On September 19 2010 21:19 Blix wrote: Wilbert, this horrible thread really doesn't deserve a post like yours - also i never knew if i should consider myself atheistic or agnostic - agnostic atheist it is... thanks
Personally, I have added absurdism to that list. Agnostic atheistic absurdist. Depending on the mood I'm set on one specifically. This thread turns me agnostic.
On September 19 2010 21:09 Cantankerous wrote: The rest of this thread on the other hand revolves around knocking down straw men and hasn't been very productive. Can we at least do each other the favor of accurately representing what we believe to be our opponent's stance, and then calmly proceeding to point out where we believe his interpretation of the evidence falters and proceed from there. If you're unclear about something, just ask.
For your information: this thread discusses religion. The (root) proof from religious people is a collection of very old writings. The proof from the other camp is generally lacking, with the disbelief in the others' proof. Double straw man all the way.
I'm not sure quite what you're saying - are you challenging my statement that both sides in this thread have employed straw man arguments? Albeit some more than others.
On September 19 2010 21:19 Blix wrote: Wilbert, this horrible thread really doesn't deserve a post like yours - also i never knew if i should consider myself atheistic or agnostic - agnostic atheist it is... thanks
Personally, I have added absurdism to that list. Agnostic atheistic absurdist. Depending on the mood I'm set on one specifically. This thread turns me agnostic.
On September 19 2010 21:09 Cantankerous wrote: The rest of this thread on the other hand revolves around knocking down straw men and hasn't been very productive. Can we at least do each other the favor of accurately representing what we believe to be our opponent's stance, and then calmly proceeding to point out where we believe his interpretation of the evidence falters and proceed from there. If you're unclear about something, just ask.
For your information: this thread discusses religion. The (root) proof from religious people is a collection of very old writings. The proof from the other camp is generally lacking, with the disbelief in the others' proof. Double straw man all the way.
I'm not sure quite what you're saying - are you challenging my statement that both sides in this thread have employed straw man arguments? Albeit some more than others.
Although I don't necessarily disagree, I want to add that pointing out logical fallacies is only useful when you make them explicit. If you're not going to point to the actual straw man your remark is pointless. I'm going to assume the straw men in this discussion where unintentional. So most likely the people who committed those fallacies won't be able to see that when you don't point out where exactly their reasoning went wrong. (And also, if a straw man was in fact intentional, no-one is going to admit that unless forced to do so.)
On September 19 2010 18:01 blitzkrieger wrote: The reason you believe in atheism is because ???. Morals dont come from religion. Morals come from God.
Just because I'm not convinced you know what atheism is:
Most of the people who identify as atheists today, will say they do so because they haven't seen any evidence for a god or gods, or the evidence shown wasn't sufficient to make them believe.
That's all. Religion is selling some story as truth. Atheist aren't selling some other story. They're just not buying yours.
I know that in some dictionaries atheism is defined as conclusively believing gods don't exist, but that's not how most atheists would define it. And before anyone plays the 'you're describing agnosticism' card: agnosticism is a position on whether we can ultimately know for sure whether a god or gods exist. It doesn't have anything to do with the answer to that question itself. So you could be an agnostic theist (I believe god exists), a gnostic theist (I know god exists), an agnostic atheist (I don't believe god exists), and a gnostic atheist (I know god doesn't exist). I realize there's more to it, and I'm cutting some corners, but for the purposes of this discussion, I think this suffices.
So atheism doesn't strip anything from anything. It doesn't conclusively reject anything, and it doesn't posit anything. Now a lot of atheists have a lot of things in common. Some things atheists have in common are a direct result of them being atheist (low church attendance), and some have in many cases lead to them being atheists (a reverence for the scientific method). If a lot of atheist have a higher than average appreciation for science, that doesn't mean that science is a part of what constitutes atheism.
'Well, nice story bro, but why did you bother to write this all down?' you ask... Well, I'm bothered by the notion that without religion life wouldn't have meaning or purpose. I can lie in the grass for hours on end and just appreciate the beauty of nature. I don't think a story for which there is no evidence adds to that beauty. It doesn't add meaning, and it doesn't add purpose. And yes, I've read the bible (and most of the Qur'an), I've been to church, and I've been to christian summer camps. I'm amazed at how the phenomena such as 'beauty', 'meaning' and 'purpose' work. You just experience them, without having a good reason. For some things you could give an explanation, but if you keep asking 'why?' on and on, you'll end up with an explanation that doesn't intuitively make sense. And still we can all appreciate beauty, and meaning, and purpose. I think it's great that it's not our task to effect someone else's purpose, but that we can define our true selves by finding our own purpose in life.
Now religion tries to answer the perpetual 'why?' question with the 'god' answer. If something has meaning to us, it's because it's god's will. But I'm not going to stop asking 'why?' there. Why is it god's will? Why is this god's purpose? If you cannot answer those questions, you haven't added to the understanding of our purpose (or beauty, or meaning). Not because you couldn't answer the 'final' question, but because the question remains basically the same. You haven't reduced the problem to something simpler, with less assumptions. You have therefore not explained anything.
This is where my appreciation for science comes in, and how I get back to the first line of you I quoted. While atheism doesn't strip anything off of anything, it doesn't add anything useful either. But although we don't need anything to add to the beauty and purpose of the world around us, there is so much that we can add to it. Even though the world is beautiful by itself, the way it works is (to some) even more wonderful than the way it looks. That's where science comes in. Science can explain why we experience the purpose we feel, and in some cases why we experience some things as beautiful. And if you have an appreciation for such explanations, then that means that for you science adds to the beauty of life. Science can only add to this beauty. It never detracts.
The transcript of the next video is on its youtube page:
This post sums up my views on atheism, agnosticism, and science better than I've ever articulated myself. I really hope blitzkrieger reads and thinks about this, I'm interested in how one could still believe atheism = amoralism after such a post.
(Also super bonus points for Feynman, I almost feel bad for deciding to give up on cosmology for now)
if you think of satan music from southpark while your looking at the pope, it fits! its ironic that the figurehead of the catholic church looks somewhat similar to a zombie/dracula/deadite
On September 19 2010 22:12 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: This post sums up my views on atheism, agnosticism, and science better than I've ever articulated myself. I really hope blitzkrieger reads and thinks about this, I'm interested in how one could still believe atheism = amoralism after such a post.
(Also super bonus points for Feynman, I almost feel bad for deciding to give up on cosmology for now)
Thanks. I'm quite new here, and I don't have a lot of starcraft knowledge, so it's nice to see at least some of the TL visitors appreciate this contribution.
Also, if you like Feynman, definitely check this out (if you haven't already):
On September 19 2010 21:19 Blix wrote: Wilbert, this horrible thread really doesn't deserve a post like yours - also i never knew if i should consider myself atheistic or agnostic - agnostic atheist it is... thanks
Personally, I have added absurdism to that list. Agnostic atheistic absurdist. Depending on the mood I'm set on one specifically. This thread turns me agnostic.
On September 19 2010 21:09 Cantankerous wrote: The rest of this thread on the other hand revolves around knocking down straw men and hasn't been very productive. Can we at least do each other the favor of accurately representing what we believe to be our opponent's stance, and then calmly proceeding to point out where we believe his interpretation of the evidence falters and proceed from there. If you're unclear about something, just ask.
For your information: this thread discusses religion. The (root) proof from religious people is a collection of very old writings. The proof from the other camp is generally lacking, with the disbelief in the others' proof. Double straw man all the way.
I'm not sure quite what you're saying - are you challenging my statement that both sides in this thread have employed straw man arguments? Albeit some more than others.
Although I don't necessarily disagree, I want to add that pointing out logical fallacies is only useful when you make them explicit. If you're not going to point to the actual straw man your remark is pointless. I'm going to assume the straw men in this discussion where unintentional. So most likely the people who committed those fallacies won't be able to see that when you don't point out where exactly their reasoning went wrong. (And also, if a straw man was in fact intentional, no-one is going to admit that unless forced to do so.)
Oh actually I am quite sure that they were unintentional (and on the atheist side, some things I can even see myself saying) - my core point was just that - I don't think the theist side is intentionally coming up with straw man arguments and knocking them down. I think that it's simply a product of not quite understanding your opponent's view. I would even go as far as saying that a mild case of straw man thinking is present in all emotionally involved arguments - and as far as saying that it is like a default mode of argument for any human being. I can only speak for myself, but after reading some of what I have written in the past, I have even noticed myself employing this kind of thinking - and what really scares me is that I inevitably feel that somehow it was justified - because I am right, and they are not.
I didn't realise it when writing my post but you are right that it's not especially useful to point out logical fallacies without specifying what you mean. At the time I did not want to go pointing fingers without a good reason in case anyone took it personally.
Blaming the exploits of history's many despots on any individual factor in particular is foolish, whether it be claiming Pol Pot was a monster because of atheism or religion was the cause of most of Europe's wars. Powerful men all have their own reasons and justifications for doing what they do, and they are individualistic enough in their own right to have their own goals in mind as opposed to be slave to any particular belief or ideology. Terrible people will be terrible people no matter what their stance on religion, and good people will be good etc.
However, it is worth considering that of the many reasons for inflicting suffering on our fellow beings, many religions (obviously, I am mainly referring to the great monotheistic religions) provide some very handy excuses. Islam and Christianity (and everything in between) both have very similar potential for destructive behavior from human to human, and if the human race as a whole could think and act in a purely logical and reasonable manner as opposed to being beholden to such things, we would be much better off.
Of course, not all people can handle a world without religion, as such as world is for the majority of the world's population a world without hope. Removing religion at this point would do more harm than good, but I suppose as the human race continues to evolve intellectually I do hope that the power held by religious powers from the Vatican to militant Islam is severely curtailed, simply because their outdated doctrines provide excuses and even the right to make life harder for the rest of us.
I'm always curious as to why religion is held to be the magisterium of morals? You need religion to be moral as much as you need religion to make toast, they are completely unrelated. Indeed many people have used religion as an excuse to commit many great atrocities.
So please, don't tell me of how religion is related to morality. It is not and never has been.
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
Speak for yourself.
Humanism, the school of though predominantly responsible for the cultural notion of the intrinsic value of human life, was founded by Atheist and Deist scholars during the enlightenment, and the rebirth of secular thought in the west. Before that, when religion itself dictated human morale, we had the Dark Ages.
Though if you need religion to justify being kind towards other human beings, by my guest. Continue to believe in what you do.
I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
I also have heard the Dark Ages were full of advances and they are thinknig of changing the name from teh Dark Age to something else. Again I don't have sources for any of this but I do know the Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler were atheists and did horrible acts and that abortion has killed more than all the people in all the wars of all time.
Today it is frequently applied only to the earlier part of the era, the Early Middle Ages[6]. However, most modern scholars who study the era tend to avoid the term altogether for its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate for any part of the Middle Ages.[7][8]
Listen buddy, atheism is not believing in any deity. Do you get that? No? How does this translate to having no values? It's not a question by the way. I'm an atheist and your characterization is not one of the mere non-belief in ghosts. Get that? You clearly don't know/care about humanism. That's your loss. I totally agree about the ""Dark Ages"" being a moronic misnomer for an era. I'm not going to go into it, but too many internet atheists (and anti-theists) are so arrogant that they don't even bother looking up what the "dark" in dark ages actually refers to. You didn't even bother to seriously argue the link between atheism and genocide, so I'm not going to waste my time on that. I will say that abortion is a human thing, not an atheist one. Get your facts straight.
While I am not a student of such things, it seems to me that the idea that religion=morality comes from way back in the day when religion really was the only fixed moral code in many great civilisations, simply because we hadn't reached the same point of intellectual evolution and concepts such as human rights had not appeared yet.
Feel free to correct me of course, but I think the widespread view that religion is the father of morality is on some level rooted in reality. It is of course no longer the case in the modern age that there cannot be morality without faith so nothing of what I have said is entirely relevant, but it is still interesting.
The point is, none of those commandments have anything to do with morality. Many people tell me without them I'd be an immoral soulless bastard. Then again, these same people need to rely on an invisible sky tyrant to tell them not to kill people.
EPT
