any more or less moral.
Actually, if God creates you for a purpose, then you have a purpose. I might write a python code to do model the movement of electrons in a short pulse laser, it would have purpose. Now you have a choice to reject that purpose, but that doesn't change that (if God exists) he created you for a reason.
I can't prove to you that meaning and purpose are objective, but if you assume the existance of God, objective purpose and meaning follow.
Hope that clears that up?
Purpose and meaning are still as subjective as they were before. My parents may have created me for a purpose, and I may get a purpose from them. Or I may not. I could easily reject what they want me to do. If you're going to call that objective purpose, then you've proven that god wouldn't give any more purpose than what already exists anyway, which is what I'm saying.
Same thing if a scientist creates a life form, and tells it to do stuff. He created the life form for a purpose. This gives just as much, or little, purpose as if a god created humanity.
Yup. Except scale everything up because God creates not only you, but the entire universe for you to live in. Subjective purpose to me suggests that you decide your purpose, which clearly isn't the case as you already have a purpose, which you are choosing to accept or reject.
I'm not saying that you will accept God's purpose, I'm just saying that if he exists he has one, which you seem to understand/agree. As that purpose exists regardless of your decision to follow it, I would call it an objective purpose.
In rejecting God's purpose you might decide that you choose your own, which would be a subjective purpose, but doesn't change the fact that there was a pre-existing, objective purpose.
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.
It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans.
2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind.
So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it?
Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand.
'
It is logically flawed. If you think that god answers the question of existence, you are wrong. It only moves the question from our universe to god. He created our universe, but who created him? If you're going to say that god is eternal, you might as well say that the omniverse itself is eternal.
If you think that god gives objective purpose, you are wrong. Meaning and purpose are still subjective. Even if he exists, you can accept gods commands as your purpose and find meaning in them, or you can not. Just like everything else. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, it wouldn't give me any purpose. It would just force me to do a bunch of stupid shit to avoid being tortured forever.
If you think that god gives objective morality, you are wrong. You can find his commands moral, or you can not, just like with everything else. It doesn't change anything. There is no argument for why gods morality is objectively moral, or why his commands give objective meaning and purpose. According to the religions, they just are. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, the rules in those books would not become any more or less moral.
Actually, if God creates you for a purpose, then you have a purpose. I might write a python code to do model the movement of electrons in a short pulse laser, it would have purpose. Now you have a choice to reject that purpose, but that doesn't change that (if God exists) he created you for a reason.
I can't prove to you that meaning and purpose are objective, but if you assume the existance of God, objective purpose and meaning follow.
Hope that clears that up?
Purpose and meaning are still as subjective as they were before. My parents may have created me for a purpose, and I may get a purpose from them. Or I may not. I could easily reject what they want me to do. If you're going to call that objective purpose, then you've proven that god wouldn't give any more purpose than what already exists anyway, which is what I'm saying.
Same thing if a scientist creates a life form, and tells it to do stuff. He created the life form for a purpose. This gives just as much, or little, purpose as if a god created humanity.
Yup. Except scale everything up because God creates not only you, but the entire universe for you to live in. Subjective purpose to me suggests that you decide your purpose, which clearly isn't the case as you already have a purpose, which you are choosing to accept or reject.
I'm not saying that you will accept God's purpose, I'm just saying that if he exists he has one, which you seem to understand/agree. As that purpose exists regardless of your decision to follow it, I would call it an objective purpose.
In rejecting God's purpose you might decide that you choose your own, which would be a subjective purpose, but doesn't change the fact that there was a pre-existing, objective purpose.
Pre-existing purposes exist without god anyway, so he doesn't change anything (speaking hypothetically, assuming he exists). It's the exact same thing except "more awesome, because he created everything!!!!!111"
On April 24 2013 00:15 kerpal wrote: Did we just come to an agreement in a thread about religion?
We seem to agree on this issue.
Now, if you have evidence for christianity, I'm actually interested. I will either realize that it's actually true (and I will avoid eternal torture) or I will understand how someone can think critically and still end up being christian. It will be interesting either way.
I have had my fair share of education, but I don't remember any of it being about my morality. How does education lead to us being better people?
I certainly don't think that the internet is helping people be more moral! Even in the news, it's more about being judgemental of other people rather than what is right and what is wrong, as for social media, the day my facebook feed get's to decide what is moral will be a sad day. Morality defined by the most vocally ignorant?
Education? history, social sciences, ethics maybe? Those stuff teach you a bit of morality, one way or another. taught you what was bad, what was acceptable.
Yes, I would say the internet is not the most moral source but that is because the material you are looking at is immoral, there is moral content in the internet too. Lots of websites, university studies all those stuff. Personal development websites and the list go on.
Religion in modern society makes people go backward if they preach their nonsense.
uuh... do you actually read how that makes you sound?
Here's an interesting fact, in england, the universities with the largest Christian unions are typically the more academic ones, like oxford and cambridge. (I could go in to why, but at very least it shows being intelligent and educated doesn't 'cure' religion)[/QUOTE]
Well because most of the oldest and largest schools were mostly Christian founded in England or all over the world. Christian/catholic/protestant whatever branch it is founded schools and thats where they would evangelize, instill their doctine.
I believe there is morality without religion, a morality without dogmatic commands but of rational values and unbreached respect for the life of the individual.
On April 24 2013 00:15 kerpal wrote: Did we just come to an agreement in a thread about religion?
We seem to agree on this issue.
Now, if you have evidence for christianity, I'm actually interested. I will either realize that it's actually true (and I will avoid eternal torture) or I will understand how someone can think critically and still end up being christian. It will be interesting either way.
sent. Obviously we don't agree about everything, but I'm surprised in a thead like this to agree about ANYTHING.
On April 23 2013 23:47 vOdToasT wrote: Being educated dose reduce the chance of you being religious, because the reality of the universe often contradicts religious claims. That's why religion is dying, but it wasn't in the past. It's also why religion is more widespread in less educated places like Africa and the middle east.
However, it does not cure it. No matter how much you learn about the universe, you can always come up with a supernatural explanation that can't be disproved.
The only cure is critical thinking. When you have that, and you apply it to everything, including religion, the only way to be religious is to be deceived; to be given false evidence, and to have real evidence hidden from you. With critical thinking, you realize that religions have no more evidence than fairies, ogres, or elves, or anything else from the literally infinitely long list of things that could possibly exist. I can come up with an infinite amount of things that could exist, and that can not be disproved. The only way to filter all of that trash out is with critical thinking.
So critically speaking, did Jesus: A) exist B) teach things C) rise from the dead?
I've thought about these things long (and yes.. critically) and I firmly believe that he did. So do many other intelligent people. Even reading wiki on those topics will show you that the issue more complicated than "clever people think Jesus was a myth and stoopid people still believe in him."
A) Probably. Many historians agree that two events occurred: that Jesus was baptized, and that he was crucified.
It is somewhat perplexing that there are no contemporary sources on his existence (the earliest sources can be found usually at least 30-40 years after his death), but I am not an expert and so I will defer that to people who actually know what they're talking about. I have my own ideas, but obviously they are biased and may not even be accurate.
B) Who knows? There are only really two things that historians agree upon with regards to Jesus and this is not one of them.
C) Almost certainly not.
There are hundreds of religions just like Christianity that make claims just like these. You clearly have rejected them, or are ignorant of them, since you believe in Christianity.
My guess is this is because of the environment you were born in, and that it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you actually independently came to the conclusion that Christianity is true all by yourself.
It's rather funny that the vast majority of people in this world only seem to hold the beliefs they were taught as children to be true, don't you think?
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.
It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans.
2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind.
So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it?
Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand.
'
It is logically flawed. If you think that god answers the question of existence, you are wrong. It only moves the question from our universe to god. He created our universe, but who created him? If you're going to say that god is eternal, you might as well say that the omniverse itself is eternal.
If you think that god gives objective purpose, you are wrong. Meaning and purpose are still subjective. Even if he exists, you can accept gods commands as your purpose and find meaning in them, or you can not. Just like everything else. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, it wouldn't give me any purpose. It would just force me to do a bunch of stupid shit to avoid being tortured forever.
If you think that god gives objective morality, you are wrong. You can find his commands moral, or you can not, just like with everything else. It doesn't change anything. There is no argument for why gods morality is objectively moral, or why his commands give objective meaning and purpose. According to the religions, they just are. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, the rules in those books would not become any more or less moral.
Actually, if God creates you for a purpose, then you have a purpose. I might write a python code to do model the movement of electrons in a short pulse laser, it would have purpose. Now you have a choice to reject that purpose, but that doesn't change that (if God exists) he created you for a reason.
I can't prove to you that meaning and purpose are objective, but if you assume the existance of God, objective purpose and meaning follow.
Hope that clears that up?
Purpose and meaning are still as subjective as they were before. My parents may have created me for a purpose, and I may get a purpose from them. Or I may not. I could easily reject what they want me to do. If you're going to call that objective purpose, then you've proven that god wouldn't give any more purpose than what already exists anyway, which is what I'm saying.
Same thing if a scientist creates a life form, and tells it to do stuff. He created the life form for a purpose. This gives just as much, or little, purpose as if a god created humanity.
Yup. Except scale everything up because God creates not only you, but the entire universe for you to live in. Subjective purpose to me suggests that you decide your purpose, which clearly isn't the case as you already have a purpose, which you are choosing to accept or reject.
I'm not saying that you will accept God's purpose, I'm just saying that if he exists he has one, which you seem to understand/agree. As that purpose exists regardless of your decision to follow it, I would call it an objective purpose.
In rejecting God's purpose you might decide that you choose your own, which would be a subjective purpose, but doesn't change the fact that there was a pre-existing, objective purpose.
Even if this is true, it seems to me that if God exists and created us, then God's purpose for us was to create our own purpose. Otherwise why are we (hat tip to Sartre) forced to do so as part of our existence? If this is true, then our subjective purpose is our only purpose.
Of course, I think that most religious folks would say that God's purpose for us is for us to choose 'Correctly', but I don't think this follows whatsoever if one holds a more neutral (non-religious) view of what God is.
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.
It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans.
2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind.
So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it?
Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand.
'
It is logically flawed. If you think that god answers the question of existence, you are wrong. It only moves the question from our universe to god. He created our universe, but who created him? If you're going to say that god is eternal, you might as well say that the omniverse itself is eternal.
If you think that god gives objective purpose, you are wrong. Meaning and purpose are still subjective. Even if he exists, you can accept gods commands as your purpose and find meaning in them, or you can not. Just like everything else. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, it wouldn't give me any purpose. It would just force me to do a bunch of stupid shit to avoid being tortured forever.
If you think that god gives objective morality, you are wrong. You can find his commands moral, or you can not, just like with everything else. It doesn't change anything. There is no argument for why gods morality is objectively moral, or why his commands give objective meaning and purpose. According to the religions, they just are. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, the rules in those books would not become any more or less moral.
I'm not completely sure you understand what I'm saying. If an omnipotent God exists, and he says that morality is X, then morality HAS TO BE X, due to his omnipotence. No matter who says they disagree, it would still be as involiable a law as the theory of gravity (perhaps moreso). By the very definition of omnipotence, whatever God defines as moral must be moral.
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.
It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans.
2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind.
So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it?
Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand.
'
It is logically flawed. If you think that god answers the question of existence, you are wrong. It only moves the question from our universe to god. He created our universe, but who created him? If you're going to say that god is eternal, you might as well say that the omniverse itself is eternal.
If you think that god gives objective purpose, you are wrong. Meaning and purpose are still subjective. Even if he exists, you can accept gods commands as your purpose and find meaning in them, or you can not. Just like everything else. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, it wouldn't give me any purpose. It would just force me to do a bunch of stupid shit to avoid being tortured forever.
If you think that god gives objective morality, you are wrong. You can find his commands moral, or you can not, just like with everything else. It doesn't change anything. There is no argument for why gods morality is objectively moral, or why his commands give objective meaning and purpose. According to the religions, they just are. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, the rules in those books would not become any more or less moral.
I'm not completely sure you understand what I'm saying. If an omnipotent God exists, and he says that morality is X, then morality HAS TO BE X, due to his omnipotence. No matter who says they disagree, it would still be as involiable a law as the theory of gravity (perhaps moreso). By the very definition of omnipotence, whatever God defines as moral must be moral.
Omnipotence is impossible. It is literally not possible for anything to be omnipotent. You can't create a challenge so hard that no one can solve it, because the omnipotent one could solve it. If he can't, then he's not omnipotent.
Also, you can't make 2 + 2 = 5.
You can't create a square circle.
And you can't make rape moral.
And if he was omnipotent, he'd be evil anyway... and in that case, fuck him, lol.
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.
It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans.
2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind.
So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it?
Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand.
'
It is logically flawed. If you think that god answers the question of existence, you are wrong. It only moves the question from our universe to god. He created our universe, but who created him? If you're going to say that god is eternal, you might as well say that the omniverse itself is eternal.
If you think that god gives objective purpose, you are wrong. Meaning and purpose are still subjective. Even if he exists, you can accept gods commands as your purpose and find meaning in them, or you can not. Just like everything else. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, it wouldn't give me any purpose. It would just force me to do a bunch of stupid shit to avoid being tortured forever.
If you think that god gives objective morality, you are wrong. You can find his commands moral, or you can not, just like with everything else. It doesn't change anything. There is no argument for why gods morality is objectively moral, or why his commands give objective meaning and purpose. According to the religions, they just are. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, the rules in those books would not become any more or less moral.
I'm not completely sure you understand what I'm saying. If an omnipotent God exists, and he says that morality is X, then morality HAS TO BE X, due to his omnipotence. No matter who says they disagree, it would still be as involiable a law as the theory of gravity (perhaps moreso). By the very definition of omnipotence, whatever God defines as moral must be moral.
Omnipotence is impossible. It is literally not possible for anything to be omnipotent. You can't create a challenge so hard that no one can solve it, because the omnipotent one could solve it. If he can't, then he's not omnipotent.
Also, you can't make 2 + 2 = 5.
And if he was omnipotent, he'd be evil anyway... and in that case, fuck him, lol.
Come now, I'm sure you can do better than "omnipotence isn't possible because it's impossible."
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.
It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans.
2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind.
So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it?
Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand.
'
It is logically flawed. If you think that god answers the question of existence, you are wrong. It only moves the question from our universe to god. He created our universe, but who created him? If you're going to say that god is eternal, you might as well say that the omniverse itself is eternal.
If you think that god gives objective purpose, you are wrong. Meaning and purpose are still subjective. Even if he exists, you can accept gods commands as your purpose and find meaning in them, or you can not. Just like everything else. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, it wouldn't give me any purpose. It would just force me to do a bunch of stupid shit to avoid being tortured forever.
If you think that god gives objective morality, you are wrong. You can find his commands moral, or you can not, just like with everything else. It doesn't change anything. There is no argument for why gods morality is objectively moral, or why his commands give objective meaning and purpose. According to the religions, they just are. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, the rules in those books would not become any more or less moral.
I'm not completely sure you understand what I'm saying. If an omnipotent God exists, and he says that morality is X, then morality HAS TO BE X, due to his omnipotence. No matter who says they disagree, it would still be as involiable a law as the theory of gravity (perhaps moreso). By the very definition of omnipotence, whatever God defines as moral must be moral.
Omnipotence is impossible. It is literally not possible for anything to be omnipotent. You can't create a challenge so hard that no one can solve it, because the omnipotent one could solve it. If he can't, then he's not omnipotent.
Also, you can't make 2 + 2 = 5.
And if he was omnipotent, he'd be evil anyway... and in that case, fuck him, lol.
Come now, I'm sure you can do better than "omnipotence isn't possible because it's impossible."
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.
It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans.
2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind.
So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it?
Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand.
'
It is logically flawed. If you think that god answers the question of existence, you are wrong. It only moves the question from our universe to god. He created our universe, but who created him? If you're going to say that god is eternal, you might as well say that the omniverse itself is eternal.
If you think that god gives objective purpose, you are wrong. Meaning and purpose are still subjective. Even if he exists, you can accept gods commands as your purpose and find meaning in them, or you can not. Just like everything else. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, it wouldn't give me any purpose. It would just force me to do a bunch of stupid shit to avoid being tortured forever.
If you think that god gives objective morality, you are wrong. You can find his commands moral, or you can not, just like with everything else. It doesn't change anything. There is no argument for why gods morality is objectively moral, or why his commands give objective meaning and purpose. According to the religions, they just are. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, the rules in those books would not become any more or less moral.
I'm not completely sure you understand what I'm saying. If an omnipotent God exists, and he says that morality is X, then morality HAS TO BE X, due to his omnipotence. No matter who says they disagree, it would still be as involiable a law as the theory of gravity (perhaps moreso). By the very definition of omnipotence, whatever God defines as moral must be moral.
Omnipotence is impossible. It is literally not possible for anything to be omnipotent. You can't create a challenge so hard that no one can solve it, because the omnipotent one could solve it. If he can't, then he's not omnipotent.
Also, you can't make 2 + 2 = 5.
And if he was omnipotent, he'd be evil anyway... and in that case, fuck him, lol.
Come now, I'm sure you can do better than "omnipotence isn't possible because it's impossible."
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.
It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans.
2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind.
So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it?
Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand.
'
It is logically flawed. If you think that god answers the question of existence, you are wrong. It only moves the question from our universe to god. He created our universe, but who created him? If you're going to say that god is eternal, you might as well say that the omniverse itself is eternal.
If you think that god gives objective purpose, you are wrong. Meaning and purpose are still subjective. Even if he exists, you can accept gods commands as your purpose and find meaning in them, or you can not. Just like everything else. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, it wouldn't give me any purpose. It would just force me to do a bunch of stupid shit to avoid being tortured forever.
If you think that god gives objective morality, you are wrong. You can find his commands moral, or you can not, just like with everything else. It doesn't change anything. There is no argument for why gods morality is objectively moral, or why his commands give objective meaning and purpose. According to the religions, they just are. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, the rules in those books would not become any more or less moral.
I'm not completely sure you understand what I'm saying. If an omnipotent God exists, and he says that morality is X, then morality HAS TO BE X, due to his omnipotence. No matter who says they disagree, it would still be as involiable a law as the theory of gravity (perhaps moreso). By the very definition of omnipotence, whatever God defines as moral must be moral.
Wait a minute
Surely it would be possible to be omnipotent (if we assume that omnipotence itself is possible, which I don't, but whatever) and evil?
Given the nature of life in this universe, if a god existed and was omnipotent, he would have to be evil, or at the very least indifferent.
Are we supposed to learn morality from someone who lacks it?
A proposed answer:
A common response from Christian philosophers, such as Norman Geisler or Richard Swinburne is that the paradox assumes a wrong definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence, they say, does not mean that God can do anything at all but, rather, that he can do anything that's possible according to his nature. The distinction is important. God cannot perform logical absurdities; he can't, for instance, make 1+1=3. Likewise, God cannot make a being greater than himself because he is, by definition, the greatest possible being. God is limited in his actions to his nature. The Bible supports this, they assert, in passages such as Hebrews 6:18 which says it is "impossible for God to lie." This raises the question, similar to the Euthyphro Dilemma, of where this law of logic, which God is bound to obey, comes from. According to these theologians, this law is not a law above God that he assents to but, rather, logic is an eternal part of God's nature, like his omniscience or omnibenevolence. God obeys the laws of logic because God is eternally logical in the same way that God doesn't perform evil actions because God is eternally good. So, God, by nature logical and unable to violate the laws of logic, cannot make a boulder so heavy he cannot lift it because that would violate the law of non contradiction by creating an immovable object and an unstoppable force. This is similar to the Hebrews 6:18 verse, which teaches that God, by nature honest, cannot lie.
According to this answer, god could not change what is moral. He could not make rape moral (although he does think it's ok according to the bible), or selfless acts immoral. However, a religious person would just say that he is also incapable of lying, and so if he tells you that something immoral is moral, it only seems immoral to you because you're a dumb human.
This debate is truly pointless. Anyone that does not believe in the great magenta honeybadger is going to hell. It says so right on this piece of paper I just wrote on. I'll be laughing at all you atheists and christians burning while I enjoy my 40 virgins beside the great one. If you don't believe me prove me wrong. His son the ferret skinned himself to keep you guys warm and yet you refuse to believe in him? I feel bad for you guys I really do. But... the choice was yours and you chose willfully chose to ignore what's right beside your eyes, I wish it could be some other way but, sad life for you guys.
On April 24 2013 06:23 Feartheguru wrote: This debate is truly pointless. Anyone that does not believe in the great magenta honeybadger is going to hell. It says so right on this piece of paper I just wrote on. I'll be laughing at all you atheists and christians burning while I enjoy my 40 virgins beside the great one. If you don't believe me prove me wrong. His son the ferret skinned himself to keep you guys warm and yet you refuse to believe in him? I feel bad for you guys I really do. But... the choice was yours and you chose willfully chose to ignore what's right beside your eyes, I wish it could be some other way but, sad life for you guys.
If you believe it's pointless, then stop cluttering the thread with useless comments so that those of us who don't find it useless can discuss.
I'm not atheist yet, but I feel I'm on the cusp of becoming one. I've been a Christian since I was 5, but I didn't really challenge the ideas of my religion or question the scripture I was being taught until about two years ago. I just followed what I followed blindly. I KNEW God existed and there wasn't anyone that could tell me different. I grew up in a bubble.
But then I started travelling abroad and I ran into a vast array of people who all believed different things. People who were really nice and respectful and believed in their religions just as adamantly as I believed in mine. And like me, they weren't trying to convince anyone else of what they believed, but they also weren't up for any discussion of the possibility that they might be following the "wrong" religion.
So I returned to the leaders of my church, and several other churches, and I began questioning them on the principles and practices that they had brought me up on. And every one of them directed me towards the scripture. But what if the scriptures were false I said? And no one that I talked to would deviate away from that. The scriptures were true because God wrote them through the people he chose. No one would even entertain the idea that maybe God doesn't exist. It seemed that when I had questions of God's plan for me, or his divinity, then I got tremendous support and outreach. However, when I started questioning my beliefs, I was pushed into a corner and left there. Which has forced me to sort of figure things out on my own.
There's three things with which keep me back from becoming an atheist.
1) Logically it makes the most sense to be a Christian. I think about these four scenarios:
A) I'm Christian, I die, God exists, I go to heaven B) I'm Christian, I die, God doesn't exist, I return to nothingness C) I'm an atheist, I die, God exists, I go to hell. D) I'm an atheist, I die, God doesn't exist, I return to nothingness
When I look at these options, really it makes the most sense to be Christian. If I'm wrong I get the same reward as you when I die, but if I'm right, I get an eternity of happiness rather than an eternity of suffering.
2) I cannot as of yet wrap my head around returning to nothingness. Just in the same way that it hurts my brain to think that once there was nothing, and then all of a sudden there was something. I don't want my accumulation of experiences to end upon death. I just can't get past it.
3) Finally, and this ties in with number 1, is that being a Christian is not a suffering experience. At least not in North America. The only thing that I would struggle with is premarital sex. Every other commandment or teaching within in the bible is already followed by most people trying to live their lives. There's really no down side to being a Christian. Every person that has gotten to know me hasn't been affected by my Christian status. It's never hindered me in relationships of any kind, in any way. A lot of people liken a belief in God to a belief in santa, or the tooth fairy. I personally see no harm in a grown man who believes in santa or the tooth fairy. If you simply believe what you believe what you believe without trying to force others to believe it, most people respect you for it. Even if they don't agree with you.
Anyway I'm really enjoying the different discussions in this thread so far, just thought I'd throw down where I'm at.
And if islam is right, you're going to hell for being a christian.
Also, you might go to hell for not worshipping the flying spaghetti monster. There's no way to know. I could come up with an infinite amount of ridiculous claims, and tell you that you're going to hell forever if you don't do as I say. You'd better obey me, because you have nothing to lose. If I'm wrong, it doesn't matter, but if I'm right, you'll burn.
AND, if some forms of christianity are true, you're going to hell for being the wrong christian.
But most importantly, there is no evidence for it, and therefor no reason to believe it. (Sorry to the guy who sent me the "evidence" for christianity, it's really weaksauce )
The only reason you take christianity seriously is because you were raised in to it. If you were born muslim, you'd use the same argument for islam. And if you weren't born in to anything, you'd recognize it all for the bullshit that it is.
As for becoming nothing, just because it hurts your brain doesn't mean it's not true, lol. Many parts of the universe are unintuitive, like quantum mechanics for example.
As for what you want... that has nothing to do with what's actually true. But if you want to keep lying to yourself, I can't stop you.
If there was evidence for christianity or islam, I would believe it, even though I wouldn't like it, because it would mean innocent humans are tortured forever (and even bad humans, eternal torture is too much). But just because I dislike doesn't mean I won't believe it.
Similarly, I could come up with my own religion, or version of an existing religion, to believe that I will be able to live for as long as I wish. I would prefer this over dying at the age of ~90, but that's no reason to lie to myself and ignore evidence.
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.
It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans.
2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind.
So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it?
Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand.
'
It is logically flawed. If you think that god answers the question of existence, you are wrong. It only moves the question from our universe to god. He created our universe, but who created him? If you're going to say that god is eternal, you might as well say that the omniverse itself is eternal.
If you think that god gives objective purpose, you are wrong. Meaning and purpose are still subjective. Even if he exists, you can accept gods commands as your purpose and find meaning in them, or you can not. Just like everything else. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, it wouldn't give me any purpose. It would just force me to do a bunch of stupid shit to avoid being tortured forever.
If you think that god gives objective morality, you are wrong. You can find his commands moral, or you can not, just like with everything else. It doesn't change anything. There is no argument for why gods morality is objectively moral, or why his commands give objective meaning and purpose. According to the religions, they just are. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, the rules in those books would not become any more or less moral.
Actually, if God creates you for a purpose, then you have a purpose. I might write a python code to do model the movement of electrons in a short pulse laser, it would have purpose. Now you have a choice to reject that purpose, but that doesn't change that (if God exists) he created you for a reason.
I can't prove to you that meaning and purpose are objective, but if you assume the existance of God, objective purpose and meaning follow.
Hope that clears that up?
Purpose and meaning are still as subjective as they were before. My parents may have created me for a purpose, and I may get a purpose from them. Or I may not. I could easily reject what they want me to do. If you're going to call that objective purpose, then you've proven that god wouldn't give any more purpose than what already exists anyway, which is what I'm saying.
Same thing if a scientist creates a life form, and tells it to do stuff. He created the life form for a purpose. This gives just as much, or little, purpose as if a god created humanity.
Yup. Except scale everything up because God creates not only you, but the entire universe for you to live in. Subjective purpose to me suggests that you decide your purpose, which clearly isn't the case as you already have a purpose, which you are choosing to accept or reject.
I'm not saying that you will accept God's purpose, I'm just saying that if he exists he has one, which you seem to understand/agree. As that purpose exists regardless of your decision to follow it, I would call it an objective purpose.
In rejecting God's purpose you might decide that you choose your own, which would be a subjective purpose, but doesn't change the fact that there was a pre-existing, objective purpose.
Even if this is true, it seems to me that if God exists and created us, then God's purpose for us was to create our own purpose. Otherwise why are we (hat tip to Sartre) forced to do so as part of our existence? If this is true, then our subjective purpose is our only purpose.
Of course, I think that most religious folks would say that God's purpose for us is for us to choose 'Correctly', but I don't think this follows whatsoever if one holds a more neutral (non-religious) view of what God is.
Actually that's a common misconception. God does not create us to test us, the only sense to which that is even a little true is that God expects us to act morally, but it's not a test and if it were the bible is clear it's one we all failed.
On April 24 2013 06:23 Feartheguru wrote: This debate is truly pointless. Anyone that does not believe in the great magenta honeybadger is going to hell. It says so right on this piece of paper I just wrote on. I'll be laughing at all you atheists and christians burning while I enjoy my 40 virgins beside the great one. If you don't believe me prove me wrong. His son the ferret skinned himself to keep you guys warm and yet you refuse to believe in him? I feel bad for you guys I really do. But... the choice was yours and you chose willfully chose to ignore what's right beside your eyes, I wish it could be some other way but, sad life for you guys.
If you believe it's pointless, then stop cluttering the thread with useless comments so that those of us who don't find it useless can discuss.
I'm not atheist yet, but I feel I'm on the cusp of becoming one. I've been a Christian since I was 5, but I didn't really challenge the ideas of my religion or question the scripture I was being taught until about two years ago. I just followed what I followed blindly. I KNEW God existed and there wasn't anyone that could tell me different. I grew up in a bubble.
But then I started travelling abroad and I ran into a vast array of people who all believed different things. People who were really nice and respectful and believed in their religions just as adamantly as I believed in mine. And like me, they weren't trying to convince anyone else of what they believed, but they also weren't up for any discussion of the possibility that they might be following the "wrong" religion.
So I returned to the leaders of my church, and several other churches, and I began questioning them on the principles and practices that they had brought me up on. And every one of them directed me towards the scripture. But what if the scriptures were false I said? And no one that I talked to would deviate away from that. The scriptures were true because God wrote them through the people he chose. No one would even entertain the idea that maybe God doesn't exist. It seemed that when I had questions of God's plan for me, or his divinity, then I got tremendous support and outreach. However, when I started questioning my beliefs, I was pushed into a corner and left there. Which has forced me to sort of figure things out on my own.
There's three things with which keep me back from becoming an atheist.
1) Logically it makes the most sense to be a Christian. I think about these four scenarios:
A) I'm Christian, I die, God exists, I go to heaven B) I'm Christian, I die, God doesn't exist, I return to nothingness C) I'm an atheist, I die, God exists, I go to hell. D) I'm an atheist, I die, God doesn't exist, I return to nothingness
When I look at these options, really it makes the most sense to be Christian. If I'm wrong I get the same reward as you when I die, but if I'm right, I get an eternity of happiness rather than an eternity of suffering.
2) I cannot as of yet wrap my head around returning to nothingness. Just in the same way that it hurts my brain to think that once there was nothing, and then all of a sudden there was something. I don't want my accumulation of experiences to end upon death. I just can't get past it.
3) Finally, and this ties in with number 1, is that being a Christian is not a suffering experience. At least not in North America. The only thing that I would struggle with is premarital sex. Every other commandment or teaching within in the bible is already followed by most people trying to live their lives. There's really no down side to being a Christian. Every person that has gotten to know me hasn't been affected by my Christian status. It's never hindered me in relationships of any kind, in any way. A lot of people liken a belief in God to a belief in santa, or the tooth fairy. I personally see no harm in a grown man who believes in santa or the tooth fairy. If you simply believe what you believe what you believe without trying to force others to believe it, most people respect you for it. Even if they don't agree with you.
Anyway I'm really enjoying the different discussions in this thread so far, just thought I'd throw down where I'm at.
I'll try to help you along a bit.
With regards to:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager. Read that, and read the arguments against it in the wiki, and if you understand that, you should be fine. If you're feeling squirrelly, read my blog about it, but that might just confuse you.
2. Stop being a pussy. No, sorry, I'm just kidding. This was probably one of the harder things for me to accept as well (not that I was every religious, but in accepting that I don't know what happens when I die, and if I'm being honest it looks like a whole lot of nothing). There is no easy solution, just be honest with yourself. Does the world you see around you seem like it was made by an all-loving, all powerful being? Doesn't heaven and hell seem like something people made up? Finally, try to imagine your existence before you were born. Can't do it right? Well, that is probably what being dead is like. Is that so bad?
3. Is that really the way you want to live? Believing in fairy tales because they make you feel better? I could never respect myself if I did that, but that is me. Also, look at all the damage that can happen when peoples' fairy tales don't get along. People die.
On April 24 2013 06:23 Feartheguru wrote: This debate is truly pointless. Anyone that does not believe in the great magenta honeybadger is going to hell. It says so right on this piece of paper I just wrote on. I'll be laughing at all you atheists and christians burning while I enjoy my 40 virgins beside the great one. If you don't believe me prove me wrong. His son the ferret skinned himself to keep you guys warm and yet you refuse to believe in him? I feel bad for you guys I really do. But... the choice was yours and you chose willfully chose to ignore what's right beside your eyes, I wish it could be some other way but, sad life for you guys.
If you believe it's pointless, then stop cluttering the thread with useless comments so that those of us who don't find it useless can discuss.
I'm not atheist yet, but I feel I'm on the cusp of becoming one. I've been a Christian since I was 5, but I didn't really challenge the ideas of my religion or question the scripture I was being taught until about two years ago. I just followed what I followed blindly. I KNEW God existed and there wasn't anyone that could tell me different. I grew up in a bubble.
But then I started travelling abroad and I ran into a vast array of people who all believed different things. People who were really nice and respectful and believed in their religions just as adamantly as I believed in mine. And like me, they weren't trying to convince anyone else of what they believed, but they also weren't up for any discussion of the possibility that they might be following the "wrong" religion.
So I returned to the leaders of my church, and several other churches, and I began questioning them on the principles and practices that they had brought me up on. And every one of them directed me towards the scripture. But what if the scriptures were false I said? And no one that I talked to would deviate away from that. The scriptures were true because God wrote them through the people he chose. No one would even entertain the idea that maybe God doesn't exist. It seemed that when I had questions of God's plan for me, or his divinity, then I got tremendous support and outreach. However, when I started questioning my beliefs, I was pushed into a corner and left there. Which has forced me to sort of figure things out on my own.
There's three things with which keep me back from becoming an atheist.
1) Logically it makes the most sense to be a Christian. I think about these four scenarios:
A) I'm Christian, I die, God exists, I go to heaven B) I'm Christian, I die, God doesn't exist, I return to nothingness C) I'm an atheist, I die, God exists, I go to hell. D) I'm an atheist, I die, God doesn't exist, I return to nothingness
When I look at these options, really it makes the most sense to be Christian. If I'm wrong I get the same reward as you when I die, but if I'm right, I get an eternity of happiness rather than an eternity of suffering.
2) I cannot as of yet wrap my head around returning to nothingness. Just in the same way that it hurts my brain to think that once there was nothing, and then all of a sudden there was something. I don't want my accumulation of experiences to end upon death. I just can't get past it.
3) Finally, and this ties in with number 1, is that being a Christian is not a suffering experience. At least not in North America. The only thing that I would struggle with is premarital sex. Every other commandment or teaching within in the bible is already followed by most people trying to live their lives. There's really no down side to being a Christian. Every person that has gotten to know me hasn't been affected by my Christian status. It's never hindered me in relationships of any kind, in any way. A lot of people liken a belief in God to a belief in santa, or the tooth fairy. I personally see no harm in a grown man who believes in santa or the tooth fairy. If you simply believe what you believe what you believe without trying to force others to believe it, most people respect you for it. Even if they don't agree with you.
Anyway I'm really enjoying the different discussions in this thread so far, just thought I'd throw down where I'm at.
Your point 1 is just sad, if you think your own christian god is so stupid he can't see through your little game.. You might as well be an atheist and on your deathbed declare yourself a christian. Anyways, there are a million gods and deities that you should believe in by this logic, believing the Christian one isn't improving your chances. You don't believe my honeybadger, just as likely to send you to hell. Not even mentioning a god that sends people to hell for not believing in him, talk about vanity, creating everything in the world just to be loved.
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.
It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans.
2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind.
So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it?
Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand.
'
It is logically flawed. If you think that god answers the question of existence, you are wrong. It only moves the question from our universe to god. He created our universe, but who created him? If you're going to say that god is eternal, you might as well say that the omniverse itself is eternal.
If you think that god gives objective purpose, you are wrong. Meaning and purpose are still subjective. Even if he exists, you can accept gods commands as your purpose and find meaning in them, or you can not. Just like everything else. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, it wouldn't give me any purpose. It would just force me to do a bunch of stupid shit to avoid being tortured forever.
If you think that god gives objective morality, you are wrong. You can find his commands moral, or you can not, just like with everything else. It doesn't change anything. There is no argument for why gods morality is objectively moral, or why his commands give objective meaning and purpose. According to the religions, they just are. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, the rules in those books would not become any more or less moral.
I'm not completely sure you understand what I'm saying. If an omnipotent God exists, and he says that morality is X, then morality HAS TO BE X, due to his omnipotence. No matter who says they disagree, it would still be as involiable a law as the theory of gravity (perhaps moreso). By the very definition of omnipotence, whatever God defines as moral must be moral.
Wait a minute
Surely it would be possible to be omnipotent (if we assume that omnipotence itself is possible, which I don't, but whatever) and evil?
Given the nature of life in this universe, if a god existed and was omnipotent, he would have to be evil, or at the very least indifferent.
Are we supposed to learn morality from someone who lacks it?
If we're talking about the Christian God, he isn't bounded by morality, as he is outside it as its creator. The words good and evil hardly fit God properly. Morality doesn't bind animals, nor plants, nor general matter. It only binds humans.
Every other commandment or teaching within in the bible is already followed by most people trying to live their lives. There's really no down side to being a Christian.
Show me one person who follows all the commandments of the Bible perfectly :O Also, given the general hate of Christians shown by many netizens of the US and Europe nowadays, I'd say that's at LEAST one downside to being a Christian, although there are others too.
And if islam is right, you're going to hell for being a christian.
This is incorrect (although it may depend on what brand of Islam you're talking about). Jews, Christians, and Muslims are all going to heaven according to Islam, it's just preferable to be a Muslim.
Regarding Pascal's Wager: It can be used to follow the rules of any religion. It wouldn't be an argument for Christianity alone: It would be an argument for following the rules of any deity who will punish you for not believing in them. Thus, there is an immediate paradox. If the Christian God says you will go to hell if you don't believe in Christianity, while the God of Islam says you will go to hell if you don't believe in Islam, you're screwed no matter what if you go by Pascal's Wager.
Fundamentally, I think it's irrelevant, because I don't think you can choose what you believe. If someone paid you a million dollars to believe you could fly out of the window, you can't suddenly believe you can fly out of the window.
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.
It's not actually a logical fallacy. You should look up divine command theory. Basically, if morality is defined by God, then no matter how often you say "premarital sex is not evil", that doesn't change how evil premarital sex is (assuming that the Christian God is the real and true God). Morality in that case is not a democracy, it's an absolute defined by God rather than humans.
2. It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not; you believe it. That makes it immoral, to me. You still believe that people who do not believe what you do will go to hell (or is this not accurate? Again, anyone can be a christian now I think). You basically gave a non-answer, to my sensibilities. You say you don't decide who gets in and who doesn't, but you still believe what you have been told. How can you believe what you don't understand? This concept is completely foreign to me. I mean in a basic sense. If someone told me, such and such works in such a way, and here is why, I would either a) ask them to explain it further or b) not really believe it until I understand it. Like lets say... quantum mechanics. I don't really fully understand quantum mechanics. But it's been explained to me in such a way, and I've seen enough evidence, that I can sort of grasp what is going on (at least I think I do), so I believe it. How can you believe something you don't understand at all? That boggles my mind.
So believing something which you consider to be bad makes him immoral? I believe the Holocaust really happened, and that people in some countries die unjustly; that doesn't make me immoral for believing those things, does it?
Unless you're saying that it's immoral for him to believe something which he doesn't understand.
'
It is logically flawed. If you think that god answers the question of existence, you are wrong. It only moves the question from our universe to god. He created our universe, but who created him? If you're going to say that god is eternal, you might as well say that the omniverse itself is eternal.
If you think that god gives objective purpose, you are wrong. Meaning and purpose are still subjective. Even if he exists, you can accept gods commands as your purpose and find meaning in them, or you can not. Just like everything else. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, it wouldn't give me any purpose. It would just force me to do a bunch of stupid shit to avoid being tortured forever.
If you think that god gives objective morality, you are wrong. You can find his commands moral, or you can not, just like with everything else. It doesn't change anything. There is no argument for why gods morality is objectively moral, or why his commands give objective meaning and purpose. According to the religions, they just are. If the asshole from the Qur'an or the bible existed, the rules in those books would not become any more or less moral.
I'm not completely sure you understand what I'm saying. If an omnipotent God exists, and he says that morality is X, then morality HAS TO BE X, due to his omnipotence. No matter who says they disagree, it would still be as involiable a law as the theory of gravity (perhaps moreso). By the very definition of omnipotence, whatever God defines as moral must be moral.
Wait a minute
Surely it would be possible to be omnipotent (if we assume that omnipotence itself is possible, which I don't, but whatever) and evil?
Given the nature of life in this universe, if a god existed and was omnipotent, he would have to be evil, or at the very least indifferent.
Are we supposed to learn morality from someone who lacks it?
If we're talking about the Christian God, he isn't bounded by morality, as he is outside it as its creator. The words good and evil hardly fit God properly. Morality doesn't bind animals, nor plants, nor general matter. It only binds humans.
Every other commandment or teaching within in the bible is already followed by most people trying to live their lives. There's really no down side to being a Christian.
Show me one person who follows all the commandments of the Bible perfectly :O Also, given the general hate of Christians shown by many netizens of the US and Europe nowadays, I'd say that's at LEAST one downside to being a Christian, although there are others too.
And if islam is right, you're going to hell for being a christian.
This is incorrect (although it may depend on what brand of Islam you're talking about). Jews, Christians, and Muslims are all going to heaven according to Islam, it's just preferable to be a Muslim.
There are downsides to subscribing to evil ideologies, like nazism, christianity, and islam, yes. :D
Pascal's Wager is probably the most insidious form of apologia that has come out of the history of Christian thought. It destroys faith and utterly conceals and obscures the actual realities of the religion. It serves as a ground for the silly idolatrous hold-hands-and-sing-kumbaya idiocy that covers a large breadth of Christianity in the modern day and makes any genuine sense of faith impossible. It disregards or is utterly ignorant of the fear and trembling that is necessary within faith, and the full understanding of the absolute absurdity of Christ. The Athenians dismissed Paul for a reason, and there is a reason why directly within the New Testament epistles it says that one must be a "fool" to follow Christ. The kind of nonsense apologia in line with Pascal's Wager and some modern apologists such as Platinga has no real merit to Christianity or any religion of revelation. If you want some kind of god of necessity, the Greek "god of the philosophers" then just become some lukewarm Enlightenment-era deist. But the god of the philosophers is not the God of revelation. This form of apologetic is not only an insult to reason but also, and more severely, an insult to faith.
If you want to hold onto this kind of stupidity then just become a Western secularist humanist. It's an offspring of European liberal Protestantism anyway, and its sense of morality and justice is thoroughly Christian, just secularized. You don't want Christianity and you don't actually want scripture; all you want is the soft comforts that Christianity doesn't actually provide in such a willy-nilly way. Rather an atheist than a false-Christian, rather an irreligious man than someone that takes Christianity in vain, and rather a heretic than someone that worships the idol of Christendom.
Nietzsche once said that the first and only Christian died on the cross. I often think he was right.
I don't really get how or why pascal's wager is so illogical. I mean sure god easily sees through the "little game" you might be playing and if he ends up being real when you die you're pretty fucked- but it's not as if I'm trying to "trick god" which is what some here seem to imply. Living life attempting to "trick god" is quite illogical. I don't view it as tricking god though. I just view it as remaining open minded that a higher being might exist. Whereas if I'm atheist I've made a steadfast commitment to deny any existence whatsoever which feels ignorant and irresponsible to me considering how much evidence/random shit is out there that might suggest a higher being.
Saying "god will see through your little game so might as well just deny him completely" just doesn't make sense to me. If god really didn't exist, and it was proven and we were sure of it, I wouldn't even see a need to call myself an atheist. It's not like I go around calling myself someone that doesn't believe in unicorns, I just know they don't exist and go on with my life. God on the other hand? to say it's impossible has always felt wrong to me. Also if I say no way not possible I then must find a way to disprove all evidence that might point to a higher being which seems like a ridiculous chore.
I find it hard to say something like "the universe has always existed." Considering not a single thing in the universe lasts forever...and yet it's just as easy to say if a God has existed forever couldn't the universe have existed forever? Or how could a God have existed forever, who created God? We're supposed to believe he just "always existed?" there's questions on both sides which have sketch answers.
Circular logic gets nowhere which is why I prefer just respect an individuals own beliefs as everyone is entitled to believe what they want and there's a quite sound argument for both sides.
Pascal's Wager isn't about remaining agnostic to give deference to the limits of thought. It's an attempt to decisively say that in the midst of uncertainty it's the best option to choose to believe in a god out of practical well-being due to a presupposed belief that belief in a deity will secure eternal salvation if there is a deity and that if one chooses not to believe and there turns out to be a deity there will be eternal suffering. Not only is this insulting to reason because it's riddled with logically ungrounded presuppositions, it's absolutely insulting to faith in-itself because it takes out all the seriousness out of it and turns it into some form of currency. If this is the kind of nonsense that someone has to crutch on to maintain their faith then they never had faith to begin with, and whatever faith they have is corroded, rotten, and ultimately pathetically insecure.
Oh well then fuck Pascal's Wager, thanks for describing it like that, I read a bit from the wiki page linked a couple days ago but didn't really catch the jist of it. It offends both Atheists and religious rofl. Have to admit I had never even heard of it till a couple days ago in this thread.
On April 24 2013 10:53 LuckyFool wrote: I don't really get how or why pascal's wager is so illogical. I mean sure god easily sees through the "little game" you might be playing and if he ends up being real when you die you're pretty fucked- but it's not as if I'm trying to "trick god" which is what some here seem to imply. Living life attempting to "trick god" is quite illogical. I don't view it as tricking god though. I just view it as remaining open minded that a higher being might exist. Whereas if I'm atheist I've made a steadfast commitment to deny any existence whatsoever which feels ignorant and irresponsible to me considering how much evidence/random shit is out there that might suggest a higher being.
Saying "god will see through your little game so might as well just deny him completely" just doesn't make sense to me. If god really didn't exist, and it was proven and we were sure of it, I wouldn't even see a need to call myself an atheist. It's not like I go around calling myself someone that doesn't believe in unicorns, I just know they don't exist and go on with my life. God on the other hand? to say it's impossible has always felt wrong to me. Also if I say no way not possible I then must find a way to disprove all evidence that might point to a higher being which seems like a ridiculous chore.
I find it hard to say something like "the universe has always existed." Considering not a single thing in the universe lasts forever...and yet it's just as easy to say if a God has existed forever couldn't the universe have existed forever? Or how could a God have existed forever, who created God? We're supposed to believe he just "always existed?" there's questions on both sides which have sketch answers.
Circular logic gets nowhere which is why I prefer just respect an individuals own beliefs as long as they respect mine.
T_T;
I don't really get how or why pascal's wager is so illogical. I mean sure god easily sees through the "little game" you might be playing and if he ends up being real when you die you're pretty fucked
Why believe in the first place then? Merely to be open minded? Then you're agnostic. You can be agnostic and not follow pascals wager, they're not the same thing. Implying that you believe because theres a chance is following the wager, and it just makes no sense.
If you're following it(believing) for no benefit, then whats the point? If you're following it(believing) for benefit (chance in heaven or something) then it makes no sense as it wouldn't work that way, at least with the christian god. You have to believe with all of your heart to be accepted by god, and you're not doing that if you just hope.
Whereas if I'm atheist I've made a steadfast commitment to deny any existence whatsoever which feels ignorant and irresponsible to me considering how much evidence/random shit is out there that might suggest a higher being.
Absolutely not what an atheist is.
Here's the difference between a religious person and an atheist person. A religious person can see evidence and ignore it due to faith, or change it based on interpretation., an atheist would not. If god game down to Earth tomorrow, I'd be a believer as it'd be pretty damn hard to not believe in something in front of me. But theres different levels of atheism and im under the impression that there is no higher being out there, as all evidence to me shows we're alone. But if I was ever shown something different, I'd of course have to reconsider.
On your bit about how much evidence of a higher being is out there... ummmm..... where is it exactly? I have seen nothing that suggests a higher power. If you have then I'd love to see it, I'd love to see some evidence that suggests a higher being but I have yet to see anything, and I've been looking for a long time.
On your questions you ask at the end, thats exactly what science is for. Do you think a holy book from any of the thousands of existing religions is going to tell us something new about the universe? Highly unlikely. Science looks into that, into our origin, and its through it where we will find out beginning, at least its our best chance.
Reason I became an atheist is because none of it makes sense, why are there so many religions that exist today filled to the brim with people that will vehemently defend their religion and make claims with "evidence" as to why theirs is the right one. I don't believe any of it. I can understand the creation of religion, the need for it at the beginning of society, the desire to know where you come from, but I'll never have blind faith again, something thats most definitely required.
On April 24 2013 10:53 LuckyFool wrote: I don't really get how or why pascal's wager is so illogical. I mean sure god easily sees through the "little game" you might be playing and if he ends up being real when you die you're pretty fucked- but it's not as if I'm trying to "trick god" which is what some here seem to imply. Living life attempting to "trick god" is quite illogical. I don't view it as tricking god though. I just view it as remaining open minded that a higher being might exist. Whereas if I'm atheist I've made a steadfast commitment to deny any existence whatsoever which feels ignorant and irresponsible to me considering how much evidence/random shit is out there that might suggest a higher being.
Saying "god will see through your little game so might as well just deny him completely" just doesn't make sense to me. If god really didn't exist, and it was proven and we were sure of it, I wouldn't even see a need to call myself an atheist. It's not like I go around calling myself someone that doesn't believe in unicorns, I just know they don't exist and go on with my life. God on the other hand? to say it's impossible has always felt wrong to me. Also if I say no way not possible I then must find a way to disprove all evidence that might point to a higher being which seems like a ridiculous chore.
I find it hard to say something like "the universe has always existed." Considering not a single thing in the universe lasts forever...and yet it's just as easy to say if a God has existed forever couldn't the universe have existed forever? Or how could a God have existed forever, who created God? We're supposed to believe he just "always existed?" there's questions on both sides which have sketch answers.
Circular logic gets nowhere which is why I prefer just respect an individuals own beliefs as everyone is entitled to believe what they want and there's a quite sound argument for both sides.
T_T;
Being an atheist isn't saying god is impossible, there's no point making up random definitions then arguing with yourself.
On April 24 2013 11:14 LuckyFool wrote: Sorry I was just going off this;
"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities."
So a deity is still possible? I'm confused.
Rejection of belief means you don't believe. That's a lot different than saying god is impossible. If the Christian god came down tomorrow and said hi, I would be a Christian instantly. There are a million thing I reject that I would believe in if I saw a valid reason to.
I just want to add that you can be an agnostic atheist. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Neither are agnosticism and theism.
Gnosticism is about knowledge, and theism is about belief.
An agnostic atheist does not have theistic beliefs, but he does not have knowledge that there are no gods. So he's not completely certain that he's right.
A gnostic atheist has no theistic beliefs, and is certain about it.
A gnostic theist has theistic beliefs, and is certain that they are correct . An agnostic theist has theistic beliefs, but is not certain of them.
The only way you're not one of these four is if you're right in the middle, thinking that it's 100% as likely that either side is right.
Edit: About ignosticism: I understand where you are coming from, but when I say atheism, I'm talking about the existing claims for gods - not all possible ones.
On April 24 2013 11:14 LuckyFool wrote: Sorry I was just going off this;
"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities."
So a deity is still possible? I'm confused.
Rejection of belief means you don't believe. That's a lot different than saying god is impossible. If the Christian god came down tomorrow and said hi, I would be a Christian instantly. There are a million thing I reject that I would believe in if I saw a valid reason to.
The thing for me is that even if there was undeniable evidence that the Christian God was real, I wouldn't follow him. Certainly I'd accept that he exists, but I cannot find it acceptable to follow a deity that is supposedly all powerful but does nothing to relieve suffering. By my definition that's evil. If you have the power to stop suffering and you see it every day, it's evil to not do anything about it. There are plenty of humans I'd rather follow before following God, since there's actual evidence that they are compassionate and selfless beings, even without limitless power and knowledge.
In fact, if God exists, if even a fraction of the things written in the Bible are true, and if the vast majority of Christians truly do go to heaven, I'd rather burn in hell for all eternity than join his followers (and leave many of my loved ones who are also destined for hell) in a heaven full of people that historically have had little more empathy for their fellow man as they have for the average animal.
On April 24 2013 16:16 wherebugsgo wrote: The thing for me is that even if there was undeniable evidence that the Christian God was real, I wouldn't follow him. Certainly I'd accept that he exists, but I cannot find it acceptable to follow a deity that is supposedly all powerful but does nothing to relieve suffering. By my definition that's evil. If you have the power to stop suffering and you see it every day, it's evil to not do anything about it. There are plenty of humans I'd rather follow before following God, since there's actual evidence that they are compassionate and selfless beings, even without limitless power and knowledge.
In fact, if God exists, if even a fraction of the things written in the Bible are true, and if the vast majority of Christians truly do go to heaven, I'd rather burn in hell for all eternity than join his followers (and leave many of my loved ones who are also destined for hell) in a heaven full of people that historically have had little more empathy for their fellow man as they have for the average animal.
What your saying here is that even if a God exists who created you, created your mind and your understanding, then by that understanding you would judge that creator to be morally inferior to you. So you do believe in absolute truth: anything that you happen to feel strongly about. You do believe in absolute morality: whatever you think is right or wrong. You do believe in God: your own mind.
The genesis allegory of creation describes sin as "eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" which is to say that humanity wanted to know good and evil the way Did knows it.. Not to understand morality, but to be the one who defines it. You couldn't fit that description better if you tried.
On April 24 2013 16:16 wherebugsgo wrote: The thing for me is that even if there was undeniable evidence that the Christian God was real, I wouldn't follow him. Certainly I'd accept that he exists, but I cannot find it acceptable to follow a deity that is supposedly all powerful but does nothing to relieve suffering. By my definition that's evil. If you have the power to stop suffering and you see it every day, it's evil to not do anything about it. There are plenty of humans I'd rather follow before following God, since there's actual evidence that they are compassionate and selfless beings, even without limitless power and knowledge.
In fact, if God exists, if even a fraction of the things written in the Bible are true, and if the vast majority of Christians truly do go to heaven, I'd rather burn in hell for all eternity than join his followers (and leave many of my loved ones who are also destined for hell) in a heaven full of people that historically have had little more empathy for their fellow man as they have for the average animal.
What your saying here is that even if a God exists who created you, created your mind and your understanding, then by that understanding you would judge that creator to be morally inferior to you. So you do believe in absolute truth: anything that you happen to feel strongly about. You do believe in absolute morality: whatever you think is right or wrong. You do believe in God: your own mind.
The genesis allegory of creation describes sin as "eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" which is to say that humanity wanted to know good and evil the way Did knows it.. Not to understand morality, but to be the one who defines it. You couldn't fit that description better if you tried.
Lol did u just try to justify that a non-believer biblically sinned?
Also did i misread it, or you were saying: Whatever (your) God deems right, is right; and whatever he deems wrong is wrong. Whatever our current ethics and moral codes dictate is irrelevant because we are inferior, whereas He is the superior being that created us all?
I wasn't raised to be religious, so there wasn't much of a transition-period.
I'm not impressed by fanaticism, be it religious or scientific, though although I had a good time reading Dawkins / Hitchens, their literature didn't move me one inch in any direction. Nor did the Old Testament, obviously.
Hm luckily for me my family was never religious so I grew up thinking of it in my own terms.
I believe there is a god, but I don't believe a lot (or all I have never read it) the bible says or the stories. I believe there is a god, but I don't care if someone is athiest or believes in it as I could care less, I don't' go to church and never will, I don't pray and never will, etc.
I do say religious fanatics though drive me nuts rofl :D
On April 24 2013 16:45 kafkaesque wrote: I wasn't raised to be religious, so there wasn't much of a transition-period.
I'm not impressed by fanaticism, be it religious or scientific, though although I had a good time reading Dawkins / Hitchens, their literature didn't move me one inch in any direction. Nor did the Old Testament, obviously.
Dawkins' writings on religion is complete garbage but his books on evolution aimed at popular consumption are actually quite good. He's a surprisingly good writer when he's working on his real specialty.
On April 24 2013 06:23 Feartheguru wrote: This debate is truly pointless. Anyone that does not believe in the great magenta honeybadger is going to hell. It says so right on this piece of paper I just wrote on. I'll be laughing at all you atheists and christians burning while I enjoy my 40 virgins beside the great one. If you don't believe me prove me wrong. His son the ferret skinned himself to keep you guys warm and yet you refuse to believe in him? I feel bad for you guys I really do. But... the choice was yours and you chose willfully chose to ignore what's right beside your eyes, I wish it could be some other way but, sad life for you guys.
If you believe it's pointless, then stop cluttering the thread with useless comments so that those of us who don't find it useless can discuss.
I'm not atheist yet, but I feel I'm on the cusp of becoming one. I've been a Christian since I was 5, but I didn't really challenge the ideas of my religion or question the scripture I was being taught until about two years ago. I just followed what I followed blindly. I KNEW God existed and there wasn't anyone that could tell me different. I grew up in a bubble.
But then I started travelling abroad and I ran into a vast array of people who all believed different things. People who were really nice and respectful and believed in their religions just as adamantly as I believed in mine. And like me, they weren't trying to convince anyone else of what they believed, but they also weren't up for any discussion of the possibility that they might be following the "wrong" religion.
So I returned to the leaders of my church, and several other churches, and I began questioning them on the principles and practices that they had brought me up on. And every one of them directed me towards the scripture. But what if the scriptures were false I said? And no one that I talked to would deviate away from that. The scriptures were true because God wrote them through the people he chose. No one would even entertain the idea that maybe God doesn't exist. It seemed that when I had questions of God's plan for me, or his divinity, then I got tremendous support and outreach. However, when I started questioning my beliefs, I was pushed into a corner and left there. Which has forced me to sort of figure things out on my own.
There's three things with which keep me back from becoming an atheist.
1) Logically it makes the most sense to be a Christian. I think about these four scenarios:
A) I'm Christian, I die, God exists, I go to heaven B) I'm Christian, I die, God doesn't exist, I return to nothingness C) I'm an atheist, I die, God exists, I go to hell. D) I'm an atheist, I die, God doesn't exist, I return to nothingness
When I look at these options, really it makes the most sense to be Christian. If I'm wrong I get the same reward as you when I die, but if I'm right, I get an eternity of happiness rather than an eternity of suffering.
2) I cannot as of yet wrap my head around returning to nothingness. Just in the same way that it hurts my brain to think that once there was nothing, and then all of a sudden there was something. I don't want my accumulation of experiences to end upon death. I just can't get past it.
3) Finally, and this ties in with number 1, is that being a Christian is not a suffering experience. At least not in North America. The only thing that I would struggle with is premarital sex. Every other commandment or teaching within in the bible is already followed by most people trying to live their lives. There's really no down side to being a Christian. Every person that has gotten to know me hasn't been affected by my Christian status. It's never hindered me in relationships of any kind, in any way. A lot of people liken a belief in God to a belief in santa, or the tooth fairy. I personally see no harm in a grown man who believes in santa or the tooth fairy. If you simply believe what you believe what you believe without trying to force others to believe it, most people respect you for it. Even if they don't agree with you.
Anyway I'm really enjoying the different discussions in this thread so far, just thought I'd throw down where I'm at.
I had this dilema once, but I did not just get safe with it. I resulted to "pimp my God" Started customizing him saying hmm my God would probably happy if I am happy. But I am not happy kneeling or going to church so my "God" would understand if I don't go to church and do "christian" stuff. But then I realized.. hey I just made an imaginary friend.. then I said screw this.
I just don't believe in it to be safe, don't you have any problems with going christian? Don't you feel the guild everytime you commit "sin" or not follow the christian things? Doesn't it hinder you life? Also the point that what if christianity is not the "right" religion? What if the real god is Odin? What if the xelnaga made us?
I have a suggestion, try to soft launch it, try to not believe in a month. You will notice you would feel lighter, free. No more guilts of nonsense, no hindrance, no stupid rules to follow.
Heaven and Hell are just created by man because we're too scared to think we didn't go somewhere when we die. Plus you can put some money into this basket so I don't have to work or pay taxes on anything and browse the internet all day for cats.
On April 24 2013 16:16 wherebugsgo wrote: The thing for me is that even if there was undeniable evidence that the Christian God was real, I wouldn't follow him. Certainly I'd accept that he exists, but I cannot find it acceptable to follow a deity that is supposedly all powerful but does nothing to relieve suffering. By my definition that's evil. If you have the power to stop suffering and you see it every day, it's evil to not do anything about it. There are plenty of humans I'd rather follow before following God, since there's actual evidence that they are compassionate and selfless beings, even without limitless power and knowledge.
In fact, if God exists, if even a fraction of the things written in the Bible are true, and if the vast majority of Christians truly do go to heaven, I'd rather burn in hell for all eternity than join his followers (and leave many of my loved ones who are also destined for hell) in a heaven full of people that historically have had little more empathy for their fellow man as they have for the average animal.
What your saying here is that even if a God exists who created you, created your mind and your understanding, then by that understanding you would judge that creator to be morally inferior to you. So you do believe in absolute truth: anything that you happen to feel strongly about. You do believe in absolute morality: whatever you think is right or wrong. You do believe in God: your own mind.
The genesis allegory of creation describes sin as "eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" which is to say that humanity wanted to know good and evil the way Did knows it.. Not to understand morality, but to be the one who defines it. You couldn't fit that description better if you tried.
No, I don't believe in God nor absolute morality.
I wouldn't give a flying fuck if God truly created me if he's anything like the way he's described in the Bible.
If you would find a human despicable for carrying out some of the acts that God carried out in the Bible, then it's easy to see why I think the same about a so-called perfect being.
What's even funnier about this whole situation is that this supposedly all powerful God created a being such as me, who is capable of pointing out his own absurdities and follies.
On April 24 2013 16:16 wherebugsgo wrote: The thing for me is that even if there was undeniable evidence that the Christian God was real, I wouldn't follow him. Certainly I'd accept that he exists, but I cannot find it acceptable to follow a deity that is supposedly all powerful but does nothing to relieve suffering. By my definition that's evil. If you have the power to stop suffering and you see it every day, it's evil to not do anything about it. There are plenty of humans I'd rather follow before following God, since there's actual evidence that they are compassionate and selfless beings, even without limitless power and knowledge.
In fact, if God exists, if even a fraction of the things written in the Bible are true, and if the vast majority of Christians truly do go to heaven, I'd rather burn in hell for all eternity than join his followers (and leave many of my loved ones who are also destined for hell) in a heaven full of people that historically have had little more empathy for their fellow man as they have for the average animal.
What your saying here is that even if a God exists who created you, created your mind and your understanding, then by that understanding you would judge that creator to be morally inferior to you. So you do believe in absolute truth: anything that you happen to feel strongly about. You do believe in absolute morality: whatever you think is right or wrong. You do believe in God: your own mind.
The genesis allegory of creation describes sin as "eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" which is to say that humanity wanted to know good and evil the way Did knows it.. Not to understand morality, but to be the one who defines it. You couldn't fit that description better if you tried.
No, I don't believe in God nor absolute morality.
I wouldn't give a flying fuck if God truly created me if he's anything like the way he's described in the Bible.
If you would find a human despicable for carrying out some of the acts that God carried out in the Bible, then it's easy to see why I think the same about a so-called perfect being.
What's even funnier about this whole situation is that this supposedly all powerful God created a being such as me, who is capable of pointing out his own absurdities and follies.
You're just restating yourself, which is fine, whatever.
Since your such a fan of inconsistencies, here's a fun one:
Science seeks to understand the universe. It does a pretty fantastic job. Science, given enough time and enough resources will understand everything completely, right?
I agree.
Here's the problem: Why and how is that the case? Evolutionary theory suggests that we are the latest in a chain (and it would seem the last in a chain, it's not as if natural selection is at work in human society, because we take pains to help the weak survive at the expense of the fittest, rather than vice versa) our intellect is the product of time and chance, we've reached the critical point at which we are able to modify our environment rather than adapt to it. Now chimps are pretty clever. Dogs less so, humans more so. Chimps can use tools to get termites out of their mounds, dogs can learn tricks. I bet chimps think they have it really worked out. I bet they think they totally understand how termites and sticks work, but they cannot understand termite biology and genetics, and they will never understand the molecular forces behind fluid cohesion/adhesion (I don't really remember how chimps catch termites.. but i saw them licking the sticks they push into termite mounds on a documentary once )
Obviously just as a dog will not be able to understand using a stick to catch termites, a chimp will never understand quantum mechanics and humanity will never really understand anything of importance. Ultimately we're chimps poking the standard model with a supercollider and hoping we find termites. Or CP violation, I'm not fussed.
Obviously religion explains this because God makes the world, and humanity (whatever their origins) are chosen and special to him, and it is this belief which motivated people like Isaac Newton to seek to understand the world. If you believe there is no God, it is illogical to believe that science will ever come to any definite answer about anything. (Which is not to say that science can't provide us with a better standard of living, but again, that's just chimps and termites.)
On April 24 2013 16:16 wherebugsgo wrote: The thing for me is that even if there was undeniable evidence that the Christian God was real, I wouldn't follow him. Certainly I'd accept that he exists, but I cannot find it acceptable to follow a deity that is supposedly all powerful but does nothing to relieve suffering. By my definition that's evil. If you have the power to stop suffering and you see it every day, it's evil to not do anything about it. There are plenty of humans I'd rather follow before following God, since there's actual evidence that they are compassionate and selfless beings, even without limitless power and knowledge.
In fact, if God exists, if even a fraction of the things written in the Bible are true, and if the vast majority of Christians truly do go to heaven, I'd rather burn in hell for all eternity than join his followers (and leave many of my loved ones who are also destined for hell) in a heaven full of people that historically have had little more empathy for their fellow man as they have for the average animal.
What your saying here is that even if a God exists who created you, created your mind and your understanding, then by that understanding you would judge that creator to be morally inferior to you. So you do believe in absolute truth: anything that you happen to feel strongly about. You do believe in absolute morality: whatever you think is right or wrong. You do believe in God: your own mind.
The genesis allegory of creation describes sin as "eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" which is to say that humanity wanted to know good and evil the way Did knows it.. Not to understand morality, but to be the one who defines it. You couldn't fit that description better if you tried.
Are you saying that if ever Christian god is really true and he made you, made your mind thus your mind is your god? and you should agree with god, his morals and understanding?
Okay let me put it this way, say the generic hollywood robot story of robots rebelling to humans.
Humans made the robots, gave them freewill and the power to think for themselves.
Then robot found out that Humans are the greatest threat for even themselves.
For that, did robot agree with human his creator? they killed humans.
On April 24 2013 16:16 wherebugsgo wrote: The thing for me is that even if there was undeniable evidence that the Christian God was real, I wouldn't follow him. Certainly I'd accept that he exists, but I cannot find it acceptable to follow a deity that is supposedly all powerful but does nothing to relieve suffering. By my definition that's evil. If you have the power to stop suffering and you see it every day, it's evil to not do anything about it. There are plenty of humans I'd rather follow before following God, since there's actual evidence that they are compassionate and selfless beings, even without limitless power and knowledge.
In fact, if God exists, if even a fraction of the things written in the Bible are true, and if the vast majority of Christians truly do go to heaven, I'd rather burn in hell for all eternity than join his followers (and leave many of my loved ones who are also destined for hell) in a heaven full of people that historically have had little more empathy for their fellow man as they have for the average animal.
What your saying here is that even if a God exists who created you, created your mind and your understanding, then by that understanding you would judge that creator to be morally inferior to you. So you do believe in absolute truth: anything that you happen to feel strongly about. You do believe in absolute morality: whatever you think is right or wrong. You do believe in God: your own mind.
The genesis allegory of creation describes sin as "eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" which is to say that humanity wanted to know good and evil the way Did knows it.. Not to understand morality, but to be the one who defines it. You couldn't fit that description better if you tried.
No, I don't believe in God nor absolute morality.
I wouldn't give a flying fuck if God truly created me if he's anything like the way he's described in the Bible.
If you would find a human despicable for carrying out some of the acts that God carried out in the Bible, then it's easy to see why I think the same about a so-called perfect being.
What's even funnier about this whole situation is that this supposedly all powerful God created a being such as me, who is capable of pointing out his own absurdities and follies.
You're just restating yourself, which is fine, whatever.
Since your such a fan of inconsistencies, here's a fun one:
Science seeks to understand the universe. It does a pretty fantastic job. Science, given enough time and enough resources will understand everything completely, right?
I agree.
Here's the problem: Why and how is that the case? Evolutionary theory suggests that we are the latest in a chain (and it would seem the last in a chain, it's not as if natural selection is at work in human society, because we take pains to help the weak survive at the expense of the fittest, rather than vice versa) our intellect is the product of time and chance, we've reached the critical point at which we are able to modify our environment rather than adapt to it.
No it doesn't.
There is no evidence to suggest that natural selection is not working on humans. In fact, there is evidence of evolutionary change in the human species as young as a few hundred years.
On April 25 2013 00:27 kerpal wrote: Now chimps are pretty clever. Dogs less so, humans more so. Chimps can use tools to get termites out of their mounds, dogs can learn tricks. I bet chimps think they have it really worked out. I bet they think they totally understand how termites and sticks work, but they cannot understand termite biology and genetics, and they will never understand the molecular forces behind fluid cohesion/adhesion (I don't really remember how chimps catch termites.. but i saw them licking the sticks they push into termite mounds on a documentary once )
So?
On April 25 2013 00:27 kerpal wrote: Obviously just as a dog will not be able to understand using a stick to catch termites, a chimp will never understand quantum mechanics and humanity will never really understand anything of importance.
Really? What is "anything of importance" here?
If there is nothing beyond the physical realm then there is nothing "out there." Science does not deal with the supernatural, because there is no evidence that the supernatural even exists in the first place. Otherwise, it probably would not be called the supernatural.
On April 25 2013 00:27 kerpal wrote: Ultimately we're chimps poking the standard model with a supercollider and hoping we find termites. Or CP violation, I'm not fussed.
So in other words, God did it, and we should be satisfied with that.
Great attitude. Let's give up on understanding things, since clearly we are not intellectually capable of understanding anything at all.
Really wonderful attitude you have here.
On April 25 2013 00:27 kerpal wrote: Obviously religion explains this because God makes the world, and humanity (whatever their origins) are chosen and special to him, and it is this belief which motivated people like Isaac Newton to seek to understand the world. If you believe there is no God, it is illogical to believe that science will ever come to any definite answer about anything. (Which is not to say that science can't provide us with a better standard of living, but again, that's just chimps and termites.)
Religion doesn't explain shit.
Religion was not able to explain why the world was apparently flat, or the center of the universe, or 6000 years old. Religion has been consistently wrong about almost literally everything for millenia.
You could not pick a worse model of thought to idolize.
Also, it's patently false that religion motivated Isaac Newton or any other scientist to study the world. Given that you can simply explain things with "God did it" there's no reason to look any further. The scientific method and innate individual curiosity motivated those people, regardless of what they actually believed about God or the universe.
That's shown evidently, since the thing that links all of science together is not God but the methodology itself. There are plenty of atheist scientists, Muslim scientists, polytheistic scientists, spiritual scientists, Catholic scientists, and so on. Yet, their work is unified not under religion but under the scientific method.
It doesn't take a genius to see why that is. Religion is literally worthless when it comes to answering real and pertinent questions about the workings of our surroundings.
the point is not "science bad, God good" I actually have a degree in physics, and think physics is pretty great.
The point is that the humanist viewpoint of understanding the universe is self contradictory, because a humanist worldview tells us that our minds are not equal to the task.
"anything of importance" did not refer to God, or the supernatural, it refers to a more complete understanding of the NATURAL than a chimp has.
Try re-reading my post looking at what I actually say, rather than what you expect me to say.
On April 25 2013 02:45 kerpal wrote: you have ENTIRELY misunderstood me.
the point is not "science bad, God good" I actually have a degree in physics, and think physics is pretty great.
The point is that the humanist viewpoint of understanding the universe is self contradictory, because a humanist worldview tells us that our minds are not equal to the task.
"anything of importance" did not refer to God, or the supernatural, it refers to a more complete understanding of the NATURAL than a chimp has.
Try re-reading my post looking at what I actually say, rather than what you expect me to say.
there was no contradiction even in what you said, because most of what you said was false to begin with.
for having a degree in physics your knowledge of evolution is piss poor
I'd go even further wherebugsgo. For a scientist, you have a piss poor understanding of science in general, Kerpal. It is painful how wrong every single thing you said in your dogs and chimps post is. It actually makes me sad that someone who made it through university, doing a degree in one of the most important fields of study no less, can't get excited about the insane leaps in knowledge we are making every year. Every day science constricts God into a smaller and smaller box, and you reply with some obscure definition of knowledge by saying 'Humanity will never really understand anything of REAL importance in God's work.'
On April 24 2013 07:20 Fumanchu wrote: If you believe it's pointless, then stop cluttering the thread with useless comments so that those of us who don't find it useless can discuss.
I'm not atheist yet, but I feel I'm on the cusp of becoming one. I've been a Christian since I was 5, but I didn't really challenge the ideas of my religion or question the scripture I was being taught until about two years ago. I just followed what I followed blindly. I KNEW God existed and there wasn't anyone that could tell me different. I grew up in a bubble.
But then I started travelling abroad and I ran into a vast array of people who all believed different things. People who were really nice and respectful and believed in their religions just as adamantly as I believed in mine. And like me, they weren't trying to convince anyone else of what they believed, but they also weren't up for any discussion of the possibility that they might be following the "wrong" religion.
So I returned to the leaders of my church, and several other churches, and I began questioning them on the principles and practices that they had brought me up on. And every one of them directed me towards the scripture. But what if the scriptures were false I said? And no one that I talked to would deviate away from that. The scriptures were true because God wrote them through the people he chose. No one would even entertain the idea that maybe God doesn't exist. It seemed that when I had questions of God's plan for me, or his divinity, then I got tremendous support and outreach. However, when I started questioning my beliefs, I was pushed into a corner and left there. Which has forced me to sort of figure things out on my own.
There's three things with which keep me back from becoming an atheist.
1) Logically it makes the most sense to be a Christian. I think about these four scenarios:
A) I'm Christian, I die, God exists, I go to heaven B) I'm Christian, I die, God doesn't exist, I return to nothingness C) I'm an atheist, I die, God exists, I go to hell. D) I'm an atheist, I die, God doesn't exist, I return to nothingness
When I look at these options, really it makes the most sense to be Christian. If I'm wrong I get the same reward as you when I die, but if I'm right, I get an eternity of happiness rather than an eternity of suffering.
2) I cannot as of yet wrap my head around returning to nothingness. Just in the same way that it hurts my brain to think that once there was nothing, and then all of a sudden there was something. I don't want my accumulation of experiences to end upon death. I just can't get past it.
3) Finally, and this ties in with number 1, is that being a Christian is not a suffering experience. At least not in North America. The only thing that I would struggle with is premarital sex. Every other commandment or teaching within in the bible is already followed by most people trying to live their lives. There's really no down side to being a Christian. Every person that has gotten to know me hasn't been affected by my Christian status. It's never hindered me in relationships of any kind, in any way. A lot of people liken a belief in God to a belief in santa, or the tooth fairy. I personally see no harm in a grown man who believes in santa or the tooth fairy. If you simply believe what you believe what you believe without trying to force others to believe it, most people respect you for it. Even if they don't agree with you.
Anyway I'm really enjoying the different discussions in this thread so far, just thought I'd throw down where I'm at.
If #1 is your biggest reason for hanging onto Christianity, let me be the first to welcome you to atheism. As others have already pointed out, even Christian apologists think that Pascal's wager is one of the worst reasons to believe. I'll just leave this link, since others have already covered it. http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Pascal's_Wager
For #2, were you bothered 2000 year that you didn't exist? Were you bothered in 1950 when you didn't exist? In 500 years, long after you are dead, I doubt it will bother you at all that you don't exist.
And I would argue that it is harmful for adults to believe in supernatural beings like the tooth fairy. Our beliefs inform our actions, and the more out of line those beliefs are with reality, the larger the potential for harm.
Indeed, you do go further, by once again demonstrating that you have missed the point.
Your response is essentially to tell me I'm just plain wrong. Enlightened.
Do you think I'm not excited? Of course I'm excited by scientific progress. The question is why are YOU excited by scientific progress?
I'll have one more go at this: In my worldview science is humanity coming to better understand God's creation. In a humanist worldview, everything we know should suggest to us that we are unable to grasp the amazing intricacies of the universe. Why would we be able to understand the physical universe? Why should we have the arrogance to believe that we can truly understand physics? What about humanity suggests that we have it in us to correctly analyse our world, when every other animal is so clearly limited?
On April 24 2013 06:23 Feartheguru wrote: This debate is truly pointless. Anyone that does not believe in the great magenta honeybadger is going to hell. It says so right on this piece of paper I just wrote on. I'll be laughing at all you atheists and christians burning while I enjoy my 40 virgins beside the great one. If you don't believe me prove me wrong. His son the ferret skinned himself to keep you guys warm and yet you refuse to believe in him? I feel bad for you guys I really do. But... the choice was yours and you chose willfully chose to ignore what's right beside your eyes, I wish it could be some other way but, sad life for you guys.
If you believe it's pointless, then stop cluttering the thread with useless comments so that those of us who don't find it useless can discuss.
I'm not atheist yet, but I feel I'm on the cusp of becoming one. I've been a Christian since I was 5, but I didn't really challenge the ideas of my religion or question the scripture I was being taught until about two years ago. I just followed what I followed blindly. I KNEW God existed and there wasn't anyone that could tell me different. I grew up in a bubble.
But then I started travelling abroad and I ran into a vast array of people who all believed different things. People who were really nice and respectful and believed in their religions just as adamantly as I believed in mine. And like me, they weren't trying to convince anyone else of what they believed, but they also weren't up for any discussion of the possibility that they might be following the "wrong" religion.
So I returned to the leaders of my church, and several other churches, and I began questioning them on the principles and practices that they had brought me up on. And every one of them directed me towards the scripture. But what if the scriptures were false I said? And no one that I talked to would deviate away from that. The scriptures were true because God wrote them through the people he chose. No one would even entertain the idea that maybe God doesn't exist. It seemed that when I had questions of God's plan for me, or his divinity, then I got tremendous support and outreach. However, when I started questioning my beliefs, I was pushed into a corner and left there. Which has forced me to sort of figure things out on my own.
There's three things with which keep me back from becoming an atheist.
1) Logically it makes the most sense to be a Christian. I think about these four scenarios:
A) I'm Christian, I die, God exists, I go to heaven B) I'm Christian, I die, God doesn't exist, I return to nothingness C) I'm an atheist, I die, God exists, I go to hell. D) I'm an atheist, I die, God doesn't exist, I return to nothingness
When I look at these options, really it makes the most sense to be Christian. If I'm wrong I get the same reward as you when I die, but if I'm right, I get an eternity of happiness rather than an eternity of suffering.
2) I cannot as of yet wrap my head around returning to nothingness. Just in the same way that it hurts my brain to think that once there was nothing, and then all of a sudden there was something. I don't want my accumulation of experiences to end upon death. I just can't get past it.
3) Finally, and this ties in with number 1, is that being a Christian is not a suffering experience. At least not in North America. The only thing that I would struggle with is premarital sex. Every other commandment or teaching within in the bible is already followed by most people trying to live their lives. There's really no down side to being a Christian. Every person that has gotten to know me hasn't been affected by my Christian status. It's never hindered me in relationships of any kind, in any way. A lot of people liken a belief in God to a belief in santa, or the tooth fairy. I personally see no harm in a grown man who believes in santa or the tooth fairy. If you simply believe what you believe what you believe without trying to force others to believe it, most people respect you for it. Even if they don't agree with you.
Anyway I'm really enjoying the different discussions in this thread so far, just thought I'd throw down where I'm at.
I had this dilema once, but I did not just get safe with it. I resulted to "pimp my God" Started customizing him saying hmm my God would probably happy if I am happy. But I am not happy kneeling or going to church so my "God" would understand if I don't go to church and do "christian" stuff. But then I realized.. hey I just made an imaginary friend.. then I said screw this.
I just don't believe in it to be safe, don't you have any problems with going christian? Don't you feel the guild everytime you commit "sin" or not follow the christian things? Doesn't it hinder you life? Also the point that what if christianity is not the "right" religion? What if the real god is Odin? What if the xelnaga made us?
I have a suggestion, try to soft launch it, try to not believe in a month. You will notice you would feel lighter, free. No more guilts of nonsense, no hindrance, no stupid rules to follow.
I did the same thing when I was struggling with my faith. Of course he'd be fine with me not going to church, the circumstances were against me with working 2 jobs. In fact this is the argument I use with my mom when she tells me she's sad that I don't believe: "I imagine God to be a pretty cool dude, if he does exist. Now, I act as a good person for worldly reasons, rather than because he says so. If God were to send me, a great person, to hell because I simply don't believe in him, and ignoring every good deed and all the good aspects of my life, God would be kind of an asshole. My vision, if God exists, is that he's a cool guy, he'll see this and accept me into heaven regardless of my belief in him". This will sooth my mom temporarily.
Just don't label yourself as an atheist. But no reason to lie to yourself about his existence.
I'm atheist mostly because I'm curious, to go back to the OP's question.
I went to catholic grade school, an all boys catholic high school, and a state university. I'd say around age 13-14 I began to really doubt the existence of God. It's quite interest to think about for me, honestly. You see as a catholic student, religion is interspersed in many courses. I'm from the deep south where 90% of the people around me behave and think a certain way. Catholicism is much more of a heritage than a fundamental truth.
None of my teachers, sometimes brothers or priests, would ever go about explaining Catholicism based on logic or reasoning. I'm the kid who had a woodburning set, a chemistry set, took part in science fair's and math competitions. I loved to read and learn more about what the world is really like. I can distinctly remember a Civics class and World History class taught by the same vice principal, Brother Barry. He was a fantastic professor, taught me a tremendous amount about what came before me and what else was out there in the world. It sort of sparked my curiosity to question my teachers at that time about what I was being taught by my parents which seemed to conflict with my school lessons.
Slowly I began to come to the realization that it was much more likely that the stories in the Bible were exaggerations meant to teach lessons and mold behaviors. Did the whale really swallow someone? Was there really a flood for 40 days? There couldn't actually be two of *every* animal on a boat. There were obviously benefits for the different nationalities and cultures that had religious beliefs to help shape their moral landscapes. At least I thought so, back then.
Eventually though, the more I learned about the world and the behaviors of humans - the more I saw that just because someone claimed to be catholic did not mean that they followed catholic teachings. I analyzed things like the fact that if I was born in India or China or Iraq or Israel or even the northern US vs. southern US, I likely would have had a completely different set of cultural and religious beliefs. What about the fact that religion becomes a tool to justify behaviors that otherwise cannot be rationalized? Suicide bombers, for instance, are justified in killing themselves because of their belief that they will be rewarded in the afterlife for their deeds.
By the time I was out of college, it really just coalesced into a very solid mental state where I'm supremely confident that religion does more to destabilize humankind's hope for survival in the long run than just about anything else. I'm not the type of person to try to attack other people for their beliefs, but I can't help but find staunchly religious people mildly repulsive at this point. Our understandings of the universe are not remotely complete, but the leap from "I don't understand" to "I need to fill in this gap in knowledge by creating a possible explanation" is too far.
for having a degree in physics your knowledge of evolution is piss poor
...
Evolution is primarily covered by the study of biology, not physics.
This excuses his statements how, exactly?
You don't need to be a biology major to understand basic facets of science. In fact, you don't even need to be a scientist to understand basic facets of science.
The fact that he has a physics degree and is so horribly wrong on basic scientific knowledge is indicative that he either is lying about obtaining his degree or that he did not really learn much science to begin with.
for having a degree in physics your knowledge of evolution is piss poor
...
Evolution is primarily covered by the study of biology, not physics.
This excuses his statements how, exactly?
You don't need to be a biology major to understand basic facets of science. In fact, you don't even need to be a scientist to understand basic facets of science.
The fact that he has a physics degree and is so horribly wrong on basic scientific knowledge is indicative that he either is lying about obtaining his degree or that he did not really learn much science to begin with.
Considering your dismissive and aggressive attitude given towards religion/religious people in this thread, I don't particularly want to argue with you as you'll most likely imply that I'm a liar, or stupid. However, I merely wanted to point out that it is entirely possible to have a degree in physics and not know the slightest thing about biology. Your response does nothing to change that.
for having a degree in physics your knowledge of evolution is piss poor
...
Evolution is primarily covered by the study of biology, not physics.
This excuses his statements how, exactly?
You don't need to be a biology major to understand basic facets of science. In fact, you don't even need to be a scientist to understand basic facets of science.
The fact that he has a physics degree and is so horribly wrong on basic scientific knowledge is indicative that he either is lying about obtaining his degree or that he did not really learn much science to begin with.
Considering your dismissive and aggressive attitude given towards religion/religious people in this thread, I don't particularly want to argue with you as you'll most likely imply that I'm a liar, or stupid. However, I merely wanted to point out that it is entirely possible to have a degree in physics and not know the slightest thing about biology. Your response does nothing to change that.
I am dismissive because there is no reason to take someone seriously when they make assertions about evolution without a shred of knowledge about the subject. Having a physics degree and not knowing high-school level biology is either a failure of the institution that gave him the degree or a failure on his own part to actually learn science.
This also does nothing to change the fact that he made this assertion with an air of confidence about knowing about evolution, which is clearly not true.
This kind of stuff is highly dangerous, and maybe to you I am being needlessly aggressive, but from my perspective this type of issue is incredibly important. Here in the United States we have enough religious fundamentalists who want to erase decades of scientific knowledge taught in high school biology classrooms and replace biology education focusing on evolution with a system that "teaches the controversy". It's absurd how much support this has.
When people like kerpal continue to misrepresent science, particularly issues that are contentious with the public, ignorance of the subject continues to fester very dangerous ideas that science is not as reliable as it actually is, which leads to poor decision making on the part of many voters and policy makers who consider these types of statements equally valid as those that actually represent science fairly and truly.
It's akin to the impact that climate change deniers have on climate policy, but arguably much worse, since the effects of misrepresenting basic scientific knowledge extend to the very core of a multitude of different public sectors.
On April 25 2013 00:27 kerpal wrote: Obviously just as a dog will not be able to understand using a stick to catch termites, a chimp will never understand quantum mechanics and humanity will never really understand anything of importance. Ultimately we're chimps poking the standard model with a supercollider and hoping we find termites. Or CP violation, I'm not fussed.
Obviously religion explains this because God makes the world, and humanity (whatever their origins) are chosen and special to him, and it is this belief which motivated people like Isaac Newton to seek to understand the world. If you believe there is no God, it is illogical to believe that science will ever come to any definite answer about anything. (Which is not to say that science can't provide us with a better standard of living, but again, that's just chimps and termites.)
On what do you base the bolded assertions?
What makes you think that we are inherently incapable of understanding 'anything of importance'?
dogs -> chimps -> humans may seem like a fine bit of conjured data to support your views, but as a physicist you should be aware that simply inventing an analogy, while perhaps making you sound like you know what you are talking about, doesn't actually prove anything.
Use actual evidence to back up your ideas...scientific method.
I mean yes, evolution got us here, but look at the leaps the human mind has brought about. Look at how we have harnessed evolution itself to create breeds of animals and plants that fit our needs and desires. We have built machines that 'think' for us. All this and you place limitations on us because your analogy says we can only be one intellectual step above our predecessors, and since they don't know the science behind capturing termites, we can't know 'anything of importance'.
This post was probably wasted on your tightly closed mind, but oh well, I'm just a chimp poking around for termites after all.
When people like kerpal continue to misrepresent science, particularly issues that are contentious with the public, ignorance of the subject continues to fester very dangerous ideas that science is not as reliable as it actually is, which leads to poor decision making on the part of many voters and policy makers who consider these types of statements equally valid as those that actually represent science fairly and truly.
You make it sound as if science is Science and Science is consistent, rarely argued over, never fails, and never changes. But in reality there is a lot of scientific debate over almost every aspect of science and scientific consensus regularly changes on important and minor issues. An example is dopamine. Scientific consensus on what dopamine is actually for in the brain has changed quite a lot in the past few years, and will probably continue to change. Scientific consensus doesn't imply scientific truth, just the current agreed opinion of the majority of scientists on a particular subject. You may find the book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn interesting, as it addresses the issue of paradigm shifts within the scientific community quite well.
On April 25 2013 00:27 kerpal wrote: Obviously just as a dog will not be able to understand using a stick to catch termites, a chimp will never understand quantum mechanics and humanity will never really understand anything of importance. Ultimately we're chimps poking the standard model with a supercollider and hoping we find termites. Or CP violation, I'm not fussed.
Obviously religion explains this because God makes the world, and humanity (whatever their origins) are chosen and special to him, and it is this belief which motivated people like Isaac Newton to seek to understand the world. If you believe there is no God, it is illogical to believe that science will ever come to any definite answer about anything. (Which is not to say that science can't provide us with a better standard of living, but again, that's just chimps and termites.)
On what do you base the bolded assertions?
What makes you think that we are inherently incapable of understanding 'anything of importance'?
dogs -> chimps -> humans may seem like a fine bit of conjured data to support your views, but as a physicist you should be aware that simply inventing an analogy, while perhaps making you sound like you know what you are talking about, doesn't actually prove anything.
Use actual evidence to back up your ideas...scientific method.
I mean yes, evolution got us here, but look at the leaps the human mind has brought about. Look at how we have harnessed evolution itself to create breeds of animals and plants that fit our needs and desires. We have built machines that 'think' for us. All this and you place limitations on us because your analogy says we can only be one intellectual step above our predecessors, and since they don't know the science behind capturing termites, we can't know 'anything of importance'.
This post was probably wasted on your tightly closed mind, but oh well, I'm just a chimp poking around for termites after all.
thanks for actually engaging with the arguement (genuine, not sarcasm!)
the analogy of chimps is meant to illustrate that the human mind is a product of a natural process, the same process that produced the intelligence we see in all other animals. I didn't feel that that needed evidence because... well, it's a pretty commonly held view. Would you disagree?
My position is that although we may be many steps beyond any other animal in our understanding (of science, I'm not even bringing God into this) we have no confidence in our conclusions because there is no evidence or argument that suggests that the human brain is capable of understanding the universe.
To put it another way: many many people have posted in this thread that they logically disproved God's existance, but what right have they to put their confidence in human logic? The human brain is (as I've said) the product of natural forces, working through chance, why should I believe that it is capable of truly understanding logic? Why should our logic be correct in the conclusions we come to?
I mean yes, evolution got us here, but look at the leaps the human mind has brought about. Look at how we have harnessed evolution itself to create breeds of animals and plants that fit our needs and desires. We have built machines that 'think' for us. All this and you place limitations on us because your analogy says we can only be one intellectual step above our predecessors, and since they don't know the science behind capturing termites, we can't know 'anything of importance'.
we can be as many steps above them as you like. We can do amazing and wonderful things which to us feel as if we're plumbing the depths of the universe (and don't get me wrong, i really think we are) but what in your view suggests that our understanding is not as fundamentally flawed as that of any other creature.
(and if someone says we're building computers to do our thinking for us, you have fundamentally misunderstood how computers are used in science)
On April 25 2013 17:23 kerpal wrote: My position is that although we may be many steps beyond any other animal in our understanding (of science, I'm not even bringing God into this) we have no confidence in our conclusions because there is no evidence or argument that suggests that the human brain is capable of understanding the universe.
Your whole argument is based on the idea that there's something beyond the universe as we humans understand it, so what we learn of the universe is meaningless, because it's not the "TRUE" universe, it's just the universe as we humans perceive it.
Fortunately though, whether that is true or not is completely irrelevant. If we can't perceive something, we can ignore it. Let's say the universe it a time-space loop and if you go too far in one direction, you end up where you started. However, this space-time loop is actually carried through space on the back of an infinitely big turtle. We as humans can never learn of this because anything we do will always be contained in the space-time loop. Again, fortunately for us, it doesn't matter. Since we can't perceive it, there's nothing useful coming out of knowing about it.
Even if we humans can't understand the real universe and are just looking for termites, these termites improve our quality of life and our understanding of our perceived universe... and that's all we need, it's in fact exactly what we need.
We can believe in a supernatural god, or we can disregard it. It doesn't affect us in any way and can't be proven or perceived, so it's completely irrelevant to our existence. Just like a human can laugh at a dog which doesn't understand how to get food out of a closed box, a higher being might laugh at us for not understanding the universe like they do... but it doesn't affect the dog when we laugh at it, and it shouldn't affect us that the higher being is laughing at us.
On April 25 2013 17:23 kerpal wrote: To put it another way: many many people have posted in this thread that they logically disproved God's existance, but what right have they to put their confidence in human logic? The human brain is (as I've said) the product of natural forces, working through chance, why should I believe that it is capable of truly understanding logic? Why should our logic be correct in the conclusions we come to?
As a continuation of my previous post: our logic is correct because it was defined by humans and it only has to be correct for us. An imagined higher being might disagree with our logic, but then he's obviously using his own logic which doesn't matter to us.
It's like the argument "What if 1+1 isn't actually 2, what if our logic is wrong?". Well, it can't be wrong because it's true by definition which is all that matters. Unless you change the definition of 1, 2, + and =, 1 + 1 = 2 is true and, by definition, HAS to be true. A higher being could say "Well, there's this situation on the other side of the universe where 1+1=2½", but we could tell him right away that he's wrong, because his concept of 1, or what 1 is in that side of the universe, is not what we define as 1, it's not included in our definition.
Which is to say that humanity is only capable of knowing what we have defined. But we didn't invent the universe, so surely it is beyond our definitions. Your argument works well for pure math, which is a human construct, but what about the application of that in science?
You say our logic only has to be good enough for us, but we're trying to understand things beyond ourselves with that logic.
The "God of the gaps" is such a vulgar and asinine concept. It's the ultimate straw grasping technique. Of course our reason is limited, and of course our modern natural sciences have their own metaphysical presuppositions that underlie their method (regardless of whether or not the scientists admit it or not - although Feynman was wrong and Feyerabend was right about the nature of the discipline of science, Feynman was right in that scientists don't really need to know about the metaphysical presuppositions in order to engage in scientific study). But at absolutely no point does the limits of our understanding lead us to a god or some kind of ultimate first principle or some teleological end.
On April 25 2013 19:03 kerpal wrote: Which is to say that humanity is only capable of knowing what we have defined. But we didn't invent the universe, so surely it is beyond our definitions. Your argument works well for pure math, which is a human construct, but what about the application of that in science?
You say our logic only has to be good enough for us, but we're trying to understand things beyond ourselves with that logic.
No, we're not trying to understand what's beyond us. We're trying to understand the parts which aren't beyond us, because the other parts are irrelevant. The scientific method depends on us being able to test our theories, we can't do that if it's not testable... which is why you don't have scientists trying to prove/disprove god, because it's irrelevant.
Think about gravity. We don't know exactly how gravity works, and we certainly don't know WHY it works... but that's not relevant. All we want is the simplest theory which doesn't have any glaring errors. Is space curved? Are there some form of graviton particles? If we can find out, that's great, but if we can't, that's fine as well, as long as our predictions hold. As long as 100% of our predictions work out, it doesn't matter if we work on the assumption that space is curved in a way we can't perceive it even though there's actually some other impercievable effect at hand; for all intents and purposes, our theory is true.
But the predictions we make and the theories from which we make them are only ever a product of our own constructed thoughts. Understanding the universe is understanding things outside of our thoughts and constructions, so your 1+1=2 example only works because we have defined every part of the equation. When you talk about electrons or even gravitons then we are dealing with what is actually there, not what we have defined.
Also the gravity as you have stated it is a direct parallel to my example of chimps and termites. And reduces science to something that can make our lives more pleasant, but has no business talking about what is or isn't ACTUALLY true, which I don't think many scientists would be pleased with.
Koreasilver this is not "God of the gaps" this is an inherent contradiction within the humanist worldview. Perhaps you could all help me find its resolution.
On April 25 2013 20:10 kerpal wrote: But the predictions we make and the theories from which we make them are only ever a product of our own constructed thoughts. Understanding the universe is understanding things outside of our thoughts and constructions, so your 1+1=2 example only works because we have defined every part of the equation. When you talk about electrons or even gravitons then we are dealing with what is actually there, not what we have defined.
Also the gravity as you have stated it is a direct parallel to my example of chimps and termites. And reduces science to something that can make our lives more pleasant, but has no business talking about what is or isn't ACTUALLY true, which I don't think many scientists would be pleased with.
Koreasilver this is not "God of the gaps" this is an inherent contradiction within the humanist worldview. Perhaps you could all help me find its resolution.
But that is exactly what scientists are doing. Whether or not our truth is the actual absolute truth or something we only perceive as true, is a philosophical question, it doesn't matter to the science at hand. Maybe electrons, as we perceive them, do not exist. However, everything we perceive indicates they do and that lets us do amazing predictions. So we simply assume it's true and go from there.
You say "has no business talking about what is or isn't ACTUALLY true", but what is "ACTUALLY true"? If humans can't perceive it, it is once again not relevant, so it doesn't matter if it's "ACTUALLY" true or not, it's true for us which is all that matters.
When people like kerpal continue to misrepresent science, particularly issues that are contentious with the public, ignorance of the subject continues to fester very dangerous ideas that science is not as reliable as it actually is, which leads to poor decision making on the part of many voters and policy makers who consider these types of statements equally valid as those that actually represent science fairly and truly.
You make it sound as if science is Science and Science is consistent, rarely argued over, never fails, and never changes. But in reality there is a lot of scientific debate over almost every aspect of science and scientific consensus regularly changes on important and minor issues. An example is dopamine. Scientific consensus on what dopamine is actually for in the brain has changed quite a lot in the past few years, and will probably continue to change. Scientific consensus doesn't imply scientific truth, just the current agreed opinion of the majority of scientists on a particular subject. You may find the book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn interesting, as it addresses the issue of paradigm shifts within the scientific community quite well.
What does this post have to do with anything I've said so far? I'm not denying that science changes, I'm denying that his points have any worth to them because they are completely unfounded.
Science is debated and argued over when a side has evidence for a disagreement. Kerpal has no evidence for any of his assertions, and I seriously doubt you'd find a single scientist who would actually agree with what he said. Science doesn't work that way-you need empirical evidence before you can be taken seriously when you challenge a long-held consensus, because a mountain of evidence exists for that consensus.
This is why the actions of many conservatives in the U.S. when it comes to science education are so dangerous. They are threatening the replacement of science with nonscience (i.e. creationism) using arguments as silly as yours: "science can fail and can change therefore we should teach the controversy." Just because the first part is true it does NOT mean we should teach psuedoscience.
On April 25 2013 19:19 koreasilver wrote: But at absolutely no point does the limits of our understanding lead us to a god or some kind of ultimate first principle or some teleological end.
sure it does.
Why did the Egyptians and Aztecs and Incas worship the sun?
Because it brought them prosperity and they didn't know why-they assumed it had to do with a higher power. Of course, when an eclipse or something like that occurred, they assumed they had done something terrible to deserve the misfortune, and tried to repent through sacrifice, at least in the case of the Incas.
We know now much more about the sun, enough to understand why it rises everyday. You're not likely to see a religion based on sun worship anymore.
Why did Christianity assume earth was at the center of the universe? Or that the sun orbited around the Earth? Or that the Earth is flat? Or that the Earth is 6000 years old? Plenty of people looked toward religion for these things because it purported to have the answers. Now we don't look to religion for any of these things because science contradicts them, with evidence. There are plenty of practical applications of this knowledge that we use everyday that underline the scientific truth behind them.
Why are less people religious now than at any point in our past? Again, probably because of the proliferation of knowledge, rational thinking, and science. People don't have to cling to unfounded beliefs to understand the world around them if they can use logic, reasoning, and a mountain of evidence through science that is based on a reliable and easily understandable methodology.
On April 25 2013 21:56 wherebugsgo wrote: Or that the Earth is flat?
It's actually a myth (and a widespread one at that) that historically christians (or any people at all really) widely believed the earth was flat. Since antiquity it has been known that the world is spherical, and there were only a vocal minority at various points in time claiming the earth was flat.
On April 25 2013 21:56 wherebugsgo wrote: Or that the Earth is flat?
It's actually a myth (and a widespread one at that) that historically christians (or any people at all really) widely believed the earth was flat. Since antiquity it has been known that the world is spherical, and there were only a vocal minority at various points in time claiming the earth was flat.
not according to the Bible-the Bible states numerous times that the world has corners.
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 completely absurd. Countless philosophers from Kant to J.S. Mill and all the way around the block and back have given fantastic moral theories that do not rely on religion. Religion is hardly necessary for morality and those that claim that it is tend to be acting out fear of religion becoming obsolete.
On topic, I was raised in a household devoid of religion (or anti-religion). My dad turned out to be an atheist and my mom a modest agnostic. However, my community was incredibly Christian. I wasn't really forced to confront religion and make a choice until later in high school, when my critical thinking skills actually developed to some modest extent, and by that point, it was incredibly obvious that Christianity had the ugly fingerprints of human influence all over it. It is simply implausible to think that the Bible and Christianity are works of God when they are so full of hatred, error, and hubris. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised or offended in any way if God existed; it could be possible, even if science explains everything we know so far. I just think that to claim that God works through organized religion is absolutely ridiculous.
being an atheist is pretty normal, most people grow out of it by the time they are capable of thinking for themself
Northern Europe is in the EXTREME minority. The vast, vast majority of every other part of the world is religious, and the U.S. is one of the most religious places out there.
On April 25 2013 20:10 kerpal wrote: But the predictions we make and the theories from which we make them are only ever a product of our own constructed thoughts. Understanding the universe is understanding things outside of our thoughts and constructions, so your 1+1=2 example only works because we have defined every part of the equation. When you talk about electrons or even gravitons then we are dealing with what is actually there, not what we have defined.
Also the gravity as you have stated it is a direct parallel to my example of chimps and termites. And reduces science to something that can make our lives more pleasant, but has no business talking about what is or isn't ACTUALLY true, which I don't think many scientists would be pleased with.
Koreasilver this is not "God of the gaps" this is an inherent contradiction within the humanist worldview. Perhaps you could all help me find its resolution.
Humanism has its own cracks since it is the offspring of the Enlightenment, which was thoroughly coloured by deism of varying sorts, and the liberal Protestantism that began with the 19th century. If you really think about it, secularism is grounded by the Protestant separation of the church and state. But the inherent problems within humanism still does not lead us to any kind of god or the divine or some first principle or a final end (which is what you have implicitly been attempting to salvage and what else is this besides some hackneyed apologia for a god that is identified between the gaps?). Furthermore, humanism is not synonymous with atheism either, so the entire conversation you've been having is flawed. As for "truth", you're trying to have a conversation about realism vs. anti-realism which also isn't directly about a conversation about a god, the absence of a god, or otherwise. That is strictly a philosophical problem.
edit: and it is extremely cringe-worthy to say that Kant didn't rely on Christianity even for his seemingly secularist morality. He was one of the great defenders of the faith during his time as much as he was a great critic of it (if anything he was one of the figures that laid the intellectual ground for Kierkegaard). There's a reason why Nietzsche said that German thinking was thoroughly permeated by theology - he was pointing most directly at Kant. If we are to continue with Nietzsche's critique of theology and the underlying theological thinking that underpins Western thinking, then most of our modern day Western atheists are still pseudo-Christians. "Atheist only in name" as Nietzsche said.
edit: But yes, it must be said that even morality is not synonymous with religion, and faith-in-itself is not about morality. The biggest issue with much of Christianity, be it conservative or liberal, is that faith and the religion has been reduced into morality. This is hilarious for the conservatives because despite all their rhetoric it just reflects that they are completely mired into the liberal Protestantism of Schleiermacher.
On April 25 2013 21:56 wherebugsgo wrote: Or that the Earth is flat?
It's actually a myth (and a widespread one at that) that historically christians (or any people at all really) widely believed the earth was flat. Since antiquity it has been known that the world is spherical, and there were only a vocal minority at various points in time claiming the earth was flat.
not according to the Bible-the Bible states numerous times that the world has corners.
hahahahahahahahahaha
OK so in English whenever people say "I've been to the four corners of the earth" we're referring to the literal corners of the earth and we believe that the earth is a flat plane? hahahhaha that made my day.
On April 22 2013 23:16 Tyrran wrote: I grew up religious.
I always had a huge interest in science, math, physics and all this neat kind of stuff. When i was 14 or so, i decided that science was incompatible with religion and decided to become an atheist.
I then learned that it is not true at all, that the bible is not supposed to be a science book, but instead to convey a message, and that science and religion complement each other nicely. I learned that religion is not a set of rule, but instead a guide to help you make your own decision. So I went back to being a Christian.
On April 25 2013 21:56 wherebugsgo wrote: Or that the Earth is flat?
It's actually a myth (and a widespread one at that) that historically christians (or any people at all really) widely believed the earth was flat. Since antiquity it has been known that the world is spherical, and there were only a vocal minority at various points in time claiming the earth was flat.
not according to the Bible-the Bible states numerous times that the world has corners.
hahahahahahahahahaha
OK so in English whenever people say "I've been to the four corners of the earth" we're referring to the literal corners of the earth and we believe that the earth is a flat plane? hahahhaha that made my day.
Exactly, everything wrong in the bible is just being misinterpreted. You gotta understand that if it makes sense it's the word of god, if it's wrong silly atheists are not understanding it right. These idiots don't attend our bible studies, we actually know how to read it properly.
On April 25 2013 21:56 wherebugsgo wrote: Or that the Earth is flat?
It's actually a myth (and a widespread one at that) that historically christians (or any people at all really) widely believed the earth was flat. Since antiquity it has been known that the world is spherical, and there were only a vocal minority at various points in time claiming the earth was flat.
not according to the Bible-the Bible states numerous times that the world has corners.
hahahahahahahahahaha
OK so in English whenever people say "I've been to the four corners of the earth" we're referring to the literal corners of the earth and we believe that the earth is a flat plane? hahahhaha that made my day.
Exactly, everything wrong in the bible is just being misinterpreted. You gotta understand that if it makes sense it's the word of god, if it's wrong silly atheists are not understanding it right. These idiots don't attend our bible studies, we actually know how to read it properly.
I'm not sure if this is a troll post or what. You don't know how to read the bible properly, because you aren't reading the bible. Unless you read Aramaic or perhaps Ancient Greek, and somehow can get your hands on an original copy or a copy that is known to be uncorrupted (which doesn't exist) you are reading a heavily edited, translated, and mutated version of the original text. Which is of course, the infallible word of god (it just needed editing, because it was too infallible).
The four corners thing was dumb on his part, but there are plenty of things in the bible that don't make a lick of sense. Including:
1. Virgins having babies 2. People walking on water 3. Various "miracle" healings
These things don't make sense because they can't happen. "Miracle" is not an answer. Miracles don't exist. And if your "evidence" for miracles is your heavily edited, translated, and mutated bible, then I seriously question your intelligence.
On April 25 2013 21:56 wherebugsgo wrote: Or that the Earth is flat?
It's actually a myth (and a widespread one at that) that historically christians (or any people at all really) widely believed the earth was flat. Since antiquity it has been known that the world is spherical, and there were only a vocal minority at various points in time claiming the earth was flat.
not according to the Bible-the Bible states numerous times that the world has corners.
hahahahahahahahahaha
OK so in English whenever people say "I've been to the four corners of the earth" we're referring to the literal corners of the earth and we believe that the earth is a flat plane? hahahhaha that made my day.
Exactly, everything wrong in the bible is just being misinterpreted. You gotta understand that if it makes sense it's the word of god, if it's wrong silly atheists are not understanding it right. These idiots don't attend our bible studies, we actually know how to read it properly.
I'm not sure if this is a troll post or what. You don't know how to read the bible properly, because you aren't reading the bible. Unless you read Aramaic or perhaps Ancient Greek, and somehow can get your hands on an original copy or a copy that is known to be uncorrupted (which doesn't exist) you are reading a heavily edited, translated, and mutated version of the original text. Which is of course, the infallible word of god (it just needed editing, because it was too infallible).
The four corners thing was dumb on his part, but there are plenty of things in the bible that don't make a lick of sense. Including:
1. Virgins having babies 2. People walking on water 3. Various "miracle" healings
These things don't make sense because they can't happen. "Miracle" is not an answer. Miracles don't exist. And if your "evidence" for miracles is your heavily edited, translated, and mutated bible, then I seriously question your intelligence.
It wasn't dumb on my part.
If I were wrong there wouldn't be entire sects of Christianity devoted to literal Bible interpretation. Just google flat Earthists, or young Earth creationists. These people actually exist. You know how I know? I've met at least a dozen of them personally!
The Midwest is full of evangelical fundies. Many of them really do take the Bible literally. In fact, there are probably more of them than atheists in this country. Many of the Christians who have posted in this thread are exceedingly liberal in comparison.
Fundamentalism is a very modern invention within the history of Christian thought. It's interesting that Augustine stressed in his The Literal Meaning of Genesis that it would be an error to read the Genesis creation account as taking place over a literal seven days. Many Christians did continue to think that the world was 6000ish years old well into the 19th century but scientific discovery into archaeology was very primitive. Fundamentalism is a misnomer really, as they have the pretense of being some original, untainted, "fundamental" form of Christianity when they are a very modern invention that doesn't quite square up to the early church patriarchs, the middle age scholastics, or the development of Protestant thought in Europe into modern times.
I certainly am not a liberal theologically. I am quite orthodox for the most part.
On April 25 2013 21:56 wherebugsgo wrote: Or that the Earth is flat?
It's actually a myth (and a widespread one at that) that historically christians (or any people at all really) widely believed the earth was flat. Since antiquity it has been known that the world is spherical, and there were only a vocal minority at various points in time claiming the earth was flat.
not according to the Bible-the Bible states numerous times that the world has corners.
hahahahahahahahahaha
OK so in English whenever people say "I've been to the four corners of the earth" we're referring to the literal corners of the earth and we believe that the earth is a flat plane? hahahhaha that made my day.
Exactly, everything wrong in the bible is just being misinterpreted. You gotta understand that if it makes sense it's the word of god, if it's wrong silly atheists are not understanding it right. These idiots don't attend our bible studies, we actually know how to read it properly.
I'm not sure if this is a troll post or what. You don't know how to read the bible properly, because you aren't reading the bible. Unless you read Aramaic or perhaps Ancient Greek, and somehow can get your hands on an original copy or a copy that is known to be uncorrupted (which doesn't exist) you are reading a heavily edited, translated, and mutated version of the original text. Which is of course, the infallible word of god (it just needed editing, because it was too infallible).
The four corners thing was dumb on his part, but there are plenty of things in the bible that don't make a lick of sense. Including:
1. Virgins having babies 2. People walking on water 3. Various "miracle" healings
These things don't make sense because they can't happen. "Miracle" is not an answer. Miracles don't exist. And if your "evidence" for miracles is your heavily edited, translated, and mutated bible, then I seriously question your intelligence.
It wasn't dumb on my part.
If I were wrong there wouldn't be entire sects of Christianity devoted to literal Bible interpretation. Just google flat Earthists, or young Earth creationists. These people actually exist. You know how I know? I've met at least a dozen of them personally!
The Midwest is full of evangelical fundies. Many of them really do take the Bible literally. In fact, there are probably more of them than atheists in this country. Many of the Christians who have posted in this thread are exceedingly liberal in comparison.
Just as someone who studies ancient history, I'd wager there are more people who believe the earth is flat now than there were pre-1900.
The guy was right, the whole idea of a "flat earth" is a pretty modern invention. Every time I see people in an ancient context reference the world/earth, they do so in an orb/sphere (in latin they would call it terra orbis). Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth fairly accurated back in the 3rd century BC. Now that I think about it, I've never actually seen anyone reference the earth as flat in a sense that they actually believe it was flat (in an ancient context).
I'm sure somewhere out there in the past there were people who honestly believed the earth was flat, but they are by far the exception. Even in the common parlance of the time, the earth was always a sphere (even if they had the geography wrong).
On April 25 2013 21:56 wherebugsgo wrote: Or that the Earth is flat?
It's actually a myth (and a widespread one at that) that historically christians (or any people at all really) widely believed the earth was flat. Since antiquity it has been known that the world is spherical, and there were only a vocal minority at various points in time claiming the earth was flat.
not according to the Bible-the Bible states numerous times that the world has corners.
hahahahahahahahahaha
OK so in English whenever people say "I've been to the four corners of the earth" we're referring to the literal corners of the earth and we believe that the earth is a flat plane? hahahhaha that made my day.
Exactly, everything wrong in the bible is just being misinterpreted. You gotta understand that if it makes sense it's the word of god, if it's wrong silly atheists are not understanding it right. These idiots don't attend our bible studies, we actually know how to read it properly.
I'm not sure if this is a troll post or what. You don't know how to read the bible properly, because you aren't reading the bible. Unless you read Aramaic or perhaps Ancient Greek, and somehow can get your hands on an original copy or a copy that is known to be uncorrupted (which doesn't exist) you are reading a heavily edited, translated, and mutated version of the original text. Which is of course, the infallible word of god (it just needed editing, because it was too infallible).
The four corners thing was dumb on his part, but there are plenty of things in the bible that don't make a lick of sense. Including:
1. Virgins having babies 2. People walking on water 3. Various "miracle" healings
These things don't make sense because they can't happen. "Miracle" is not an answer. Miracles don't exist. And if your "evidence" for miracles is your heavily edited, translated, and mutated bible, then I seriously question your intelligence.
It wasn't dumb on my part.
If I were wrong there wouldn't be entire sects of Christianity devoted to literal Bible interpretation. Just google flat Earthists, or young Earth creationists. These people actually exist. You know how I know? I've met at least a dozen of them personally!
The Midwest is full of evangelical fundies. Many of them really do take the Bible literally. In fact, there are probably more of them than atheists in this country. Many of the Christians who have posted in this thread are exceedingly liberal in comparison.
Just as someone who studies ancient history, I'd wager there are more people who believe the earth is flat now than there were pre-1900.
The guy was right, the whole idea of a "flat earth" is a pretty modern invention. Every time I see people in an ancient context reference the world/earth, they do so in an orb/sphere (in latin they would call it terra orbis). Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth fairly accurated back in the 3rd century BC. Now that I think about it, I've never actually seen anyone reference the earth as flat in a sense that they actually believe it was flat (in an ancient context).
I'm sure somewhere out there in the past there were people who honestly believed the earth was flat, but they are by far the exception. Even in the common parlance of the time, the earth was always a sphere (even if they had the geography wrong).
It was very ill-informed on your part.
How is it ill informed? It's not wrong. People use the Bible for justification of these ideas. Whether or not it is more popular today is irrelevant and honestly almost impossible to prove.
If the Bible is being used as justification for these ideas now it's not that far fetched to expect that it could have been used as justification for it in the past. That's been true for geocentrism and ideas about the Earth being a fixture in the universe, and both of those things today are considered "literal" interpretations of passages that are simply "metaphorical" in nature, according to modern Christian apologists.
Anyway, the philosophers you are referencing are Greek. By the 3rd century AD the knowledge was widespread among Christian leaders, but the only real information we have are from people who were actually literate at the time. In fact, there are figures who still probably held that the Earth was flat (Christians at that) even into the 7th century. An example is this guy:
On April 25 2013 21:56 wherebugsgo wrote: Or that the Earth is flat?
It's actually a myth (and a widespread one at that) that historically christians (or any people at all really) widely believed the earth was flat. Since antiquity it has been known that the world is spherical, and there were only a vocal minority at various points in time claiming the earth was flat.
not according to the Bible-the Bible states numerous times that the world has corners.
hahahahahahahahahaha
OK so in English whenever people say "I've been to the four corners of the earth" we're referring to the literal corners of the earth and we believe that the earth is a flat plane? hahahhaha that made my day.
Exactly, everything wrong in the bible is just being misinterpreted. You gotta understand that if it makes sense it's the word of god, if it's wrong silly atheists are not understanding it right. These idiots don't attend our bible studies, we actually know how to read it properly.
I'm not sure if this is a troll post or what. You don't know how to read the bible properly, because you aren't reading the bible. Unless you read Aramaic or perhaps Ancient Greek, and somehow can get your hands on an original copy or a copy that is known to be uncorrupted (which doesn't exist) you are reading a heavily edited, translated, and mutated version of the original text. Which is of course, the infallible word of god (it just needed editing, because it was too infallible).
The four corners thing was dumb on his part, but there are plenty of things in the bible that don't make a lick of sense. Including:
1. Virgins having babies 2. People walking on water 3. Various "miracle" healings
These things don't make sense because they can't happen. "Miracle" is not an answer. Miracles don't exist. And if your "evidence" for miracles is your heavily edited, translated, and mutated bible, then I seriously question your intelligence.
It wasn't dumb on my part.
If I were wrong there wouldn't be entire sects of Christianity devoted to literal Bible interpretation. Just google flat Earthists, or young Earth creationists. These people actually exist. You know how I know? I've met at least a dozen of them personally!
The Midwest is full of evangelical fundies. Many of them really do take the Bible literally. In fact, there are probably more of them than atheists in this country. Many of the Christians who have posted in this thread are exceedingly liberal in comparison.
Just as someone who studies ancient history, I'd wager there are more people who believe the earth is flat now than there were pre-1900.
The guy was right, the whole idea of a "flat earth" is a pretty modern invention. Every time I see people in an ancient context reference the world/earth, they do so in an orb/sphere (in latin they would call it terra orbis). Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth fairly accurated back in the 3rd century BC. Now that I think about it, I've never actually seen anyone reference the earth as flat in a sense that they actually believe it was flat (in an ancient context).
I'm sure somewhere out there in the past there were people who honestly believed the earth was flat, but they are by far the exception. Even in the common parlance of the time, the earth was always a sphere (even if they had the geography wrong).
It was very ill-informed on your part.
How is it ill informed? It's not wrong. People use the Bible for justification of these ideas. Whether or not it is more popular today is irrelevant and honestly almost impossible to prove.
If the Bible is being used as justification for these ideas now it's not that far fetched to expect that it could have been used as justification for it in the past. That's been true for geocentrism and ideas about the Earth being a fixture in the universe, and both of those things today are considered "literal" interpretations of passages that are simply "metaphorical" in nature, according to modern Christian apologists.
Anyway, the philosophers you are referencing are Greek. By the 3rd century AD the knowledge was widespread among Christian leaders, but the only real information we have are from people who were actually literate at the time. In fact, there are figures who still probably held that the Earth was flat (Christians at that) even into the 7th century. An example is this guy:
His encyclopedia taught a view widely interpreted as the Earth being circular, but flat.
So again, I am not ill informed. You're making assumptions and not providing your sources. Not my problem there.
I gave you a source that proves the ancient world knew the world was round. Where are you getting that Isidore of Seville taught the earth was flat?
A TO map is still around earth. In fact, that is why you see all those images of people holding orbs with the cross coming out of the top, that is the earth. Again, the geography is inaccurate, but they still think of the earth as round.
On April 25 2013 21:56 wherebugsgo wrote: Or that the Earth is flat?
It's actually a myth (and a widespread one at that) that historically christians (or any people at all really) widely believed the earth was flat. Since antiquity it has been known that the world is spherical, and there were only a vocal minority at various points in time claiming the earth was flat.
not according to the Bible-the Bible states numerous times that the world has corners.
hahahahahahahahahaha
OK so in English whenever people say "I've been to the four corners of the earth" we're referring to the literal corners of the earth and we believe that the earth is a flat plane? hahahhaha that made my day.
Exactly, everything wrong in the bible is just being misinterpreted. You gotta understand that if it makes sense it's the word of god, if it's wrong silly atheists are not understanding it right. These idiots don't attend our bible studies, we actually know how to read it properly.
I'm not sure if this is a troll post or what. You don't know how to read the bible properly, because you aren't reading the bible. Unless you read Aramaic or perhaps Ancient Greek, and somehow can get your hands on an original copy or a copy that is known to be uncorrupted (which doesn't exist) you are reading a heavily edited, translated, and mutated version of the original text. Which is of course, the infallible word of god (it just needed editing, because it was too infallible).
The four corners thing was dumb on his part, but there are plenty of things in the bible that don't make a lick of sense. Including:
1. Virgins having babies 2. People walking on water 3. Various "miracle" healings
These things don't make sense because they can't happen. "Miracle" is not an answer. Miracles don't exist. And if your "evidence" for miracles is your heavily edited, translated, and mutated bible, then I seriously question your intelligence.
It wasn't dumb on my part.
If I were wrong there wouldn't be entire sects of Christianity devoted to literal Bible interpretation. Just google flat Earthists, or young Earth creationists. These people actually exist. You know how I know? I've met at least a dozen of them personally!
The Midwest is full of evangelical fundies. Many of them really do take the Bible literally. In fact, there are probably more of them than atheists in this country. Many of the Christians who have posted in this thread are exceedingly liberal in comparison.
Just as someone who studies ancient history, I'd wager there are more people who believe the earth is flat now than there were pre-1900.
The guy was right, the whole idea of a "flat earth" is a pretty modern invention. Every time I see people in an ancient context reference the world/earth, they do so in an orb/sphere (in latin they would call it terra orbis). Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth fairly accurated back in the 3rd century BC. Now that I think about it, I've never actually seen anyone reference the earth as flat in a sense that they actually believe it was flat (in an ancient context).
I'm sure somewhere out there in the past there were people who honestly believed the earth was flat, but they are by far the exception. Even in the common parlance of the time, the earth was always a sphere (even if they had the geography wrong).
It was very ill-informed on your part.
How is it ill informed? It's not wrong. People use the Bible for justification of these ideas. Whether or not it is more popular today is irrelevant and honestly almost impossible to prove.
If the Bible is being used as justification for these ideas now it's not that far fetched to expect that it could have been used as justification for it in the past. That's been true for geocentrism and ideas about the Earth being a fixture in the universe, and both of those things today are considered "literal" interpretations of passages that are simply "metaphorical" in nature, according to modern Christian apologists.
Anyway, the philosophers you are referencing are Greek. By the 3rd century AD the knowledge was widespread among Christian leaders, but the only real information we have are from people who were actually literate at the time. In fact, there are figures who still probably held that the Earth was flat (Christians at that) even into the 7th century. An example is this guy:
His encyclopedia taught a view widely interpreted as the Earth being circular, but flat.
So again, I am not ill informed. You're making assumptions and not providing your sources. Not my problem there.
I gave you a source that proves the ancient world knew the world was round. Where are you getting that Isidore of Seville taught the earth was flat?
A TO map is still around earth. In fact, that is why you see all those images of people holding orbs with the cross coming out of the top, that is the earth. Again, the geography is inaccurate, but they still think of the earth as round.
Did you even read the wiki link I posted?
Earth being round does not exclude it from being flat. A circle is still flat.
Maybe this analogy will help clarify things:
saying that the most literate/educated people of the time believed in a spherical earth, therefore everyone did, is akin to saying that because a vast majority of the National Academy of Sciences would say they accept evolution, so do a majority of the public in the United States. Thanks to polling, we know that's false. What we know about ancient history through texts is essentially the view of the most educated people, not the common public.
Sure, classical philosophers in Greece and Rome agreed that the earth was not flat by around 300-400 BC. This is not readily apparent for Christians. Sure, some accepted a spherical earth, but there are some that didn't, too (like the view espoused in that encyclopedia)
On April 25 2013 21:56 wherebugsgo wrote: Or that the Earth is flat?
It's actually a myth (and a widespread one at that) that historically christians (or any people at all really) widely believed the earth was flat. Since antiquity it has been known that the world is spherical, and there were only a vocal minority at various points in time claiming the earth was flat.
not according to the Bible-the Bible states numerous times that the world has corners.
hahahahahahahahahaha
OK so in English whenever people say "I've been to the four corners of the earth" we're referring to the literal corners of the earth and we believe that the earth is a flat plane? hahahhaha that made my day.
Exactly, everything wrong in the bible is just being misinterpreted. You gotta understand that if it makes sense it's the word of god, if it's wrong silly atheists are not understanding it right. These idiots don't attend our bible studies, we actually know how to read it properly.
I'm not sure if this is a troll post or what. You don't know how to read the bible properly, because you aren't reading the bible. Unless you read Aramaic or perhaps Ancient Greek, and somehow can get your hands on an original copy or a copy that is known to be uncorrupted (which doesn't exist) you are reading a heavily edited, translated, and mutated version of the original text. Which is of course, the infallible word of god (it just needed editing, because it was too infallible).
The four corners thing was dumb on his part, but there are plenty of things in the bible that don't make a lick of sense. Including:
1. Virgins having babies 2. People walking on water 3. Various "miracle" healings
These things don't make sense because they can't happen. "Miracle" is not an answer. Miracles don't exist. And if your "evidence" for miracles is your heavily edited, translated, and mutated bible, then I seriously question your intelligence.
There is also "miracle" healings. Though it is not exactly what it says it is but there is such things. Even up till today, there are many who are "blind", cured by priests. If I remember correctly, the person is not blind in terms of biological issues but it is caused by psychological factors and thus can be cured by priests.
Personally I think most of the miracle healings are just psychological effects. hypnotize has achieved some really strange stuff as well such as the person has red marks over the part where he is hypnotized that that part is getting burned.
most people in here also thinks not christian = atheist. disproving christian bible doesn't make you one Atheist is basically a group that completely reject the idea of god. For myself, I don't believe in christian god but believe in a god who created everything.
On April 25 2013 21:56 wherebugsgo wrote: Or that the Earth is flat?
It's actually a myth (and a widespread one at that) that historically christians (or any people at all really) widely believed the earth was flat. Since antiquity it has been known that the world is spherical, and there were only a vocal minority at various points in time claiming the earth was flat.
not according to the Bible-the Bible states numerous times that the world has corners.
hahahahahahahahahaha
OK so in English whenever people say "I've been to the four corners of the earth" we're referring to the literal corners of the earth and we believe that the earth is a flat plane? hahahhaha that made my day.
Exactly, everything wrong in the bible is just being misinterpreted. You gotta understand that if it makes sense it's the word of god, if it's wrong silly atheists are not understanding it right. These idiots don't attend our bible studies, we actually know how to read it properly.
I'm not sure if this is a troll post or what. You don't know how to read the bible properly, because you aren't reading the bible. Unless you read Aramaic or perhaps Ancient Greek, and somehow can get your hands on an original copy or a copy that is known to be uncorrupted (which doesn't exist) you are reading a heavily edited, translated, and mutated version of the original text. Which is of course, the infallible word of god (it just needed editing, because it was too infallible).
The four corners thing was dumb on his part, but there are plenty of things in the bible that don't make a lick of sense. Including:
1. Virgins having babies 2. People walking on water 3. Various "miracle" healings
These things don't make sense because they can't happen. "Miracle" is not an answer. Miracles don't exist. And if your "evidence" for miracles is your heavily edited, translated, and mutated bible, then I seriously question your intelligence.
There is also "miracle" healings. Though it is not exactly what it says it is but there is such things. Even up till today, there are many who are "blind", cured by priests. If I remember correctly, the person is not blind in terms of biological issues but it is caused by psychological factors and thus can be cured by priests.
Personally I think most of the miracle healings are just psychological effects. hypnotize has achieved some really strange stuff as well such as the person has red marks over the part where he is hypnotized that that part is getting burned.
most people in here also thinks not christian = atheist. disproving christian bible doesn't make you one Atheist is basically a group that completely reject the idea of god. For myself, I don't believe in christian god but believe in a god who created everything.
The odds of becoming pregnant while being a virgin are slim at best and we're probably far slimmer in ancient times. As a girl, you pretty much need to sit smack dab on fresh sperm, without undergarments, and still have a ton of luck/bad luck. I don't know what Joseph was doing to Marias chairs, but yeah...
By my definitions, it's not a miracle healing if it's just the patient deciding to stop being sick. I mean, it's pretty cool that someone with psychological problems can be helped physically by a priest, but it's about as much "miracle healing" as placebo pills.
If you believe in god, you're a theist, regardless of actual religion. To call yourself an atheist, all you need to do is decide you're not a theist.
I do understand the difference between atheist and theist. Problem is that most people here how have rejected the idea of a Christian god and think of themselves as atheist, which I think is a bit reckless. I meant to say I am not christian but I am not Atheist earlier.
and yes you are right on those points. Just wanted to point out that those cases in bible is not completely mind blowingly impossible. I think most christians should put more doubt onto bible as well since Church has an enormous power to influence what is in the bible and what's not (in the ancient time anyway).
On April 26 2013 16:15 ETisME wrote: I do understand the difference between atheist and theist. Problem is that most people here how have rejected the idea of a Christian god and think of themselves as atheist, which I think is a bit reckless. I meant to say I am not christian but I am not Atheist earlier.
and yes you are right on those points. Just wanted to point out that those cases in bible is not completely mind blowingly impossible. I think most christians should put more doubt onto bible as well since Church has an enormous power to influence what is in the bible and what's not (in the ancient time anyway).
Yeah, I guess it's that most people here (as in, the west) have grown up with a christian god and are surrounded by christians. Once they realize they don't believe in the christian god, they see no reason why they should believe in any god, which is pretty indicative of atheist beliefs regardless.
Also, I honestly believe that god is a pretty "dumb" concept to most people. Not saying that theists are stupid, but I think inherently people have a pretty hard time putting faith in something like a god. What makes them do it is the religion surrounding it, which gives it validity. "It's kind of weird that an all-knowing benevolent being would just create us and watch us, but never interact... then again, I read in this 2000 year old book that he exists and all of my neighbours believe so.. yeah". So for a westerner, actively finding flaws in christianity is more "important" than trying to discuss the concept of a god, because there's already this innate doubt there.
the god concept in your case is a personalised god though which I am quite doubtful as well but I don't think it is dumb to believe in a "God", especially since the concept of "God" is kinda difficult to pinpoint.
On April 26 2013 12:57 koreasilver wrote: Fundamentalism is a very modern invention within the history of Christian thought. It's interesting that Augustine stressed in his The Literal Meaning of Genesis that it would be an error to read the Genesis creation account as taking place over a literal seven days. Many Christians did continue to think that the world was 6000ish years old well into the 19th century but scientific discovery into archaeology was very primitive. Fundamentalism is a misnomer really, as they have the pretense of being some original, untainted, "fundamental" form of Christianity when they are a very modern invention that doesn't quite square up to the early church patriarchs, the middle age scholastics, or the development of Protestant thought in Europe into modern times.
I certainly am not a liberal theologically. I am quite orthodox for the most part.
Augustine didn't think that the Genesis creation took 7 days, he thought it was instantaneous. That doesn't mean he thought the world was older than 6000 years or so (less at his time of course). And the reason he thought it was instantaneous was because in the Book of Sirach (not part of the Biblical canon, but held as inspired Scripture by the Catholic and Orthodox (capital O) churches) it says that God created all things at once, and at the time Augustine lived, the Catholic church was dominant. So he would have considered the Book of Sirach to be canonical, and in the light of it, decided that it was not 6 days that God created the world in, but in but a moment.
On April 26 2013 08:42 Barrin wrote: How did I come to not believe in the existence of gods or deities?
I'll spare you a book and just say: because that's the default position.
edit: Man that was anticlimactic, I was hoping for such a thread on TL for a long time.
It is my pleasure to accommodate that
I am really glad people are sharing their experiences and I don't mind the evolution of this discussion as well. So far it has stayed humanely as possible
On April 26 2013 12:57 koreasilver wrote: Fundamentalism is a very modern invention within the history of Christian thought. It's interesting that Augustine stressed in his The Literal Meaning of Genesis that it would be an error to read the Genesis creation account as taking place over a literal seven days. Many Christians did continue to think that the world was 6000ish years old well into the 19th century but scientific discovery into archaeology was very primitive. Fundamentalism is a misnomer really, as they have the pretense of being some original, untainted, "fundamental" form of Christianity when they are a very modern invention that doesn't quite square up to the early church patriarchs, the middle age scholastics, or the development of Protestant thought in Europe into modern times.
I certainly am not a liberal theologically. I am quite orthodox for the most part.
Augustine didn't think that the Genesis creation took 7 days, he thought it was instantaneous. That doesn't mean he thought the world was older than 6000 years or so (less at his time of course). And the reason he thought it was instantaneous was because in the Book of Sirach (not part of the Biblical canon, but held as inspired Scripture by the Catholic and Orthodox (capital O) churches) it says that God created all things at once, and at the time Augustine lived, the Catholic church was dominant. So he would have considered the Book of Sirach to be canonical, and in the light of it, decided that it was not 6 days that God created the world in, but in but a moment.
That's what I was saying. I have a copy of the first half of the work in my shelf because I've been studying Augustine's conception on original sin, sexuality, and marriage for a few years now. I gave that example primarily because even all the way back to Augustine, what the text "literally" means was taken as something a bit more complex than what modern-day NA fundamentalists seem to think. The notion that scripture is to be read absolutely literally in every instance is also something rather modern, and this can be seen easily just by taking a brief run through the history of Christian thought. Even Luther, who didn't like allegorical readings (in his opposition to Aquinas and the scholastic philosophical theology), nevertheless still did engage in not-so-literal interpretations of scripture.
That scale is completely arbitrary, as are your enforced definitions for gnosticism and atheism. "Gnosis" means knowledge in Ancient Greek, a language which operates in a fundamentally different way than English. Perhaps one of the largest differences deals in pragmatics. Here, read this.
The word "Gnosticism" is a modern construction, though based on an antiquated linguistic expression: it comes from the Greek word meaning "knowledge", gnosis (γνῶσις). However, gnosis itself refers to a very specialised form of knowledge, deriving both from the exact meaning of the original Greek term and its usage in Platonist philosophy.
Ancient Greek was capable of discerning between several different forms of knowing. These different forms may be described in English as being propositional knowledge, indicative of knowledge acquired indirectly through the reports of others or otherwise by inference (such as "I know of George Bush" or "I know Berlin is in Germany"), and empirical knowledge acquired by direct participation or acquaintance (such as "I know George Bush personally" or "I know Berlin, having visited").
Gnosis (γνῶσις) refers to knowledge of the second kind. Therefore, in a religious context, to be "Gnostic" should be understood as being reliant not on knowledge in a general sense, but as being specially receptive to mystical or esoteric experiences of direct participation with the divine. Indeed, in most Gnostic systems the sufficient cause of salvation is this "knowledge of" ("acquaintance with") the divine. This is commonly identified with a process of inward "knowing" or self-exploration, comparable to that encouraged by Plotinus (c. 205–270 AD). This is what helps separate Gnosticism from proto-orthodox views, where the orthodox views are considered to be superficial.[21] The inadequate take then requires a correct form of interpretation. With "gnosis" comes a fuller insight that is considered to be more spiritual. Greater recognition of the deeper spiritual meanings of doctrines, scriptures, and rituals are obtained with this insight. However, as may be seen, the term "gnostic" also had precedent usage in several ancient philosophical traditions, which must also be weighed in considering the very subtle implications of its appellation to a set of ancient religious groups.
On a fundamental level, your outlining of the contours of the "atheist/gnostic/deist" conversation is a political move, one that seeks to streamline and make clear an argument that is possibly hopelessly mired in problematic language. It really isn't that useful to be frank.
It's pretty useless given that from the early 20th century there has been a continued line of Christian Atheism/Atheistic Christianity, so the whole Christianity != atheism isn't really that self-evident. It isn't really a fringe movement either, as very noticeable historical figures have been involved with it or against it. Even Dawkins has repeatedly and openly been saying that he's a cultural Anglican for years now.
edit: and "debates" on religion outside of academia is seriously useless. There's little to no substance involved from either side, and the most public figures are not enlightening at all.
They've been repeating the same useless shit for years. Listening to them is like opening a book back to the 17th and 18th centuries when figures have said what they've said better and more. The pretense of being the bastion of rationality becomes intolerably facile when they've brought literally nothing new to the table.
On April 29 2013 08:05 koreasilver wrote: They've been repeating the same useless shit for years. Listening to them is like opening a book back to the 17th and 18th centuries when figures have said what they've said better and more. The pretense of being the bastion of rationality becomes intolerably facile when they've brought literally nothing new to the table.
Given the context you're talking about atheists, right? Regardless, when it comes to philosophy there hasn't really been many original thoughts recently on any side of the fence. Doesn't mean people are irrational just because what they're saying is old.
On April 29 2013 08:05 koreasilver wrote: They've been repeating the same useless shit for years. Listening to them is like opening a book back to the 17th and 18th centuries when figures have said what they've said better and more. The pretense of being the bastion of rationality becomes intolerably facile when they've brought literally nothing new to the table.
As opposed to the religious arguments that date back millenia?
Anselm's argument is almost 1000 years old now and people still use it. In all honesty it's absurd, but then again maybe I'm biased, since I view most religious arguments that way, since they are almost never based on any rational thought.
I've always been catholic because it has the word cat in it, and although I don't especially like house cats I think tigers are really cool.
Also, I guess I didn't really lose my religion, just became very sceptical about how it is "presented". I believe Jesus was real and that he was a very inspirational figure who tried to make the world a better place for his fellow men. God might be real as well if you ask me.
I still have respect for the church and the people in it that dedicate their lives to what they believe in. It's just too bad that they cling ancient and totally outdated believes that have no place in the world nowadays. I mean I can understand the dilemma of trying to be a religious leader to billions of people across the world who all have unique background and cultural values, but I just have a hard time believing that a being who supposedly created the entire galaxy honestly cares about what people do with their penis.
I guess this realisation kind of came on early. My parents are both raised catholic (although my dad is an atheist now) and they do respect the traditions of the church. However we also always have had close contact with gay family members and colleagues (turns out there are quite a bit of homosexuals in my family lol), and my parents were always very adament about making your own choices and thinking for yourself. To this day I'm actually not quite sure what place religion has in my life. I guess it's a never ending journey huh..
On April 29 2013 08:05 koreasilver wrote: They've been repeating the same useless shit for years. Listening to them is like opening a book back to the 17th and 18th centuries when figures have said what they've said better and more. The pretense of being the bastion of rationality becomes intolerably facile when they've brought literally nothing new to the table.
Given the context you're talking about atheists, right? Regardless, when it comes to philosophy there hasn't really been many original thoughts recently on any side of the fence. Doesn't mean people are irrational just because what they're saying is old.
There's plenty of original things going on these days with the various Deleuze influenced/inspired materialists and people like Brassier and Meillassoux. I'm not saying the "new atheists" are irrational. I'm just saying that they are extremely amateurish and they play a big role in why any dialogue concerning religion in the English speaking nations is so vapid (along with the fundamentalists). The Anglo nations are stuck on two childish attitudes. One is the comically insecure religious fundamentalist, and on the other hand is their mirror adolescent that has simply inverted the ingrained idiotic religious upbringing and has turned religion into the boogeyman. Like I do understand that a large part of America are the breeding grounds for religious fundamentalism and I can empathize that if you grow up in such an environment you would be extremely put off by it (as was I when I left my faith; how could you not rebel and dismiss religion growing up like that if you have any ounce of honesty and love for your individuality?) but what much of us miss in the Anglo nations is that our image of religion is also a scarecrow. And most importantly, most of the so-called atheists in the West are still, fundamentally, Christian, and for me it's important for this generation to realize that. Not to return to Christianity, but to be able to actually move forward and find a way out of it. My biggest issue with our new atheists and their asinine acolytes isn't primarily because they don't even understand what they're talking about and actually want to spend their time studying, but because to me they are still so Christian without being able to understand it. The only one of them that wasn't was Hitchens, and he is dead now.
And this is off-topic, but if you think there hasn't been any interesting, original, and substantive work in philosophy these days then you simply don't study it. But in our generation, who actually reads? Much too few. That's why these new atheists and loudmouth televangelists and demagogues get so much business.
On April 29 2013 08:05 koreasilver wrote: They've been repeating the same useless shit for years. Listening to them is like opening a book back to the 17th and 18th centuries when figures have said what they've said better and more. The pretense of being the bastion of rationality becomes intolerably facile when they've brought literally nothing new to the table.
Given the context you're talking about atheists, right? Regardless, when it comes to philosophy there hasn't really been many original thoughts recently on any side of the fence. Doesn't mean people are irrational just because what they're saying is old.
There's plenty of original things going on these days with the various Deleuze influenced/inspired materialists and people like Brassier and Meillassoux. I'm not saying the "new atheists" are irrational. I'm just saying that they are extremely amateurish and they play a big role in why any dialogue concerning religion in the English speaking nations is so vapid (along with the fundamentalists). The Anglo nations are stuck on two childish attitudes. One is the comically insecure religious fundamentalist, and on the other hand is their mirror adolescent that has simply inverted the ingrained idiotic religious upbringing and has turned religion into the boogeyman. Like I do understand that a large part of America are the breeding grounds for religious fundamentalism and I can empathize that if you grow up in such an environment you would be extremely put off by it (as was I when I left my faith; how could you not rebel and dismiss religion growing up like that if you have any ounce of honesty and love for your individuality?) but what much of us miss in the Anglo nations is that our image of religion is also a scarecrow. And most importantly, most of the so-called atheists in the West are still, fundamentally, Christian, and for me it's important for this generation to realize that. Not to return to Christianity, but to be able to actually move forward and find a way out of it. My biggest issue with our new atheists and their asinine acolytes isn't primarily because they don't even understand what they're talking about and actually want to spend their time studying, but because to me they are still so Christian without being able to understand it. The only one of them that wasn't was Hitchens, and he is dead now.
And this is off-topic, but if you think there hasn't been any interesting, original, and substantive work in philosophy these days then you simply don't study it. But in our generation, who actually reads? Much too few. That's why these new atheists and loudmouth televangelists and demagogues get so much business.
nice generalizations bro.
the bolded in particular makes very little sense at all.
Most of the atheists of our generation that take their cue from the new atheists are still absolute foundationalists where the ground of all meaning and reason doesn't come from the one sovereign deity, but some abstracted idea of rationality-in-itself. But just as the internal failure of the logical positivists led to its failure, the whole-hearted reliance on the modern scientific method doesn't lead us to any secure ground of thought. The scientific method does rely on particular metaphysical presuppositions and aren't as secure as one might think, but the new atheists and their acolytes don't recognize that, and this is where I think Feyerabend was the most correct. There is still an undue pledge of allegiance to a particular form of inquiry that is held up as unquestionably grounded although it still operates on particular metaphysical grounds. Let us also note that the new atheists of our generation still rely heavily on moralistic arguments and ethical outrage, much of which is just a reiteration of the various developments that occurred through Europe in a distinctly Christian way. What use is there in discarding the label of Christianity if the structures of thought are still Christian anyway? The new atheists operate under a veiled theology just as much as how Benjamin noted that the Marxist reliance on historical materialism was just a masked theology. One needs to take much more radical steps to go beyond Christianity, but the new atheists don't. They're content with the superficial and that's why I think the new atheists of the Anglo-nations are just as much of a failure as the Christians in the same nations.
On April 30 2013 10:59 koreasilver wrote: Most of the atheists of our generation that take their cue from the new atheists are still absolute foundationalists where the ground of all meaning and reason doesn't come from the one sovereign deity, but some abstracted idea of rationality-in-itself. But just as the internal failure of the logical positivists led to its failure, the whole-hearted reliance on the modern scientific method doesn't lead us to any secure ground of thought. The scientific method does rely on particular metaphysical presuppositions and aren't as secure as one might think, but the new atheists and their acolytes don't recognize that, and this is where I think Feyerabend was the most correct. There is still an undue pledge of allegiance to a particular form of inquiry that is held up as unquestionably grounded although it still operates on particular metaphysical grounds. Let us also note that the new atheists of our generation still rely heavily on moralistic arguments and ethical outrage, much of which is just a reiteration of the various developments that occurred through Europe in a distinctly Christian way. What use is there in discarding the label of Christianity if the structures of thought are still Christian anyway? The new atheists operate under a veiled theology just as much as how Benjamin noted that the Marxist reliance on historical materialism was just a masked theology. One needs to take much more radical steps to go beyond Christianity, but the new atheists don't. They're content with the superficial and that's why I think the new atheists of the Anglo-nations are just as much of a failure as the Christians in the same nations.
even more unbased generalizations!
Being an atheist is nothing more than lacking a belief in God/gods/deities/whatever.
Most of your pseudo-intellectual generalizations don't even hold any sway because they presuppose that lacking a belief is akin to some sort of scientific theology. You don't even need to be rational or even accept science to be atheist. They just generally coincide because of the tendency for people who rely on empirical evidence for their beliefs to reject religion, which by definition requires an acceptance of beliefs without evidence.
In order to be atheist you need to simply reject beliefs-you do not need to actually hold any.
On April 30 2013 10:59 koreasilver wrote: Most of the atheists of our generation that take their cue from the new atheists are still absolute foundationalists where the ground of all meaning and reason doesn't come from the one sovereign deity, but some abstracted idea of rationality-in-itself. But just as the internal failure of the logical positivists led to its failure, the whole-hearted reliance on the modern scientific method doesn't lead us to any secure ground of thought. The scientific method does rely on particular metaphysical presuppositions and aren't as secure as one might think, but the new atheists and their acolytes don't recognize that, and this is where I think Feyerabend was the most correct. There is still an undue pledge of allegiance to a particular form of inquiry that is held up as unquestionably grounded although it still operates on particular metaphysical grounds. Let us also note that the new atheists of our generation still rely heavily on moralistic arguments and ethical outrage, much of which is just a reiteration of the various developments that occurred through Europe in a distinctly Christian way. What use is there in discarding the label of Christianity if the structures of thought are still Christian anyway? The new atheists operate under a veiled theology just as much as how Benjamin noted that the Marxist reliance on historical materialism was just a masked theology. One needs to take much more radical steps to go beyond Christianity, but the new atheists don't. They're content with the superficial and that's why I think the new atheists of the Anglo-nations are just as much of a failure as the Christians in the same nations.
even more unbased generalizations!
Being an atheist is nothing more than lacking a belief in God/gods/deities/whatever.
Most of your pseudo-intellectual generalizations don't even hold any sway because they presuppose that lacking a belief is akin to some sort of scientific theology. You don't even need to be rational or even accept science to be atheist. They just generally coincide because of the tendency for people who rely on empirical evidence for their beliefs to reject religion, which by definition requires an acceptance of beliefs without evidence.
In order to be atheist you need to simply reject beliefs-you do not need to actually hold any.
While that is the least you need to do be classified as an atheist (specifically rejection of belief in a god or gods), he's not talking about minimum requirements, he's talking about what most atheists in Western society are ACTUALLY like and what they ACTUALLY believe.
On April 30 2013 10:59 koreasilver wrote: Most of the atheists of our generation that take their cue from the new atheists are still absolute foundationalists where the ground of all meaning and reason doesn't come from the one sovereign deity, but some abstracted idea of rationality-in-itself. But just as the internal failure of the logical positivists led to its failure, the whole-hearted reliance on the modern scientific method doesn't lead us to any secure ground of thought. The scientific method does rely on particular metaphysical presuppositions and aren't as secure as one might think, but the new atheists and their acolytes don't recognize that, and this is where I think Feyerabend was the most correct. There is still an undue pledge of allegiance to a particular form of inquiry that is held up as unquestionably grounded although it still operates on particular metaphysical grounds. Let us also note that the new atheists of our generation still rely heavily on moralistic arguments and ethical outrage, much of which is just a reiteration of the various developments that occurred through Europe in a distinctly Christian way. What use is there in discarding the label of Christianity if the structures of thought are still Christian anyway? The new atheists operate under a veiled theology just as much as how Benjamin noted that the Marxist reliance on historical materialism was just a masked theology. One needs to take much more radical steps to go beyond Christianity, but the new atheists don't. They're content with the superficial and that's why I think the new atheists of the Anglo-nations are just as much of a failure as the Christians in the same nations.
even more unbased generalizations!
Being an atheist is nothing more than lacking a belief in God/gods/deities/whatever.
Most of your pseudo-intellectual generalizations don't even hold any sway because they presuppose that lacking a belief is akin to some sort of scientific theology. You don't even need to be rational or even accept science to be atheist. They just generally coincide because of the tendency for people who rely on empirical evidence for their beliefs to reject religion, which by definition requires an acceptance of beliefs without evidence.
In order to be atheist you need to simply reject beliefs-you do not need to actually hold any.
While that is the least you need to do be classified as an atheist (specifically rejection of belief in a god or gods), he's not talking about minimum requirements, he's talking about what most atheists in Western society are ACTUALLY like and what they ACTUALLY believe.
So he's generalizing about a massive group of people who don't actually have identifying characteristics otherwise.
For example, I live in the west, am an atheist, and completely disagree with what he's saying. It's simply not true. What about not believing in the Christian God is "structurally Christian"? He makes the question of "what's the use of discarding the label of Christianity if the structures of thought are Christian" which makes no sense. If you're atheist you've clearly rejected the very foundation of Christian thought: belief without evidence.
When you actually read his pseudointellectual posts you see that not only do they generalize but they're completely wrong.
e: also I'm in no way related to anything Christian, I only argue against it because that's the most common faith of the people around me.
None of my family was Christian, they were Muslim, and it has a whole host of problems that are similar foundationally but completely different societally.
Muslims are worse in ways and (shockingly) better in others-my Muslim family tends to be very charitable, for example.
On April 23 2013 04:19 wherebugsgo wrote: Christianity as an institution has done nothing more than stifle progress throughout history. There are plenty of facts that I have already cited that support that assertion.
On April 23 2013 04:19 wherebugsgo wrote: Christianity as an institution has done nothing more than stifle progress throughout history. There are plenty of facts that I have already cited that support that assertion.
For the record: In the past year I've donated blood twice, and ~$100 to Oxfam and Amnesty International.
As a college student with no job, I wish I could donate more, but $20k a year in tuition after scholarships makes that quite difficult.
I certainly don't persecute or harass or intimidate people for not being atheists, unlike the numerous people who have told me over the years that I'm going to hell for not believing in what they believe, or that I have no soul/heart in their eyes, including members of my own family.
On April 23 2013 04:19 wherebugsgo wrote: Christianity as an institution has done nothing more than stifle progress throughout history. There are plenty of facts that I have already cited that support that assertion.
For the record: In the past year I've donated blood twice, and ~$100 to Oxfam and Amnesty International.
As a college student with no job, I wish I could donate more, but $20k a year in tuition after scholarships makes that quite difficult.
I certainly don't persecute or harass or intimidate people for not being atheists, unlike the numerous people who have told me over the years that I'm going to hell for not believing in what they believe, or that I have no soul/heart in their eyes, including members of my own family.
You said the Christianity as an institution has done nothing but stifle progress. Clearly you meant excluding the Catholic Church being the world's largest charitable organization, all the Christian scientists and artists who cited their belief as the reason for their practicing science and art, the millions of doctors who cite their belief as being the primary motivator for their research and healing, the creation of empires, the cultural morality of the West, and all those other examples of Christianity as an institution being a force of progress.
You can have problems with the way certain Christians have acted, and have problems with the way the institutions of Christianity have acted without resorting to such completely ridiculous hyperbole. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find any institution that had as positive effect on progress as the Christian institutions.
edit: To answer your question, it was relevant because I just naturally assumed that you had to have done at least close to an equal amount for charity as the Catholic Church has to make such a bold statement that they do nothing at all. Seeing that you do some, but very little in comparison... well, that makes me wonder why someone on such shaky ground is attacking those who are on hard rock.
On April 23 2013 04:19 wherebugsgo wrote: Christianity as an institution has done nothing more than stifle progress throughout history. There are plenty of facts that I have already cited that support that assertion.
For the record: In the past year I've donated blood twice, and ~$100 to Oxfam and Amnesty International.
As a college student with no job, I wish I could donate more, but $20k a year in tuition after scholarships makes that quite difficult.
I certainly don't persecute or harass or intimidate people for not being atheists, unlike the numerous people who have told me over the years that I'm going to hell for not believing in what they believe, or that I have no soul/heart in their eyes, including members of my own family.
You said the Christianity as an institution has done nothing but stifle progress. Clearly you meant excluding the Catholic Church being the world's largest charitable organization, all the Christian scientists who cited their belief as the reason for their practicing science, the millions of doctors who cite their belief as being the primary motivator for their research and healing, the creation of empires, the cultural morality of the West, and all those other examples of Christianity as an institution being a force of progress.
You can have problems with the way certain Christians have acted, and have problems with the way the institutions of Christianity have acted without resorting to such completely ridiculous hyperbole. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find any institution that had as positive effect on progress as the Christian institutions.
The minimal charity Christians do does not make up for killing and persecuting people for not being Christian.
In fact, most of the "charity" that Christians do in third world countries nowadays is nothing more than "join us, or starve."
What do you think missionaries do? It's simply an advertising ploy, nothing more.
Secular organizations such as the Red Cross are far more progressive than Christian organizations. Whatever little charity they do is heavily overshadowed by the decades of persecution, stifling of civil rights, war, and blatant corruption caused by or inherent to these religious organizations.
Churches spend the majority of their tithes on operation, not charity.
It's kind of like saying the United States is a good player in the Middle East because we give Middle Eastern countries and the people there aid. Sure, that's true to an extent. However, we also killed nearly a million people in Iraq, all because of a war we started, to take out a leader we supported in the past. So what if the United States has done some minimal good in the Middle East? Overall, our country is responsible for serious atrocities in the region. Negligible "charity" is not going to erase that.
The same goes for the two major Abrahamic religions of today, Christianity and Islam. They're both on the whole despicable.
e: also, if you are Christian, think about this:
I can make the same arguments for Muslim giving that you have for the Christian side. If you are Christian, I would bet a lot of money you don't actually think of Islam the same way you think of Christianity, despite the fact that their charitable contributions are almost wholly the same.
On April 23 2013 04:19 wherebugsgo wrote: Christianity as an institution has done nothing more than stifle progress throughout history. There are plenty of facts that I have already cited that support that assertion.
For the record: In the past year I've donated blood twice, and ~$100 to Oxfam and Amnesty International.
As a college student with no job, I wish I could donate more, but $20k a year in tuition after scholarships makes that quite difficult.
I certainly don't persecute or harass or intimidate people for not being atheists, unlike the numerous people who have told me over the years that I'm going to hell for not believing in what they believe, or that I have no soul/heart in their eyes, including members of my own family.
You said the Christianity as an institution has done nothing but stifle progress. Clearly you meant excluding the Catholic Church being the world's largest charitable organization, all the Christian scientists who cited their belief as the reason for their practicing science, the millions of doctors who cite their belief as being the primary motivator for their research and healing, the creation of empires, the cultural morality of the West, and all those other examples of Christianity as an institution being a force of progress.
You can have problems with the way certain Christians have acted, and have problems with the way the institutions of Christianity have acted without resorting to such completely ridiculous hyperbole. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find any institution that had as positive effect on progress as the Christian institutions.
Killing and persecuting people for not being Christian does not make up for the minimal charity Christians do.
In fact, most of the "charity" that Christians do in third world countries nowadays is nothing more than "join us, or starve."
And thus, you betray your ignorance. I don't think a person who gives $100 a year and donates blood twice is in a very good position to cast negative judgement upon people who have given up their entire lives to go live with fucking lepers. And if you an find a single instance of a Christian missionary saying anything even closely resembling "join us or starve" than I will show you ten thousand instances of the exact opposite occurring.
What do you think missionaries do?
They give more to charity than:
Secular organizations such as the Red Cross
and only ask to be allowed to preach a little while they are doing it. Oh no! Boo hoo! The guy handing you food wants you to listen to him for a while. Name one instance of Catholic missionaries withholding food and aid unless the people converted and you MIGHT have a point. Go ahead. One instance. Shouldn't be too hard for you.
As for the asinine justification that all the bad things done in the past outweigh the good... I say two things:
1. You cannot individualize the good and collectivize the bad. You're basically saying: all the bad they do is general and belongs to Christianity as a whole, while the good they do is local and belongs only to the person doing the good.
2. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Find me a single organization that existed in the 1200s that did even 1/100th of what the Catholic Church did for the poor. Secular charity is a modern invention buddy, shit only gets better for Christians the further you go back.
Furthermore, you neglected to explain the countless examples of progress, even excluding charity, that Christianity as an institution is responsible for. Your only answer was to radically shift the goalposts by saying "Okay, they've done all that, but that doesn't make up for..." Your original statement was that there was not even one instance of Christianity as an institution doing anything but stifle progress.
I can make the same arguments for Muslim giving that you have for the Christian side. If you are Christian, I would bet a lot of money you don't actually think of Islam the same way you think of Christianity, despite the fact that their charitable contributions are almost wholly the same.
...BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA! Really? Show me some evidence.
It's great when someone doesn't actually read. Not that I'm surprised or anything - we are on tl.net anyhow. As long as the general public in the West don't understand that secularism and humanism as a whole is still fundamentally a Protestant product, we'll all continue to Christians. The new atheists of our generation comically tout the pretense that they don't believe without evidence, but they're just repeating the exact same mistake that the logical positivists made in the 20th century. If we don't learn our history this is the shit that happens. We get half-baked figures putting out half-baked ideas to mislead an entire generation of half-baked youth and it works pretty much purely because it quenches their thirst to oppose their boogeyman. It's a showcase of failure of a culture. It's not about religion vs atheism (which is a false dichotomy to begin with), but the inability or refusal to examine the structures and grounds of thought that's the main issue with our Anglo nations. The Christianity of America and the nations to which their fundamentalists exported to (various African nations and South Korea) is rotten to the core and deserves all the disdain and scorn that they receive from anyone. The counterproduct that came out against it, our beautifully juvenile new atheism, is similarly full of hot air and intellectually empty.
edit: good god, sc2superfan is here now to peddle his apologetics. I'm evacuating - gg.
It's great when someone doesn't actually read. Not that I'm surprised or anything - we are on tl.net anyhow. As long as the general public in the West don't understand that secularism and humanism as a whole is still fundamentally a Protestant product, we'll all continue to Christians. The new atheists of our generation comically tout the pretense that they don't believe without evidence, but they're just repeating the exact same mistake that the logical positivists made in the 20th century. If we don't learn our history this is the shit that happens. We get half-baked figures putting out half-baked ideas to mislead an entire generation of half-baked youth and it works pretty much purely because it quenches their thirst to oppose their boogeyman. It's a showcase of failure of a culture. It's not about religion vs atheism (which is a false dichotomy to begin with), but the inability or refusal to examine the structures and grounds of thought that's the main issue with our Anglo nations. The Christianity of America and the nations to which their fundamentalists exported to (various African nations and South Korea) is rotten to the core and deserves all the disdain and scorn that they receive from anyone. The counterproduct that came out against it, our beautifully juvenile new atheism, is similarly full of hot air and intellectually empty.
So many words, with so little meaning. So what if your assertion is correct? (The actual assertion not the strange tack-on that it's somehow a bad thing). What do you propose we do about it? What is the "better way"?
On April 23 2013 04:19 wherebugsgo wrote: Christianity as an institution has done nothing more than stifle progress throughout history. There are plenty of facts that I have already cited that support that assertion.
For the record: In the past year I've donated blood twice, and ~$100 to Oxfam and Amnesty International.
As a college student with no job, I wish I could donate more, but $20k a year in tuition after scholarships makes that quite difficult.
I certainly don't persecute or harass or intimidate people for not being atheists, unlike the numerous people who have told me over the years that I'm going to hell for not believing in what they believe, or that I have no soul/heart in their eyes, including members of my own family.
You said the Christianity as an institution has done nothing but stifle progress. Clearly you meant excluding the Catholic Church being the world's largest charitable organization, all the Christian scientists who cited their belief as the reason for their practicing science, the millions of doctors who cite their belief as being the primary motivator for their research and healing, the creation of empires, the cultural morality of the West, and all those other examples of Christianity as an institution being a force of progress.
You can have problems with the way certain Christians have acted, and have problems with the way the institutions of Christianity have acted without resorting to such completely ridiculous hyperbole. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find any institution that had as positive effect on progress as the Christian institutions.
Killing and persecuting people for not being Christian does not make up for the minimal charity Christians do.
In fact, most of the "charity" that Christians do in third world countries nowadays is nothing more than "join us, or starve."
And thus, you betray your ignorance. I don't think a person who gives $100 a year and donates blood twice is in a very good position to cast negative judgement upon people who have given up their entire lives to go live with fucking lepers. And if you an find a single instance of a Christian missionary saying anything even closely resembling "join us or starve" than I will show you ten thousand instances of the exact opposite occurring.
So because I have no income I'm not in any position to say that religion on the whole is vile? I've donated blood twice because that's the most I can donate in a year. LOL.
There are plenty of people who devote their time without the ulterior motive of converting people. Try the Peace Corps. (in fact, I have several nonreligious friends who have joined the Peace Corps-being charitable is not exclusive to the religious).
Obviously Christian missionaries don't say that, in a lot of places they will offer converts food on the pretext that they devote themselves to Christ. "Repent and join us, and we will take care of you." It's not all that uncommon, really.
and only ask to be allowed to preach a little while they are doing it. Oh no! Boo hoo! The guy handing you food wants you to listen to him for a while. Name one instance of Catholic missionaries withholding food and aid unless the people converted and you MIGHT have a point. Go ahead. One instance. Shouldn't be too hard for you.
I'm not saying that they will withhold food aid (though certainly it may have happened at one point, it's not all that far fetched) but rather that the whole point of missionary work is not charity. It's conversion.
Plenty of Christian sects preach on the idea of repentance. The default "status" is having sinned, and their whole job is to "save" people by converting them to Christianity. It's stupid, really. They're not doing charity. You can tell a starving person literally anything and they'll probably accept it if you give them food. It's just a dumb ploy to get more converts. After they've been converted it's not like they're particularly better off.
On April 30 2013 14:05 sc2superfan101 wrote: As for the asinine justification that all the bad things done in the past outweigh the good... I say two things:
1. You cannot individualize the good and collectivize the bad. You're basically saying: all the bad they do is general and belongs to Christianity as a whole, while the good they do is local and belongs only to the person doing the good.
But the institutions themselves don't generally do good things. It IS the individuals who are the exceptions.
The institution itself is not interested in charity, it's interested in getting more converts. The "charity" they do is simply a means to this end. Christianity as an institution, like Islam, uses charity as a recruiting tool. The individuals may themselves be interested in charity, but that has almost nothing to do with the institution itself. This is easily seen-just look at the vast disparity between even Christians themselves.
What's actually admirable is the type of charity that secular organizations do, because there is no ulterior motive. These organizations give because they want to help people, not because they want them to join their ranks. The Red Cross, Oxfam, Amnesty International, whatever other secular organizations you may be able to name-they interested in their causes because they want to promote human prosperity. Religious institutions do these things because they want more sheep. It's fundamentally different on an ideological level.
On April 30 2013 14:05 sc2superfan101 wrote: 2. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Find me a single organization that existed in the 1200s that did even 1/100th of what the Catholic Church did for the poor. Secular charity is a modern invention buddy, shit only gets better for Christians the further you go back.
Of course secular charity is a modern invention, secularism itself is a modern invention! It helps when you don't get executed for blasphemy.
I bet the Catholic church, adorned in its gold, stained glass, marble floors, and massive cathedrals did quite a lot for the poor when it systematically persecuted hundreds of thousands of people who decided to reject its authority.
Assuming you are not completely ignorant, you know why this question itself is disingenuous and it's intellectually dishonest on your part to be posing it.
On April 30 2013 14:05 sc2superfan101 wrote: Furthermore, you neglected to explain the countless examples of progress, even excluding charity, that Christianity as an institution is responsible for.
Progress? Like what?
The idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun? Oh wait, Christian leadership imprisoned Galileo, who supported the idea.
The idea that the people should govern themselves in a society built by the people? Oh wait, Christian leadership opposed this for centuries because of the power they could wield through the divine right to rule.
I could go on naming examples like this for hours, and that's ONLY considering Christianity.
At least in the fields of human knowledge and self sovereignty religion is one of the worst models of "progress", given that religious organizations have historically opposed scientific and political progress for the entirety of their existence. Plenty still do: just look at the theocracies in the Middle East. If Christianity still had that power over the west, you'd see them here too. In fact, there are plenty of people here who want to put God back in the U.S. government! They succeed a little bit every year-look at any coin and you'll see "In God We Trust", go to an elementary school and listen to their PA announcements in the morning, and the Pledge of Allegiance will contain "God" in it - every December there is some sort of stupid political debate over the role of religion in government and the legality of nativity scenes sponsored by public tax money.
So what charity do religious organizations actually do? They feed the poor? Sure, some of them do. Plenty of the money that individual givers send to religious organizations also goes toward the leadership who perpetuate corruption and vice in those organizations. This is common across most religious organizations inherently due to their structure and their goals-problems that most secular charitable organizations do not usually have.
I'd be pretty pissed if I gave money to the Catholic church, only to see its leaders involved in a multimillion dollar lawsuit over the molestation of altar boys.
On April 30 2013 14:05 sc2superfan101 wrote: Your only answer was to radically shift the goalposts by saying "Okay, they've done all that, but that doesn't make up for..." Your original statement was that there was not even one instance of Christianity as an institution doing anything but stifle progress.
So because Christianity on occasion participates in charitable giving it is suddenly a beacon of progress?
No, my statement still stands. If you want to argue semantics, we'll argue semantics. My statement had nothing to do with individual actions but rather with the impact of Christianity as a whole. As a whole, Christianity, like Islam, like Judaism, like the majority of religions across the world, has done little more than stifle the progression of technology, human and civil rights, and peace. Christianity as a whole is one of the most violent and disgusting products of humanity in our history. There is nothing you can say or do to change the facts, to change the history.
You cannot say the same for a lack of belief, because by definition there is nothing that motivates atheists to kill other people, or convert other people, or do anything of the sort, other than the motivations of the individual him or herself. We don't believe that we're going to a place of eternal agony if we don't believe in an invisible sky-fairy, and we certainly don't wish to kill others because they "trespassed" on our "holy land." If an atheist does something bad or evil, it is not because of atheism, simply by definition, because we are not motivated in the same way that a religious person is motivated. You can't say the same for religion-as a group, if you adhere to a religion, you should be at the very least aware of the actions carried out in its name.
I can make the same arguments for Muslim giving that you have for the Christian side. If you are Christian, I would bet a lot of money you don't actually think of Islam the same way you think of Christianity, despite the fact that their charitable contributions are almost wholly the same.
...BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA! Really? Show me some evidence.
You're right, I should rephrase this, because it was a generalization I was making and I can't find any stats that really say anything at all about charitable giving on the basis of religion. If you can find some, great-you should post them here. Anyway, what I will say is this:
Zakat is one of the five major pillars of Islam. Charity is literally a core pillar of the religion. It's not even an option, it's an obligation in Islam. Most of the Muslims I have personally met are just as, if not more, charitable than the Christians I know. Generally though I dislike both types of giving for similar reasons-the bulk of the money they donate goes to church/mosque organization and not actual charity work.
From my interpretation of this data, though, charitable giving from country to country seems to be primarily based on affluence, not religious affiliation.
Look at the prevailing pattern in the most giving countries vs the least giving-it's about affluence, not religion. There are highly Christian, Muslim, and even irreligious countries at the top (and bottom) of that list.
Sadly there are not many stats on the overall impact of both institutions, but maybe I should correct my statement to: based on your perspective, I do not think you would think of Islam the same way as Christianity, despite the fact that from my experience their impact is almost wholly the same. Almsgiving is a really common practice in Islam. Most of my family does it. The primary difference that I have seen between Christian charitable giving and Muslim charitable giving is that Muslims tend to do it more privately.
What's funny though is that many Muslim charitable organizations have been getting shut down in the United States over fears of terrorism.
On April 30 2013 14:05 koreasilver wrote: It's great when someone doesn't actually read. Not that I'm surprised or anything - we are on tl.net anyhow. As long as the general public in the West don't understand that secularism and humanism as a whole is still fundamentally a Protestant product, we'll all continue to Christians.
Keep up the pseudointellectual generalizations bro, it makes you look real smart!
Again, bullshit. You presuppose that secularism and humanism are based on Christianity, but this in itself ignores more than 2/3 of the world. 2 billion people are Christians in this world. 5 billion are not. Saying that secularism and humanism are fundamentally Protestant is your ignorance speaking. You are simply blind to the millions, nay, billions of people who were not born in Christian households, who were not brought up in a Western setting, who are not surrounded by Christians, and who honestly couldn't care less about Christian ideals and Christian history.
For proof of these statements, simply look at the countries of India, China, and Japan. Three huge players in Asia-none of them have any significant proportion of Christians, yet they all have secular governments. They all have secularists and humanists. There are plenty of atheists who live in all three countries, yet none of these atheists are "fundamentally" Christian. These countries together comprise roughly 40% of the world's population, and yet you think that modern atheism came about only because of Christianity. How naive.
On April 30 2013 14:05 koreasilver wrote: The new atheists of our generation comically tout the pretense that they don't believe without evidence, but they're just repeating the exact same mistake that the logical positivists made in the 20th century. If we don't learn our history this is the shit that happens. We get half-baked figures putting out half-baked ideas to mislead an entire generation of half-baked youth and it works pretty much purely because it quenches their thirst to oppose their boogeyman. It's a showcase of failure of a culture.
LOL what?
Do you even know what you yourself are saying? What the fuck does any of this mean?
Atheism has nothing to do with politics, or even culture. You don't even seem to understand the very terms you're trying to complicate.
On April 30 2013 14:05 koreasilver wrote: It's not about religion vs atheism (which is a false dichotomy to begin with), but the inability or refusal to examine the structures and grounds of thought that's the main issue with our Anglo nations.
wut?
How exactly do atheists refuse to examine "the structures and grounds of thought" Also, the structures and grounds of thought of WHAT? Religion? Sure, atheists do exactly that! If they didn't, they wouldn't fucking be atheists!
Your whole argument is absurd because you claim that "modern atheists" are "fundamentally Christian" when by definition they CAN'T be. You have to reject faith to be atheist, and you can't be "fundamentally Christian" unless you believe. Maybe you mean there are atheists who are "culturally" Christian, like there are "cultural" Jews, but even that doesn't make sense given what you are trying to argue (nor does it imply that there is anything wrong with that)
On April 30 2013 14:05 koreasilver wrote: The Christianity of America and the nations to which their fundamentalists exported to (various African nations and South Korea) is rotten to the core and deserves all the disdain and scorn that they receive from anyone. The counterproduct that came out against it, our beautifully juvenile new atheism, is similarly full of hot air and intellectually empty.
Nah man, I think the only thing full of hot air and intellectually empty here is you.
The concept of atheism is fucking simple. A lack of belief in deities. Nothing more, nothing less. Literally everything else outside that realm is up to the individual. Whatever generalization of this "problem" that you see "our Anglo nations" having is simply some sort of problem you yourself haven't defined, which makes reading your posts extraordinarily difficult, given that you don't seem to actually understand what you yourself are saying.
On April 30 2013 14:14 LuckyFool wrote: don't evacuate koreasilver, you're the most interesting regular in this thread.
past couple days I've been watching and listening to shittons of amazing theological and philosophical debates and stuff thanks to this thread lol.
+1 to this. I've been following this thread very closely and learned a lot from koreasilver and wherebugsgo. I would love for the discussion to keep going despite the massive downturn in the last page.
I'm an agnostic, and my god is the origin of the set of nature's rules we live by today. It's actually a god that has influence on your life, born from a big bang, that sounds almost like sex.
Since I was younger I've always been pretty skeptical of my Catholic upbringing, and to my parents credit, they didn't really force it down my throat as much as they just sent me to a Catholic school because they thought it would teach me good values. As I grew older I completely lost interest in anything to do with religion (about 8th grade) but still considered myself a Catholic. While I was in the Marines I learned what the term "agnostic" and felt it was a description that best fit my faith. As more time went on I began to question and doubt the church more and more and really begin to feel some resentment towards it. I felt as if all religion is a complete waste of anybody's time and doesn't benefit anybody in any way other than superficial feelings of tranquility. About a year or so ago I just decided to drop the "agnostic" title I gave myself and admitted that it's pretty much the same damn thing as being an atheist. The most liberating feeling ever was the realization that I am an atheist, not an agnostic. I can't say there was really one specific thing that changed my faith, it was more a collection of ideas that I have come across growing up.
Never went to church or anything as a child. Read about religion in school and had some theme days where we watched movies about christianity and shit. Being religious to me is like being a gay toaster, just doesn't make ant sence at all.
On April 30 2013 14:05 sc2superfan101 wrote: 2. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Find me a single organization that existed in the 1200s that did even 1/100th of what the Catholic Church did for the poor. Secular charity is a modern invention buddy, shit only gets better for Christians the further you go back.
People like you are the reason I no longer post on TeamLiquid. Arrogance, ignorance, contempt for others, and aggressive speech of this level is obscene, to say nothing of the fact that the argument itself is not only nonsensical, but also insulting. It actually hurts me to know that you are making this argument so abrasively and with complete sincerity, and without any repercussions from the moderators. You are antithetical to a good conversation.
To quickly refute the argument: Of course secular charity is a modern invention -- secularism itself is, because if it was tried earlier you would have imprisoned and killed us in the name of God.
On April 30 2013 14:05 sc2superfan101 wrote: 2. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Find me a single organization that existed in the 1200s that did even 1/100th of what the Catholic Church did for the poor. Secular charity is a modern invention buddy, shit only gets better for Christians the further you go back.
People like you are the reason I no longer post on TeamLiquid. Arrogance, ignorance, contempt for others, and aggressive speech of this level is obscene, to say nothing of the fact that the argument itself is not only nonsensical, but also insulting. It actually hurts me to know that you are making this argument so abrasively and with complete sincerity, and without any repercussions from the moderators. You are antithetical to a good conversation.
To quickly refute the argument: Of course secular charity is a modern invention -- secularism itself is, because if it was tried earlier you would have imprisoned and killed us in the name of God.
Screw it. Can't be arsed -- I'm bailing, too.
I also found this part ironic:
shit only gets better for Christians the further you go back.
The charity humble brag with a hint of sounds like Christians had it better than everyone else.
How far back should we go? Let's check out 1994..how much were Christians donating while this was going on?
Rwanda Massacres In 1994 in the small African country of Rwanda in just a few months several hundred thousand civilians were butchered, apparently a conflict of the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups. For quite some time I heard only rumors about Catholic clergy actively involved in the 1994 Rwanda massacres. Odd denials of involvement were printed in Catholic church journals, before even anybody had openly accused members of the church. Then, 10/10/96, in the newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany - a station not at all critical to Christianity - the following was stated:
"Anglican as well as Catholic priests and nuns are suspect of having actively participated in murders. Especially the conduct of a certain Catholic priest has been occupying the public mind in Rwanda's capital Kigali for months. He was minister of the church of the Holy Family and allegedly murdered Tutsis in the most brutal manner. He is reported to have accompanied marauding Hutu militia with a gun in his cowl. In fact there has been a bloody slaughter of Tutsis seeking shelter in his parish. Even two years after the massacres many Catholics refuse to set foot on the threshold of their church, because to them the participation of a certain part of the clergy in the slaughter is well established. There is almost no church in Rwanda that has not seen refugees - women, children, old - being brutally butchered facing the crucifix. According to eyewitnesses clergymen gave away hiding Tutsis and turned them over to the machetes of the Hutu militia. In connection with these events again and again two Benedictine nuns are mentioned, both of whom have fled into a Belgian monastery in the meantime to avoid prosecution. According to survivors one of them called the Hutu killers and led them to several thousand people who had sought shelter in her monastery. By force the doomed were driven out of the churchyard and were murdered in the presence of the nun right in front of the gate. The other one is also reported to have directly cooperated with the murderers of the Hutu militia. In her case again witnesses report that she watched the slaughtering of people in cold blood and without showing response. She is even accused of having procured some petrol used by the killers to set on fire and burn their victims alive..." [S2]
More recently the BBC aired:
Priests get death sentence for Rwandan genocide BBC NEWS April 19, 1998
A court in Rwanda has sentenced two Roman Catholic priests to death for their role in the genocide of 1994, in which up to a million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed. Pope John Paul said the priests must be made to account for their actions. Different sections of the Rwandan church have been widely accused of playing an active role in the genocide of 1994...
What about 1954? Were they super charitable then? Surely their contributions made up for this...right?:
Catholic terror in Vietnam In 1954 Vietnamese freedom fighters; the Viet Minh; - had finally defeated the French colonial government in North Vietnam, which by then had been supported by U.S. funds amounting to more than $2 billion. Although the victorious assured religious freedom to all (most non-Buddhist Vietnamese were Catholics), due to huge anticommunist propaganda campaigns many Catholics fled to the South. With the help of Catholic lobbies in Washington and Cardinal Spellman, the Vatican's spokesman in U.S. politics, who later on would call the U.S. forces in Vietnam "Soldiers of Christ", a scheme was concocted to prevent democratic elections which could have brought the communist Viet Minh to power in the South as well, and the fanatic Catholic Ngo Dinh Diem was made president of South Vietnam. [MW16ff] Diem saw to it that U.S. aid, food, technical and general assistance was given to Catholics alone, Buddhist individuals and villages were ignored or had to pay for the food aids which were given to Catholics for free. The only religious denomination to be supported was Roman Catholicism. The Vietnamese McCarthyism turned even more vicious than its American counterpart. By 1956 Diem promulgated a presidential order which read:
"Individuals considered dangerous to the national defense and common security may be confined by executive order, to a concentration camp."
Supposedly to fight communism, thousands of Buddhist protesters and monks were imprisoned in "detention camps." Out of protest dozens of Buddhist teachers - male and female - and monks poured gasoline over themselves and burned themselves. (Note that Buddhists burned themselves: in comparison Christians tend to burn others). Meanwhile some of the prison camps, which in the meantime were filled with Protestant and even Catholic protesters as well, had turned into no-nonsense death camps. It is estimated that during this period of terror (1955-1960) at least 24,000 were wounded - ; mostly in street riots ; - 80,000 people were executed, 275,000 had been detained or tortured, and about 500,000 were sent to concentration or detention camps. [MW76-89]. To support this kind of government in the next decade thousands of American GI's lost their life.
Or what about 1942-1943? Christians couldn't possibly treat other humans like Hitler did right? right??
Catholic extermination camps Surprisingly few know that Nazi extermination camps in World War II were by no means the only ones in Europe at the time. In the years 1942-1943 also in Croatia existed numerous extermination camps, run by Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveli�, a practicing Catholic and regular visitor to the then pope. There were even concentration camps exclusively for children! In these camps - the most notorious was Jasenovac, headed by a Franciscan friar - orthodox-Christian Serbians (and a substantial number of Jews) were murdered. Like the Nazis the Catholic Ustasha burned their victims in kilns, alive (the Nazis had victims gassed first). But most of the victims were simply stabbed, slain or shot to death, the number of them being estimated between 300,000 and 600,000, in a rather tiny country. Many of the killers were Franciscan friars. The atrocities were appalling enough to induce bystanders of the Nazi "Sicherheitsdienst der SS", watching, to complain about them to Hitler (who did not listen). The pope knew about these events and did nothing to prevent them. [MV]
No amount of charity makes up for the atrocities committed by the church...
Note: Yes, I know that not all Christians are Catholic, but that doesn't change the fact that all of these atrocities were done in the name of "God" nor does it change the fact that Catholics ARE Christians.
There's a reason there are a lot of Protestant Christian churches and denominations who don't consider Catholics to be Christians. I think you'll find the VAST majority of atrocities committed by "Christians" are committed by Catholics/Anglicans/Orthodox churches, which are considered to be heretical by many Christians. They may have been good a LONG time ago when they started but they are far different today and have been for hundreds of years.
On May 02 2013 21:06 Birdie wrote: There's a reason there are a lot of Protestant Christian churches and denominations who don't consider Catholics to be Christians. I think you'll find the VAST majority of atrocities committed by "Christians" are committed by Catholics/Anglicans/Orthodox churches, which are considered to be heretical by many Christians. They may have been good a LONG time ago when they started but they are far different today and have been for hundreds of years.
Yes, I am aware. Sorry I just added a note at the bottom to clarify, I forgot to mention that when I first posted it. Even still, my point still holds. Religious groups have been slaughtering people a long time and no amount of charity can possibly make up for all of the crimes done against humanity or the stifling of human progress.
Either way, Catholics are the largest Christian denomination and their beliefs stem from the same shit that made them do that crazy shit. I'm not saying being religious makes you a bad person, just that your religion isn't the bastion of all that is good just because they "donate".
Extra note: I was responding to the allegations of charity from specifically the Catholic Church, so everything I said still holds true as my opinion on "Catholic Church donations".
So I've been following the Jodi Arias case relatively closely and just noticed this gem on the wikipedia page about the death of Travis Alexander:
ABC News conducted a jailhouse interview with Arias in which she said, "I didn’t hurt Travis. I would never hurt Travis.... I would be shaking in my boots right now if I had to answer to God for such a heinous crime."
Just one more reason religion sickens me. People pulling the "God" card to try to prove their innocence in a crime. Reminds me of Ray Lewis.
Over Super Bowl weekend, CBS analyst Shannon Sharpe asked Lewis if he had a message for the families of the slain men.
“It’s simple,” Lewis said. “God has never made a mistake. That’s just who he is, you see. And if our system – it’s the sad thing about our system – if our system took the time to really investigate what happened 13 years ago, maybe they would have got to the bottom line truth. But the saddest thing ever was that a man looked me in my face and told me, ‘We know you didn’t do this, but you’re going down for it anyway.’ To the family, if you knew, if you really knew the way God works, he don’t use people who commits anything like that for his glory. No way. It’s the total opposite.”
If there is anything I can say for certainty about atheism it is that there is no "well I'm an atheist so obviously I didn't do it" card.
On May 03 2013 11:21 kmillz wrote: So I've been following the Jodi Arias case relatively closely and just noticed this gem on the wikipedia page about the death of Travis Alexander:
ABC News conducted a jailhouse interview with Arias in which she said, "I didn’t hurt Travis. I would never hurt Travis.... I would be shaking in my boots right now if I had to answer to God for such a heinous crime."
Just one more reason religion sickens me. People pulling the "God" card to try to prove their innocence in a crime. Reminds me of Ray Lewis.
Over Super Bowl weekend, CBS analyst Shannon Sharpe asked Lewis if he had a message for the families of the slain men.
“It’s simple,” Lewis said. “God has never made a mistake. That’s just who he is, you see. And if our system – it’s the sad thing about our system – if our system took the time to really investigate what happened 13 years ago, maybe they would have got to the bottom line truth. But the saddest thing ever was that a man looked me in my face and told me, ‘We know you didn’t do this, but you’re going down for it anyway.’ To the family, if you knew, if you really knew the way God works, he don’t use people who commits anything like that for his glory. No way. It’s the total opposite.”
If there is anything I can say for certainty about atheism it is that there is no "well I'm an atheist so obviously I didn't do it" card.
So you're overtly judgmental and willing to let the words of criminals and football players dictate your opinions and regard for other people? In that case, it is no loss that you disregard those who believe differently.
On May 03 2013 11:21 kmillz wrote: So I've been following the Jodi Arias case relatively closely and just noticed this gem on the wikipedia page about the death of Travis Alexander:
ABC News conducted a jailhouse interview with Arias in which she said, "I didn’t hurt Travis. I would never hurt Travis.... I would be shaking in my boots right now if I had to answer to God for such a heinous crime."
Just one more reason religion sickens me. People pulling the "God" card to try to prove their innocence in a crime. Reminds me of Ray Lewis.
Over Super Bowl weekend, CBS analyst Shannon Sharpe asked Lewis if he had a message for the families of the slain men.
“It’s simple,” Lewis said. “God has never made a mistake. That’s just who he is, you see. And if our system – it’s the sad thing about our system – if our system took the time to really investigate what happened 13 years ago, maybe they would have got to the bottom line truth. But the saddest thing ever was that a man looked me in my face and told me, ‘We know you didn’t do this, but you’re going down for it anyway.’ To the family, if you knew, if you really knew the way God works, he don’t use people who commits anything like that for his glory. No way. It’s the total opposite.”
If there is anything I can say for certainty about atheism it is that there is no "well I'm an atheist so obviously I didn't do it" card.
So you're overtly judgmental and willing to let the words of criminals and football players dictate your opinions and regard for other people? In that case, it is no loss that you disregard those who believe differently.
I said that's one more reason religion sickens me, does that mean I have disdain to all of my family and friends (or anyone really) who are religious? Of course not, but I still don't respect their religion or anyone who uses their religion to manipulate others.
Does this mean atheists aren't manipulative? Of course not, we are just as capable but at least we don't have to worry about sounding like a complete lunatic talking trying to gain credibility with our faith.
EPT
