|
On August 01 2011 20:46 Swede wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2011 19:43 Mecker wrote:
A scientific aproach can't be given to religion since it's all in the human mind.
I'm quite sure everything can be approached by science. Do you have any actual fact to back up this claim? Actually it's impossible to be sure that 'everything can be approached by science'. Science only deals in the observable, and since it is conceivably possible that something exists which can't be observed you can never make the statement 'everything can be approached by science.
I am quite interested to know what it means for a thing to exist (for me of course) without me being capable of interacting with it at least in principle. And if I can interact with it it is subject to scientific enquiry. So is it really conceivable for things to exist which can't be observed ? Does that statement even have any real meaning ?
|
On August 01 2011 20:48 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2011 20:42 xM(Z wrote:
atheism became a religion when people started to fight for it.
prior to that it was just a logical train of thought with no needs, desires or affiliations. an idea by which some lived their life.
once shit got viral, atheism became institutionalized, lead by a prominent figure who was actively asking people to fight for it. set of beliefs + leader + ongoing battle vs <xyz> = religion.
it doesnt even matter if your beliefs are right on the money. it is what it is, deal with it.
anyway, denial is the first step to recovery so even if youre wrong youre on the right track!. Wait a minute, who is our atheist leader? I wasn't aware we had one. And by that logic being a republican or a democrat is a religious belief.
and you think your strawman is ftw?.
- as long as it advocates atheist bealiefs to a crowd = leader
- politics include religion while being above it in matters of organization, power, agenda and all the rest
|
A real atheist doesnt give a shit about this stuff, they just mind their own buisness and dont belivie in a god, not trying to impose their belifes on others like certien other people.
|
Why is it that these arguments always resort to claiming that atheism and non-religiousness is, itself, a religion?
Yes, there are some people out there who just downright claim that God, or other being don't exist, and that science has, or will eventually, give us the answer to everything. That's nothing more than a belief system in itself, because they have no proof to backup those claims.
But, I think the majority are intellectually honest enough with themselves to realize that they're merely skeptical. That doesn't mean they know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that belief is wrong. It just means since there are infinite possibilities we do not yet know (read: Flying Spaghetti Monster), people have a tendency to force their ideas on other people, and people exploit other people for personal gain on a regular basis, that following a belief system because 'someone' (e.g. your parents) and 'something' (e.g. a multi-millenium old book) told you so, leaves an awful lot of doubt in the mind.
This is what critical thinking does for you. It frees your mind away from the prejudices and conclusions you built when you were younger, when you were HIGHLY susceptible to what your elders and peers told you to do, and be able to discover much more out there in the world, instead of rejecting it outright.
What I'll never understand is people's propensity to judge the many, based on a handful of idiots. Even on internet forums where you'd think people would have experience with such things. Haven't we all learned, yet, that the stupidest people are often the loudest?
|
On August 02 2011 00:06 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2011 20:48 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2011 20:42 xM(Z wrote:
atheism became a religion when people started to fight for it.
prior to that it was just a logical train of thought with no needs, desires or affiliations. an idea by which some lived their life.
once shit got viral, atheism became institutionalized, lead by a prominent figure who was actively asking people to fight for it. set of beliefs + leader + ongoing battle vs <xyz> = religion.
it doesnt even matter if your beliefs are right on the money. it is what it is, deal with it.
anyway, denial is the first step to recovery so even if youre wrong youre on the right track!. Wait a minute, who is our atheist leader? I wasn't aware we had one. And by that logic being a republican or a democrat is a religious belief. and you think your strawman is ftw?. - as long as it advocates atheist bealiefs to a crowd = leader - politics include religion while being above it in matters of organization, power, agenda and all the rest
And you are redefining religion. Atheism does not fit definition of religion even if it would become institutionalized and "fighting" for a cause against someone. The same as communism is not a religion, the same as anarchism is not a religion,....
|
On August 02 2011 00:08 ZeGzoR wrote:
A real atheist doesnt give a shit about this stuff, they just mind their own buisness and dont belivie in a god, not trying to impose their belifes on others like certien other people.
Nope. I don't like stupidity, and I speak out against it. I don't see how that keeps me from being a "real" atheist.
|
On August 01 2011 16:44 Stoids wrote:
I always get a kick out of reading the threads on the general forum which end up being "religion vs. reason," or in the eyes of the average TL poster "stupidity vs. reality." Luckily 90% of threads in this forum contain these arguments. The other 10% is saved solely for American bashing, or the occasional shitting on anything else in uniform.
The "reason" party always tries to take the pseudo-intellectual high horse, stating that they are simply thinking critically. To break through the intellectual core of this beast, well..... you can't. Regardless of your stance, you are wrong. Their critical thinking is usually based off a 45 minute documentary they watched on Youtube. Little do they know that documentary was created by a sexless 42 year old basement programmer who jerked it to hentai one too many times and ended up hallucinating.
The "religion" party on TL takes the beaten-wife role. They say "I'm *insert religion*..... but *insert something really stupid to justify their belief." They believe that they have to justify their belief system to gain the acceptance of the 18 year old English major freshman judging on the other side of TL.
Feel free to keep arguing for both sides. Don't bullshit your arguing by throwing out the "....but I'm open to any argument." shit. You aren't..... You're close minded and won't be convinced any other way by the words of another poster.
Ahem. You're calling me closed-minded?
|
On August 01 2011 20:35 Elementy wrote:
Just my 2 cents. If you consider Planck epoch where quantum effects of gravity were significant, to = 1. Where did this 1, we might also call it "something" come from? Because science to me says 0+0=0 so how did this happen? how do we have this big bang theory? Where did this extremely hot and dense state come from? how come at the very beginning of everything there was "something"? how did nothing by nothing create everything we know? What's wrong with "We don't know"? Why do some people feel the need to fill gaps in our understanding in with "We don't know so it must be God."?
|
On August 01 2011 20:04 Traeon wrote:Mecker I hope you realize that you are doing the exact same thing as the person you're attacking. To help you realize it, let me play devil's advocate to show you: Show nested quote +The only reason atheism seems like a religion is because there are a lot of religious people. Completely subjective statement and easily ridiculed by something such as "Show me the evidence for this".
Why are you paraphrasing? The paragraph gives a good example of a non-belief that noone cares about. The only evident reason anyone cares about atheists is because there are a lot of theists. If you have a reasonable argument against this statement, I'm all ears.
Show nested quote +I'm quite sure everything can be approached by science. Do you have any actual fact to back up this claim? Another opinion. You ask for facts to back up his claim, how about you present some facts to back up yours.
He was the one who made a claim. The only reason I posted my opinion on the matter was because he so dismissively claimed the exact opposite of my belief without any solid argument to back it up. If we were to have a discussion on the topic he would have to make his point through argument and so would I. Evidently, he didn't care to back up his claim with any argument whatsoever and that's just childish and certainly isn't well suited for a discussion forum.
And so on and so forth. I think everybody gets the drift by now. What a thread about critical thinking and skepticism really needs is a good discussion, not a disgusting argumentative style that consists of picking posts apart and not trying to understand what the other person is actually saying.
That's exactly what I am advocating. People posting claims without any argument leaves no room for any discussion.
|
On August 02 2011 01:00 Mecker wrote:
That's exactly what I am advocating. People posting claims without any argument leaves no room for any discussion.
That is exactly what you did though, and I tried (fruitlessly) to make you realize it with the post you just replied to.
I rest my case.
|
On August 02 2011 00:53 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2011 20:35 Elementy wrote:
Just my 2 cents. If you consider Planck epoch where quantum effects of gravity were significant, to = 1. Where did this 1, we might also call it "something" come from? Because science to me says 0+0=0 so how did this happen? how do we have this big bang theory? Where did this extremely hot and dense state come from? how come at the very beginning of everything there was "something"? how did nothing by nothing create everything we know? What's wrong with "We don't know"? Why do some people feel the need to fill gaps in our understanding in with "We don't know so it must be God."?
I think it's one of those ways that allows a lot of people to be able to cope with their own mortality. So long as there's a reason or an explanation for everything, life and death isn't so terrifying. One must overcome a big psychological hurdle to break away from those presupposed conclusions to begin imagining a world where infinite possibilities exist, until it's been discovered, because it's a pretty scary thought to think that you're just here to pump out babies and then you're worm food.
For instance, I'm pretty much convinced that my fiancee believes in ghosts and the paranormal because she's had to deal with a lot of people dying in her life, and it makes her feel comfortable to believe that their lives still have a purpose, or a role to play in the grand scheme of things. I wouldn't ever be such a dick as to try and convince her otherwise as some people on both sides of the reason vs religion debate are prone to do. That's her belief, so who the hell am I to try and convert her?
Not knowing the answers is pretty scary, but then you start to realize that just because it hasn't been discovered, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. An afterlife etc. can still exist, but maybe it's not given to us by following what's written in 2-8,000 year-old books. Maybe certain holy texts were in fact written by humans, who are fallible, and who got a lot of stuff wrong. Maybe one has it right. Maybe a different one has it right. Maybe everyone's wrong. There's so many choices, how does one decide which one has it down to the dotted i's and crossed t's? Thus one is lead down the path of reason and skepticism. Show me proof and I'll accept your view. Until then, don't try and shove it down my throat and I'll extend to you the same courtesy.
Some religious doctrine would have you believe that thinking in such ways is heretical and that it only produces an amoral, wandering, lost soul. I don't feel amoral, nor do I feel lost. I actually feel rather comfortable in living my life under the 'Don't be a dick' credo, and just downright excited to imagine how our understanding of the world will look as I get older.
|
On August 02 2011 00:26 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 00:06 xM(Z wrote:On August 01 2011 20:48 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2011 20:42 xM(Z wrote:
atheism became a religion when people started to fight for it.
prior to that it was just a logical train of thought with no needs, desires or affiliations. an idea by which some lived their life.
once shit got viral, atheism became institutionalized, lead by a prominent figure who was actively asking people to fight for it. set of beliefs + leader + ongoing battle vs <xyz> = religion.
it doesnt even matter if your beliefs are right on the money. it is what it is, deal with it.
anyway, denial is the first step to recovery so even if youre wrong youre on the right track!. Wait a minute, who is our atheist leader? I wasn't aware we had one. And by that logic being a republican or a democrat is a religious belief. and you think your strawman is ftw?. - as long as it advocates atheist bealiefs to a crowd = leader - politics include religion while being above it in matters of organization, power, agenda and all the rest And you are redefining religion. Atheism does not fit definition of religion even if it would become institutionalized and "fighting" for a cause against someone. The same as communism is not a religion, the same as anarchism is not a religion,....
you think like that because you see religion only as an ideology with no ties with the practical aspect of life. that couldnt be more further from the truth.
see religion as a business. it has infrastructure (churches), it recieves money (donations) and it alters peoples lifes (it can/will even punish them based on its own laws). comunism did the same, anarchy will do the same so how are they different?.
there is nothing wrong with "Critical Thinking and Skepticism" as long as its not organized/structurized. if/when that happens it means someone else is doing the thinking for you and youre just a sheep not a skeptic.
"Critical Thinking and Skepticism" requires self-reliance and personal independence (individualism) (at least thats my view on it).
|
11589 Posts
On August 02 2011 02:40 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 00:26 mcc wrote:On August 02 2011 00:06 xM(Z wrote:On August 01 2011 20:48 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2011 20:42 xM(Z wrote:
atheism became a religion when people started to fight for it.
prior to that it was just a logical train of thought with no needs, desires or affiliations. an idea by which some lived their life.
once shit got viral, atheism became institutionalized, lead by a prominent figure who was actively asking people to fight for it. set of beliefs + leader + ongoing battle vs <xyz> = religion.
it doesnt even matter if your beliefs are right on the money. it is what it is, deal with it.
anyway, denial is the first step to recovery so even if youre wrong youre on the right track!. Wait a minute, who is our atheist leader? I wasn't aware we had one. And by that logic being a republican or a democrat is a religious belief. and you think your strawman is ftw?. - as long as it advocates atheist bealiefs to a crowd = leader - politics include religion while being above it in matters of organization, power, agenda and all the rest And you are redefining religion. Atheism does not fit definition of religion even if it would become institutionalized and "fighting" for a cause against someone. The same as communism is not a religion, the same as anarchism is not a religion,.... you think like that because you see religion only as an ideology with no ties with the practical aspect of life. that couldnt be more further from the truth. see religion as a business. it has infrastructure (churches), it recieves money (donations) and it alters peoples lifes (it can/will even punish them based on its own laws). comunism did the same, anarchy will do the same so how are they different?. there is nothing wrong with "Critical Thinking and Skepticism" as long as its not organized/structurized. if/when that happens it means someone else is doing the thinking for you and youre just a sheep not a skeptic. "Critical Thinking and Skepticism" requires self-reliance and personal independence (individualism) (at least thats my view on it).
You can't just play around with the definitions of words so haphazardly. What are you trying to say, that religion is just a societal structure? Then sure, it is. It's obvious that it was designed to be organized the way it is now. But if you're trying to equate atheism with any religion, then you're wrong. Atheism requires you to report to no one but yourself. You don't pay tithings to Richard Dawkins just because you don't have a belief in God. It's not the same thing at all.
People "fight" for atheism because they see the detrimental effect that religion has on society as a whole, and how much better off we would be if the world was absent from the influence of it. That doesn't put it on the same scale as religion, because they're not aiming for indoctrination, they're aiming for the elimination of retardation. Progress, in the atheist mind, is being held back by religion.
Also, there's nothing wrong with organization or structure. Your distaste should be redirected towards deception and the abuse of power, not the idea of organization in general.
|
As much as I dislike xkcd in general, I think that he pretty much nailed this subject with this comic...
![[image loading]](http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/atheists.png)
|
On August 02 2011 02:40 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 00:26 mcc wrote:On August 02 2011 00:06 xM(Z wrote:On August 01 2011 20:48 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2011 20:42 xM(Z wrote:
atheism became a religion when people started to fight for it.
prior to that it was just a logical train of thought with no needs, desires or affiliations. an idea by which some lived their life.
once shit got viral, atheism became institutionalized, lead by a prominent figure who was actively asking people to fight for it. set of beliefs + leader + ongoing battle vs <xyz> = religion.
it doesnt even matter if your beliefs are right on the money. it is what it is, deal with it.
anyway, denial is the first step to recovery so even if youre wrong youre on the right track!. Wait a minute, who is our atheist leader? I wasn't aware we had one. And by that logic being a republican or a democrat is a religious belief. and you think your strawman is ftw?. - as long as it advocates atheist bealiefs to a crowd = leader - politics include religion while being above it in matters of organization, power, agenda and all the rest And you are redefining religion. Atheism does not fit definition of religion even if it would become institutionalized and "fighting" for a cause against someone. The same as communism is not a religion, the same as anarchism is not a religion,.... you think like that because you see religion only as an ideology with no ties with the practical aspect of life. that couldnt be more further from the truth. see religion as a business. it has infrastructure (churches), it recieves money (donations) and it alters peoples lifes (it can/will even punish them based on its own laws). comunism did the same, anarchy will do the same so how are they different?. there is nothing wrong with "Critical Thinking and Skepticism" as long as its not organized/structurized. if/when that happens it means someone else is doing the thinking for you and youre just a sheep not a skeptic. "Critical Thinking and Skepticism" requires self-reliance and personal independence (individualism) (at least thats my view on it).
Your view is a pretty misguided one.
|
On August 02 2011 02:40 xM(Z wrote:
there is nothing wrong with "Critical Thinking and Skepticism" as long as its not organized/structurized. if/when that happens it means someone else is doing the thinking for you and youre just a sheep not a skeptic.
"Critical Thinking and Skepticism" requires self-reliance and personal independence (individualism) (at least thats my view on it).
I think you're spot on. Any thoughts based on rigid pre-defined systems instead of observation and experience is problematic.
|
On August 02 2011 02:40 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 00:26 mcc wrote:On August 02 2011 00:06 xM(Z wrote:On August 01 2011 20:48 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2011 20:42 xM(Z wrote:
atheism became a religion when people started to fight for it.
prior to that it was just a logical train of thought with no needs, desires or affiliations. an idea by which some lived their life.
once shit got viral, atheism became institutionalized, lead by a prominent figure who was actively asking people to fight for it. set of beliefs + leader + ongoing battle vs <xyz> = religion.
it doesnt even matter if your beliefs are right on the money. it is what it is, deal with it.
anyway, denial is the first step to recovery so even if youre wrong youre on the right track!. Wait a minute, who is our atheist leader? I wasn't aware we had one. And by that logic being a republican or a democrat is a religious belief. and you think your strawman is ftw?. - as long as it advocates atheist bealiefs to a crowd = leader - politics include religion while being above it in matters of organization, power, agenda and all the rest And you are redefining religion. Atheism does not fit definition of religion even if it would become institutionalized and "fighting" for a cause against someone. The same as communism is not a religion, the same as anarchism is not a religion,.... you think like that because you see religion only as an ideology with no ties with the practical aspect of life. that couldnt be more further from the truth. see religion as a business. it has infrastructure (churches), it recieves money (donations) and it alters peoples lifes (it can/will even punish them based on its own laws). comunism did the same, anarchy will do the same so how are they different?. there is nothing wrong with "Critical Thinking and Skepticism" as long as its not organized/structurized. if/when that happens it means someone else is doing the thinking for you and youre just a sheep not a skeptic. "Critical Thinking and Skepticism" requires self-reliance and personal independence (individualism) (at least thats my view on it).
And you actually used the word you should be using. Ideology is the word you are looking for, not religion. Communism and anarchism are not religions, they are ideologies. Religions are also ideologies.
Organized atheism does not mean that you accept it as a dogma, just that atheists would have organizational structures to help them achieve their goals whatever they might be. Same as other groups like political parties, NRA, ecological groups,... Yet those groups are not religions (and often not even ideologies).
EDIT: To answer your question about difference. Religions have by definition some kind of belief in supernatural, on the other hand atheism, communism, anarchism, capitalism,... do not.
|
On August 02 2011 01:08 Traeon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 01:00 Mecker wrote:
That's exactly what I am advocating. People posting claims without any argument leaves no room for any discussion. That is exactly what you did though, and I tried (fruitlessly) to make you realize it with the post you just replied to. I rest my case.
Please read more carefully next time, I quote myself:
He was the one who made a claim. The only reason I posted my opinion on the matter was because he so dismissively claimed the exact opposite of my belief without any solid argument to back it up. If we were to have a discussion on the topic he would have to make his point through argument and so would I. Evidently, he didn't care to back up his claim with any argument whatsoever and that's just childish and certainly isn't well suited for a discussion forum
Here I explained why I responded that way. If he is the one that makes the first claim without any argument, I have every right to ask for evidence/arguments without any myself. It's sometimes hard to argue against someone when you have no clue about why they hold an opinion-
He: "ALL PEOPLE ARE EVIL!"
Me: "I don't think so, do you have proof?"
What other way could I possibly respond?
"Well, I don't think my grandma is evil."
|
|
|
On August 02 2011 02:40 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 00:26 mcc wrote:On August 02 2011 00:06 xM(Z wrote:On August 01 2011 20:48 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2011 20:42 xM(Z wrote:
atheism became a religion when people started to fight for it.
prior to that it was just a logical train of thought with no needs, desires or affiliations. an idea by which some lived their life.
once shit got viral, atheism became institutionalized, lead by a prominent figure who was actively asking people to fight for it. set of beliefs + leader + ongoing battle vs <xyz> = religion.
it doesnt even matter if your beliefs are right on the money. it is what it is, deal with it.
anyway, denial is the first step to recovery so even if youre wrong youre on the right track!. Wait a minute, who is our atheist leader? I wasn't aware we had one. And by that logic being a republican or a democrat is a religious belief. and you think your strawman is ftw?. - as long as it advocates atheist bealiefs to a crowd = leader - politics include religion while being above it in matters of organization, power, agenda and all the rest And you are redefining religion. Atheism does not fit definition of religion even if it would become institutionalized and "fighting" for a cause against someone. The same as communism is not a religion, the same as anarchism is not a religion,.... you think like that because you see religion only as an ideology with no ties with the practical aspect of life. that couldnt be more further from the truth. see religion as a business. it has infrastructure (churches), it recieves money (donations) and it alters peoples lifes (it can/will even punish them based on its own laws). comunism did the same, anarchy will do the same so how are they different?. there is nothing wrong with "Critical Thinking and Skepticism" as long as its not organized/structurized. if/when that happens it means someone else is doing the thinking for you and youre just a sheep not a skeptic. "Critical Thinking and Skepticism" requires self-reliance and personal independence (individualism) (at least thats my view on it).
As a skeptic you have to rely on others, through peer review and other methods. There is no way for one person to be self reliant in testing everything. That is why one needs structure and organization.
What annoys me is that people never seem to understand the fundamental difference between critical thinking and religion: One is based on logic, and can be tested over and over again. It is flexible to change, since the evidence is what matters. The other is based on text, on thought, and on belief in that lack of evidence means you get to decide what is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
