YO HO YO HO
ceci n'est pas une signature
Originally Posted by KT.
She makes an excellent point.
Also, I think you have to click the link because of a family filter which, upon watching the video, you will realise is ridiculous.
Lol.
(NSFW: She says the word "atheist.")
And the answer to her question is me. I did it.
PANDAS
If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.
I'd be willing to believe you were it not for the song of songs
For paradise among this world
Is finding love in boy and girl
Uh... you know "Nigra sum sed formosa?"
That was totes about me.
(Yes yes I know what it actually means, don't go all pedantic on me.)
Last edited by sycld; 03-09-2011 at 08:11 PM.
PANDAS
If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.
Is that the lord of the dance tune?
it's what link plays on the ocarina of time
There seems to be no mention of the igtheistic/nostic approach which is: before arguing god's existence, define god. If one cannot define god without reaching towards illogical doctrine, anything that is purely philosophical or ideas that are not completely coherent then what is one arguing?
God, by current use, appears that it may be a meaningless term, which is what sends arguments into spirals of disrepair from the beginning. By igtheistic belief there is nothing to argue. It's like a debate without the moot.
Atheism can be seen to acknowledge that there is a definition of god (regardless of whether one does not believe that this defined god exists). That's where it goes wrong.
i think it's a leap to suggest that atheism necessarily acknowledges anything
i don't see why the idea that "there is no definition of god that is internally coherent" conflicts with believing there is no god
edit: besides, i am not even convinced that the idea of god as an omnipotent and omniscient sentient creator existing outside of time and space is internally incoherent -- certainly it conflicts with any scientific understanding and fails to stand up to philosophical scrutiny whenever theodicy is concerned, but the idea is that this being exists out of physical boundaries, and so doesn't need to line up with a scientific understanding of the universe, and the doctrine is that god is simultaneously "all knowing" and "unknowable", and therefore able to reconcile how bad things can happen with being omnipotent and benevolent by way of some knowledge humans are unable to obtain (presumably macro, big picture, grand scale understanding of some kind of universal balance).
long fucking sentence
Blake, you know I'm an atheist, right?
Actually no. I didn't. But then again, Atheism in Utah is probably the greatest mode of self defense against Mormons, so I can't say I'm surprised.
I havent yet taken the time to read this thread, but I'll add some of my thoughts.
Basically my atheism comes down to this: the more I learn about the universe, the earth, the origins of life, and the nature of human psychology, the more profoundly wrong and narrow minded the bible seems. The bible is a collection of two thousand year old superstitions, rules, and moral fables. It's an interesting book, a glimpse into human beings in a much more barbaric time. It's certainly interesting. But the more I learn, the more wrong it is about the origin of earth and the birth of the universe. For example, it exhibits such a profound misunderstanding of what the earth and the sun are. The earth is just a planet, the sun just a star. The earth is 4.3 billion years old and was certainly not created for the dawn of human civilization. Evolution is real.
And when you look at all of these glaring factual inaccuracies, I am forced to ask: how is this the word of god? It seems far more likely that it was a snapshot of human opinion about life, what it meant, how it formed, and how it is meant to be lived. That is why I reject organized religion. It all stems from a rigid proclamation of what it all is and what it all means, when a human beings interaction with the universe is far more open and free flowing. I am comfortable with the knowledge that there is a great deal I do not understand about the universe, and I'm fine with that. I know that in many situations I will be faced with moral ambiguity, and I'm fine with that too. I trust my own morality above what somebody else imposes on me.
That is simply why I reject organized religion. That part is easy. My actual feelings about god are much harder to define. Personally, I find the existence of a god unfathomable. It made a lot more sense when we did not know what was out there in the sky, when we thought of the heavens as separate from the earth. Now, we understand the sheer scale of the universe as well as our place in it, and it makes a conscious, all knowing and all powerful creator exceedingly unlikely. I cannot rule out the existence of a god entirely, but I'm 99.9999% sure. I'm still leaving a sliver, but its a damn small sliver.
That about sums it up.
I don't believe in a god because I don't think any supernatural power HAD to create everything as we know it. In an area with infinite possibilities, than an infinite number of scenarios can exist. I know the universe is not infinite, but when you gather all the atoms, electrons, neutrons, protons, organisms, people, plants, stars, space stuff, it sure as fuck seems infinite.
If you want to call God the thing that initiated the Big Bang(if that is how it all happened), then I can jump on board with that. In that case, God was the energy that created everything, but nothing more.
Also, if God does not exist, than Man wrote the bible(which I'm pretty sure every christian sect says "It's the word of God, written by man")
lik dis if u cry evertim
Plus even if god does exist and is all powerful (unlikely) it is still accepted that man wrote the bible and it is littered with personal bias and outdated opinion, and cannot be treated in its entirety as the word of god. And when you enter the realm of asking what is wrong and what is right within the bible, you get to the question of whether any of it should be believed at all.
The existence of god will never be proven or disproven, and atheists make the mistake of starting from that point when the real question is whether the religious doctrines have any merit, and whether people should follow them. I do not reject god completely, but what I do reject completely are the existence of the Christian god, as well as the existence of Satan, heaven, and hell.
Even as an atheist, I still believe most religious doctrines should be followed. Not the "Keep X day holy, and don't do shit" but the whole "Be nice to people, don't be a dick" thing
lik dis if u cry evertim
I'm pretty sure in Judaic-based religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.) most doctrines are not how you should interact with others, but how you should not eat pigs, and how you should stone your wives if they're unfaithful.
What does being nice to people and not being a dick have to do with religion? Why can't that just be a human ideal?
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.- Christian
Do unto others before they do unto you- Satanic
Don't be a Dick- Scarsic
lik dis if u cry evertim
That sounds like a singular Christian doctrine, not "most religious doctrines." The golden rule is a very good way to interact with people, but it has nothing to do with religion. And that is one doctrine. I'd venture to guess that the ratio of doctrines that should be followed to doctrines that shouldn't is not very high.
I'd venture to say most religions tell their followers to be nice to one another.
lik dis if u cry evertim
I would disagree strongly with that statement.
it's absolutely true. he said "most religions tell their followers to be nice to one another", which they do; he DIDN'T say "mostly, religions tell their followers to be nice to one another".
pretty much all of them (certainly all the religions i'm aware of) want you to love your fellow men. the problem is that they go on to say "unless they are from another tribe/have clitorises/like sex with other men/wear the wrong clothes/look funny" and so on.
the fact is, a lot of religious rules are about making the world better and not murdering each other or stealing their shit. a lot of the rules that make up all religions is good stuff. and sometimes, like circumcising baby boys or the rules of kashrut (kosher), they exist for good reason and get people to have healthier lives and not die because they got sand in their dick or had the black plague pork pie. religions were not made up by the upper classes to keep control of the lower classes; they started as earnest attempts to understand the world and try to make it a better place for everyone in it. but, perhaps more importantly, none of those guidelines require faith in or the existence of god to make them good guidelines, and very little of the good stuff in any religious text actually is specific to or originated in it (the "golden rule" predates christianity considerably, for instance).
GOOD doctrines that come out of religion should be celebrated and learnt from, even as the developed world marches in a roughly secular direction. when we're examining these things philosophically, if we earnestly want to improve our lot in the world and the lot of millions of disadvantaged people, we must examine it from the point of view that religion is there to serve mankind; not the other way around.
I guess I should probably address these comments. Look, I'm not a hardliner. I don't think religion is pure evil or anything. I just think you guys are pretty optimistic about what religion offers, what its purpose is, and particularly how it is used. Some people will take what they learn in church and genuinely apply it to their life and become a better person for it. But others will take phrases from the bible and use them as weapons.
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." That's a real phrase from the bible. That's not "love and kindness and goodwill towards man." That's saying that homosexuals are an abomination and should be put to death. The bible is littered with these offhand remarks about who is good, who is evil, and what we should do about the ones we don't approve of. And the majority of time, the answer is "kill them."
I'm not disputing that some churches preach mostly the good stuff, but others preach the bad stuff too, and there is a reason that something like gay marriage is not accepted in the majority of states in the US. That reason is the bible. That reason is the power and pervasiveness of christianity in our society. I simply will not accept that religion is only used for good, because it is so far from the truth. Quite often it is used for evil.
The inherent problem is that there are many, many things written in the thousand plus pages that make up the bible, and most of them are open to interpretation. There are many horrible things said in the bible, and to the extent that they are believed and followed, that can be an extremely negative thing for everybody. The homosexuality example is one of many.
"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death." Is there any relevance to that statement in modern society? Is that really a worthy punishment to the crime?
If all you take from religion is the golden rule, that's fine. But don't tell me that is all that there is to the bible. There is so much more to it than that.
I didn't say anything about the bible, or any doctrine, being 100% good things. Yea, in the eyes of most religions if you're a homosexual, beastiophile, or something that does not lend to procreation, they say "kill the mother fucker".
But I still will not say that most religions tell you not to be cool with everyone.
As an atheist, who honestly does not give a fuck in the normal world, I think religion does real well for some people, I also think it's pretty fucking terrible for others(fundamentalist anything).
lik dis if u cry evertim
and yet...
it seems like nobody is reading anyone else's posts -- or at least not reading them carefully. this is getting a bit repetitive.
everyone in this thread is already on board with you that the bible, indeed pretty much all religions, teach ignorant and hateful doctrines. but you disagreed with the statement that "most religions tell their followers to be nice to one another". they all do, i guarantee it. except that
it's not about what "most" of their doctrines say, or measuring the good against the bad and seeing how religion fares once all their preachings are put on the scales. if we are going to progress, we have to reconceptualise religion from something to which humanity should be subservient to something that exists to make the world a better place. then we learn from the good aspects as much as we learn from (and try to salve) the bad.
hey, what if subservience is the way?
it briefly worked for Islam.
i don't completely disagree with you, personally, but i think that's a naive sentiment. rather, i think we as a people (believers and non-) need to grow up and religion needs to grow up with us.
before i let loose my opinions on this, just let me know if you're joking, and if you're not, expand so i definitely know what you're talking about.
I agree with you completely. To be honest I had the points I wanted to argue and disregarded how much or little people were disagreeing with me.
Yeah religion has some positive impacts on it's followers but just children outgrow the notion that Santa knows when you've been good or bad, we as a society needs to outgrow religion, and honestly I think we're over due.
How does religion "grow up?" As far as I can tell, religions are pretty intrinsically tied to their holy books, which are considered the infallible word of god. It just doesn't seem like there's much wiggle room there. I'm inclined to agree with KT that we as a species need to outgrow religion. Everything that religion provides: community, oneness, a sense of being, a sense of understanding of one's place in the universe, and especially morality, all of that can be provided elsewhere. Maybe we should do a better job of teaching science to kids in an interesting way so that they truly understand where we come from in a cosmic sense and where here is on a more galactic and universal scale. Then we wouldn't grow up with so much mystery about our origins and our place in the world and the cosmos. There will always be mystery, because scientific knowledge will always be imperfect, but in my honest opinion it is much healthier to accept an imperfect knowledge of what everything is than to claim complete knowledge in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Also, it is a huge misconception that religion holds a monopoly on morality. Some of the best people I know are atheists, some of the worst are deeply religious. I see little correlation. Morality is being taught what's right and what's wrong. If people choose to be horrible to each other with the full knowledge that every life has equal value and that everybody deserves to be treated with respect because we're all in this together...then...I guess that's what jails are for. People are as good as their parents and society raise them to be, with or without religion.
Not that religion is always a bad influence. MLK was deeply religious, as was Ghandhi, the Buddha, many people over the years. But true morality transcends religion. It is the recognition and willingness to do what's right even when it conflicts with accepted doctrine and societal norms. That, in my opinion is true morality.
Maybe I'm not cynical enough about people in general. Maybe the average person does need to be told that if they're bad they'll go to hell, or else they'll be bad. But I think that's expecting very little out of people, and taking the very old testament view that free will will always lead people astray. It is my humble opinion that the knowledge of who we are and why we're here will actually lead people to make better decisions than the "knowledge" that we are all God's children, that we were created in his image, and as long as we act in the name of God we can do no wrong on this earth. The level of evil and unenlightenment that such a philosophy has caused in this country and this earth is profound. It is why we destroy the environment, why we refuse to admit that climate change is possible, why commit war in the name of Christianity.
To sum up, I think religion holds us back. It's too deeply devoted to an outdated book that too many believe is the word of God. As long as religion is based on the bible, it will only ever hold us back. If we want to take the valuable things from the bible and leave the rest, that's fine. But ultimately, we should be teaching the morals that we think are right, regardless of where they come from. Many will come from the bible, many won't. But as long as the bible as a whole is cited, as long as there still exist passages like the ones I quoted earlier, religion will only hold us back.
sailor jack, that's an incredible guess, and i think a very naive and inaccurate one.
in a way, the world needs "radical atheism" as much as it needed "radical feminism"; neither is in itself on the money, but both are much-needed kicks in the pants for the deeply religious/patriarchal world. (i won't argue that point too stringently, because it's also a bit of a guess, but quite a convincing one, i find.)
you say that "if critics (Atheists in particular) would stop using the religious extremes as a straw man for religion as a whole, the extremists would have lost their voice and credibility a long time ago"; but -- that's simply nonsense. why would they have lost their voice? they have had the overwhelming voice the world over for millennia. what we today call religious extremism was essentially the norm for a very, very long time -- basically until it was more convenient to go after things like industry and science, at which point it started to lose its grip. are you saying that, if things had been allowed to run their course, without the intervention of pesky dawkins and hitchens (etc), the trend would have continued more rapidly? that's a pretty nonsensical thing to suppose.
it's true that strawman* arguments by atheists (or feminists) does the cause little good, but they don't drastically set it back, either. religion is deeply embedded in our society's status quo. it will continue to be until is shaken out. ...which will never -- or at least not for a very, very long time, and organically, not because some atheists want it to happen -- actually happen in a substantive enough way to make a difference. which brings me to...
how much do you think the average christian on your street resembles a christian from a thousand years ago? how about a hundred? what beliefs do you think they have in common? sadly, far too many people still believe evolution is bogus, but millions the world over DO believe it. and millions comfortably believe in both the christian god AND the validity of evolution. (the question of whether these are really compatible is the subject of another debate.) how about reform or progressive judaism? ever heard of that? or the muslim family that owns a kebab shop whose meat is NOT blessed ritually by an imam?
there are lots of intelligent, thoughtful religious people, and to say that a religion can't mature is to deny that fact. a few very wicked people still believe in religions from the dark ages, but that doesn't apply to all religion. basically, the way religion can mature is for people to, rather than living their lives in servitude to it, use it to enhance their or others' lives. as i said earlier: if religion is to mature with modern society, and the wisdom which humanity requires to survive the next millennium, it must be in servitude to humankind, and not the other way around.
Only the loudest, worst-read believers think any holy book is the "infallible word of God". Scholars see them as books, but books which serve as the foundation/constitution of the religions.
Religions can not grow up without critics growing up too. If critics (Atheists in particular) would stop using the religious extremes as a straw man for religion as a whole, the extremists would have lost their voice and credibility a long time ago and the voice of the scholars and our common sense would be heard.
YO HO YO HO
ceci n'est pas une signature
*it's not actually a strawman argument when atheist critics of religion call upon extremists to make a point. those extremists EXIST. no atheist will say "a christian once bombed an abortion clinic, so all christians are abortion bombers". (a similar sentiment might be made about muslims, but atheists CERTAINLY do not have a monopoly on criticism of islam.) but saying "a guy was impelled by his doctrine to bomb this abortion clinic, therefore there are some things seriously wrong with christian doctrines and the way they are being taught." that is a reasonable argument. more often, though, the extremists aren't called upon to make a point about the religion in general; they are called upon to say that this is happening, and it shouldn't be ignored or dismissed as the lunatic fringe. it's also to say to religious moderates "seriously, guys, there are religious extremists in your group, and you should not be ignoring or shoving them under the rug or claiming that they're not your problem. you defend the same doctrines that compel these people to behave the way they are behaving; you have to deal with this."
if you find an atheist making a remark about loony extremists standing in for the whole group, it's usually nothing more than a joke or, if serious, a really immature, uneducated slur. that's not a strawman argument.
welp, looks like all agnostics and atheists are crazy assholes who just wanna kill people. I think that atheists and agnostics need to take a serious look at what, in their doctrines, impels people to commit acts of terrorism and the way they are being taught.
what I'm trying to say with this is that extremists are extremists and cannot be counted as part of the majority. As well, there are social, cultural and political factors that lead to extremists doing these things you find reprehensible. Because they are justified by doctrine taken out of context and snipped beyond recognition does not falsify the doctrines used.
what is the difference? they result in the same animosity. they function as the same thing. a straw man is a straw man whether the person utilising it realises or not. These "jokes" function in the same way that poor religios doctrine does ie. it falsely informs and perpetuates the problem.
as for your comment on poor religious doctrine, the point is that doctrine is being taught instead of discussed. If there was discussion about the Bible under the title "lets all remember that Jesus is suppossed to be perfect so anything we come up with that isnt perfect should be ignored" we wouldnt be playing chinese whispers with history and institutions and the true message christianity (this goes for all religions, including atheism) would be known.
YO HO YO HO
ceci n'est pas une signature
I agree that religion can "mature" but what's the point of having religion at all anymore? Religion by default leads to magical thinking and I don't understand how magical thinking can be seen as a good thing.
The problem with Christianity (and other religions) is that it's not only extremists who are doing things I find reprehensible.
For example:
"60% of evangelical Christians think that [homosexuality] is wrong, whereas 11% with no religious affiliation are against it" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societa...ity#Statistics)
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks