the difference is that Christians are morally impelled to confront people about this because, in their worldview, they're trying to save someone's eternal soul. When you remove the meaning of saving something worth more than someone's life, shit doesn't matter so much anymore.Originally Posted by KT.
My distaste for that is tempered by their intentions.
Are you therefore saying their intentions are some sort of justification for their homophobia?
i've said this many times, maybe not in this thread, but the difference is: atheism HAS NO DOCTRINES. it's a lack of doctrine. it just means there's something you don't believe in. atheism and science are mostly found in the same places, but atheism does not teach science. we're (i assume) all atheists about zeus, odin, and so on, without implying that there's some doctrine that goes along with not believing in zeus and odin -- people who call themselves atheists today are just atheistic about one more god.
furthermore, the day that someone does something truly reprehensible in the name of atheism, or that can IN ANY WAY be linked to his atheism, i will be the first one to go whoa, guys, we have to deal with this. but it doesn't happen. show me i'm wrong here.
this is apologism. how about the vatican's shielding of child molesters? is that being done by "fringe extremists", and what are the social and cultural and political factors that lead to it?
what about comfortable, middle class families who abuse their children not sexually or physically, but mentally, because they're "dirty", or somehow not acceptable to their god?
and what about the majority of america, who simply teach their children to be suspicious of science and education? i submit that it's a form of abuse to ruin someone's mind like that. let's call it intellectual abuse.
the more moderate, sensible members of any one community -- whether it be a religious, national, ideological or cultural one -- need to be the first to come out decrying the actions of extremists and look at fixing things. instead, moderate religion has a real problem with denying, ignoring and distancing itself. when a passage in the bible literally says "gays are an abomination who should surely be put to death", and then someone quotes it when they kill gays, that's not taking a doctrine out of context. that's basic literacy and following clear instructions.
there are grey areas, certainly. but frankly, a lot of the worst, most bloodthirsty, most "dark age" passages in any religious text aren't exactly "grey". you can make arguments for them to be non-literal, but what possible non-literal -- but still acceptable -- reading is there for "you shall surely put gays to death"? or the koran's many passages about killing infidels till there's nobody left but them? for religion to mature along with modern thought, its followers must be willing to examine these things, and answer them satisfactorily.
and the only satisfactory answer is "they are bad passages, and we must excise them from our religion".
i don't disagree with you, myself. i just find it pointless to go around saying we need to get rid of religion. as i said, it's incredibly, achingly naive and it'll just depress you in the long run. i think we'll have more luck engaging with a more sympathetic dialogue with moderate religious people and helping them see how should be used to create the best possible world (as opposed to shaping our world according to religion). plus, in time, when religion has matured to the point where it doesn't so vastly hold back people's thinking, it'll just sort of fade away on its own.
i agree with this. it doesn't make them bad people. it makes them good people infected with bad teachings.
I don't know if religion will ever fade away. Scientology popped up 50 years ago and is growing stronger every day. Cults will rise and fall and eventually one will break through as a new religion. Established churches will break off and form their own ideas (eg Westboro, FLDL). I don't know but I think growth rate for followers of major organized religions will always be on the rise. I would think that even if aliens visited Earth they would probably try to spread their religion, and I think that we would try to incorporate aliens as being created by God and fit that into religious texts.
Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.
Albert Einstein
heh. well. the way i see it, there are myriad ways human history and development can go. one is towards another "enlightenment", i guess, one which doesn't banish religion (which is absolutely inconceivable) but describes a state where the majority of people have a secular education at a very high standard -- consider that in a hundred years we have NO idea what kids will be able to learn and therefore what will be taught in schools. (I.Q. and general intelligence rises dramatically with every generation; this is a well documented and explainable fact.) i'm not saying religion will vanish, just that the tables will turn and it will, slowly but surely, shrink to a small portion of the power it has today.
to me, that seems something of an inevitability. you KNOW the church is afraid to death of it happening -- that's why they try to halt scientific progress. with each scientific advancement, we need god a little less. all that's required to get religion to have less of a hold is education.
pretty much, yeah. In their view, they have a moral imperative to improve the lives of people around them the only way they know how. If they didn't do it, they'd be knowingly damning someone's soul, which is also a social faux pas, I imagine. Given their choice, and put in their shoes, what choice would you make?
If you're talking about the extreme gay haters, that's an outlier thing.
ok, so please understand that everything you quoted there is to be read with eyes fully rolled.
Second, to say there's no finite link between atheism and science is to pay no attention to their culture. Who are the big names in bigtime atheism? Dawkins, Harris et al. Tell me there isn't a substitute set of rules to live by presented by them, in the name of something larger than them.
I note the distinct lack of doing something reprehensible in the name of science. The distancing your doing with this name is the same distancing moderate religious folk give to extremists with the same belief system. I don't think I need to name groups of people doing horrible things in the name of science.
I can't name the political factors that gave the extremists power because I've never studied that history, but I'm sure if you look it up, you'd find out. The social and cultural factors that lead to shielding molestors was probably protecting the image of the church and trying to stymie the subsequent loss of adherents, even though it is distinctly against several doctrines in Catholicism.
More important is the fact that the extremists in power do not constitute the majority of Christians, or even Catholics. The truly faithful, fundamental people are in much fewer quantity than you think.
What about the ones that do that without mentioning God? Because they aren't acceptable to the neighbourhood, or the family values or whatever group of virtues the children are apparently not fulfilling? Are you saying it's somehow worse because religion is involved?
What about specific Australians who make sweeping generalizations about population in an argument in the name of science and education? Let's not give into fallacies here.
If you're saying it's a form of abuse to limit someone's education on general topics, you must understand this is a 2-way street. Given the choice, I'm sure there's a few who will end up turning away from science and education anyways. Also, you do realize that instead of religious fanatics, this also applies to blue-collar workers, right?
would you give this moral imperative to moderates who live in an oppressive regime?
Cool. Can you give me a list of the passages so they are actually in some kind of context? I'm still falling back on my whole argument that this shit is all perpetrated by extremists who gain influence (fanaticism has this kind of effect), but these extremists have no voice when times are not so hard on a population
i can't argue that.
Last edited by coqauvin; 12-09-2011 at 08:42 PM. Reason: tags
i know it's not what you want to hear, but, yes. i mean, those people are prescribing certain things, and advising others, but (1) mostly they DESCRIBE problems without telling anyone what to do about them, and (2) there is simply no atheist tome or single text or whatever that all our beliefs come from. you don't have to believe anything to be an atheist. you don't have to believe anything to be an atheist. you can believe in invisible unicorns and think that we are tiny sentient playthings living in a giant dollhouse owned by galaxy-sized space beings and still be an atheist. there are stupid atheists who know and care fuck all about science, but don't believe in god.
you're right that, mostly, a person's atheism will stem from his or her intuitive trust in observable facts and knowledge gained by scientific means, but-- so what? that's to be expected, isn't it? it doesn't mean you have to believe anything to be an atheist.
if you believe atheism necessarily comes with doctrine, you are factually wrong. you have fundamentally misunderstood the term.
you know, i was going to mention, say, oppenheimer there, but i reconsidered. he recoiled from all the horror his work caused. go on, name one person who's ever purposefully done something bad in the name of science.
people use science and technology in reprehensible ways all the time, but they don't act "in the name of science". they act out of greed or ambition or fear or hatred. you might say the same applies to religious evil people, only you know as well as me how easily i can find examples of people doing things "in the name of" religion -- whether there are any other substantive causal factors or not. here's your challenge, coq: find me an example, from real life, not sci fi, of someone purposefully doing something reprehensible in the name of science.
you don't think that's religiously motivated? then, at best, it's motivated by a twisted sense of needing to protect one's community based on shared religion. of course it's to protect the image of the church and stymie the loss of adherents. they do that so "christianity's" power is not dimished. how does that make it any better? how does it make it not what i said? if you're saying the people at the TOP, the very peak of the catholic faith, are "extremists", i'm saying that, again, you've misunderstood the word. the people at the very highest place in the church are criminals who are deeply entrenched in a system of aiding and abetting child abusers. this has been very well documented.
i'm saying, you can't write off extremists as a loony fringe minority. they're all over the place. religion invites extremism, what with its "do this right or you'll go to hell" stuff. if i have a problem with religion, it's that. the main religions, at least, want you to be extremist. they ASK you to be. they want your whole life lived in service to your god's commands, even if your god's commands are horrifying and insane.
huh? there's a difference between limiting someone's education and systematically, purposefully teaching them to be suspicious of any people or knowledge that contradicts their teachings. teaching them, for instance, that dinosaur bones are the work of the devil to fool us. remember, these people are a huge proportion of americans. not the majority, perhaps, but not a fringe minority. there are so many creationist museums that all do quite nicely for themselves.
and then there are the presidential candidates who say "you know there's something wrong in america when gays can serve openly in the military but kids can't say prayers in school".
uh... i guess not, no, but i'm not sure what you're getting at with the question.
ok, i'm going to do a quick google search, so take or leave these passages. "if a man lies with another man, he is an abomination and should surely be put to death" is nearly verbatim, from memory. that ALONE should be enough for you. but i'll include a few:
"Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction". (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT)
Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, "Strike me!" But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, "Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me." And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him. (1 Kings 20:35-36 NLT) (this one is just insane)
When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are about to enter and occupy, he will clear away many nations ahead of you: the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. These seven nations are all more powerful than you. When the LORD your God hands these nations over to you and you conquer them, you must completely destroy them. Make no treaties with them and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them, and don't let your daughters and sons marry their sons and daughters. They will lead your young people away from me to worship other gods. Then the anger of the LORD will burn against you, and he will destroy you. (Deuteronomy 7:1-4 NLT)
"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'" (Bukhari 84:57)
“I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.” (Quran 8:12)
and more, but i have to go. i can find more if you want, later. you are free to look up context and see how it tempers any of the hateful, violent insanity of the passages themselves.
I want to be clear here: if I lived in Europe, I would not give two shits about religion. But this is America. Every single president has been Christian. Obama, as far as I know, was the first president to even acknowledge that Atheists existed and were a part of American society. The only reason I even care is that in America, religious belief informs public policy.
(source)
The above is pretty consistent with what you guys are saying. There is a very large chunk of the poplulation that believes in God driven evolution (whatever that means). Still, fully 40% of the population believes that God created humans in their current form. I ask: how is a person who believes that informed enough to take part in an informed debate about anything? Maybe they're good people, maybe they're not. Like I said before, there's not really a correlation between morality and religion.
In the United States population, 76% of people identify as Christian, while only 15% identify as not religious (source). In Congress, the disparity is much larger: not a single member of congress in either house identified as unaffiliated with a religion, and only six members do not specify a religion, which amounts to 1.1% of the 535 members of congress. That implies that the non-religious are completely unrepresented in congress. By contrast, 90.3% of congressman are Christian, and 7.3% are Jews, a total of 522 out of 535 congressmen (source). Nearly 98% of the people we elect to congress are informed by old testament theology. Only two congressmen are Muslim. In the face of those overwhelming odds, how does religion in this country just "grow up"?
The inherent problem is that religious organizations are as much political organizations as spiritual ones. They donate to political campaigns. They endorse candidates. As implied by the above numbers, you absolutely have to appeal to a religious group to get elected, with few exceptions.
And like any political organization, religious groups seek to hold on to their power. And religions gain and hold power by indoctrinating people and keeping them indocrinated. Something like evolution is a vitally important debate topic, and a very divisive issue, precisely because it is a playing field where the non-religious have direct evidence that what is written in the bible is not true. And in the face of that evidence, fully 40% of the adult population of the United States still believe that human beings were created by God in their current form. That is not some fringe lunatic group: if you break down the groups by belief, that is the largest. More people believe that than believe that God guided evolution.
In addition to that, 55% of the adult population in this country believes that homosexuality is a sin (source). How exactly is that a positive thing in any way? Why do we need to hold on to this outdated way of looking at the world? There are just so many fucking people in this country who believe things simply because the bible deems it so. I realize that you (mainly Gwahir) are espousing that Christianity take the good, and leave the bad, but from a religious establishment perspective, isn't the goal to force the belief of all of it? Religion relies on fear. Many people are simply afraid to reject anything their pastor says to them. That's why you have 40% of people rejecting evolution, and 55% believing homosexuality is a sin.
I will grant that the large number of people who believe in God guided evolution is encouraging. But I keep going back to that first group: the one that rejects evolution entirely. It's a scary thought that 40% of the adult population believes that. It really leads me to believe that religion in general is not a source of enlightenment, but an excuse to shield one's eyes from the truth. Free thought is a source of enlightenment. Intellectual curiosity is a source of enlightenment. Religion is an excuse to hide one's head in the sand and reject the evidence that exists in the world as to what's out there, what it all means, and how it came to be.
Ultimately, my recurring question is this: how do we as a society reform religion to take only the good? Wouldn't it be easier to just reject the bible entirely as a work of fiction (or at best a flawed oral history in book form, with the acceptance that all supernatural occurrences are fictional), and then come up with better ways as a society to teach morality to our children?
I agree with pretty much everything you just said. Not too much to add at the moment.
Now KT, he didn't mean nothin' by it.
I do agree that religion will remain in some form. I genuinely think that it shouldn't, but fully recognize that it probably will. The question is how many people partake and what their participation looks like. An even bigger question is how much power religious organizations are able to keep and how much control they have over their members. Those are things that are near impossible to predict.
For all of recorded human history, religion has been there. I do not believe that non-believers will ever represent more than a large Minority.
Just because Science says that a Big Bang occurred and Dinosaurs were here first, doesn't automatically negate the possibility of a God(remember, I'm an Atheist, not Agnostic). God and Science could possibly go hand in hand if mainstream religion would embrace it.
lik dis if u cry evertim
gwahir i haven't forgot about you, i just routinely work 10-15hr days
(x) no, that's not what I meant
i don't think religion will ever be considered fringe.
err sorry for some reason i misread the line above the checkbox options. yes, i agree with that statement. i don't agree with the first paragraph. right.
ok cool
What does god mean to a person who doesn't believe in the biblical god? Will the idea of a biblical god persist even if much of the bible is rejected?
I don't expect anybody to have those answers, just something to think about.
'God' can be the energy that gave the initial 'umph' to everything in existence. God could be the watch maker, and never repair anything.
lik dis if u cry evertim
If that's the case, why should we worship that god or even care that he exists? For a while I took God to mean the force that created the universe and designed it with the physical attributes such that life could exist. I don't necessarily discount the possibility, but ultimately I fail to see how that is different than no God at all, with the universe being created spontaneously and randomly.
If I were to accept the notion of god, then this would be the god I'd accept.
One who doesn't give a shit, and is mostly not there. I don't see anyone playing the Sims in my life.
lik dis if u cry evertim
I don't know. You're narrowly defining what God means, then rejecting the definition as unsatisfactory. How did you come to this conclusion?
Also, have you considered that maybe you cannot possibly comprehend what God really is? That it is quite literally beyond the scope of your mind, or the most educated, wisest minds on the planet?
This is the fundamental problem. In order to disprove God, we must quantify him, but if that's going to happen, what kind of measure are you going to use? What gives your measure, either original or borrowed, the power to have any conclusive say about this? I'm going to italicize this, how do you know what God is?
The image of God you presented wouldn't have me worshipping him either, for the record.
edit: oh, this is the question
Well, I mean, I grew up believing in God, but I wasn't raised christian. My religious background is a hodgepodge of Native American spirituality and the Baha'i Faith. God, from what I learned, is pretty simple: un-fucking-knowable. This isn't just a "God works in mysterious ways" hand-wave, it's a definite fact - there's is something about God that exists beyond human comprehension. Maybe it's only in this phase of history, who knows.
Instead of looking at the Bible to define God utterly, look at it as a stone in a mosaic.
Last edited by coqauvin; 12-09-2011 at 08:52 PM.
What you guys are talking about is Deism. (Deism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
i expect coqauvin to have an interesting and useful answer to your question, yrogerg.
(edit to clarify: that isn't sarcasm.)
As far as I know, there isn't. And if there is, it's of little consequence because there is no moral imperitive to listen to what they're saying and to act on it. They are speaking from their own sense of what is logical, and free will and an open mind allows a person to ignore what they say or to take on it as they please. In the case of a priest, or in a more real sense the pope, they are speaking for God and their word carries significantly more weight. If Dawkins says that I should follow the scientific method in all things I do, what reason do I have to care? What pressure is there to follow through?
Empiricism, mon ami. The nature of science is to come to a hard-line, fundamental answer to every minute phenomenon. If Dawkins tells you to follow the scientific method because it is the optimal way to live, studied and extensively tested (presumably in a double-blind), the italics are your reason to care. You follow the empirical system because it is empirically proven to work. The pressure to follow through is all internal, as is the case in every religion.
edit: The Pope and every priest do not speak with the voice of God (speaking for God). Their opinions on their religion are more important because they were taught and trained to interpret our writings of what God had said. Their words carry the weight of the expert opinion, same as Dawkins, because they are studied in their subject, not because they speak for God.
Last edited by coqauvin; 12-09-2011 at 09:04 PM.
What role does god play in your life? I'm genuinely curious.
I don't have good answers to your questions. Just that in my mind, god is not an active being but a passive one. I chose the definition of god that I found conceivable to me.
Proving or disproving the existence of god is a fools errand, and I have no interest in trying.
I have a rather peculiar worldview. First is to accept that the world runs and will continue to run whether I understand why it runs or not. If God is a part of that, it is beyond my comprehension. I am not part of any faith, although I haven't really been looking.
Proving or disproving the existence of God is the nature of Atheism. I think I'm going to start capitalizing Atheism every time, now.
this represents a very frustrating refusal to listen, or I don't know what.
more, in case you wanted it
If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)
Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)
If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21:9)
Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)
If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
edit: oh and the exact wording of the one about gays: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be on them." (lev. 20:13)
Of course everything is out of Leviticus or Deuteronomy.
For the psychics/wizards - in looking at several translations, the common theme was talking to the dead. Cultural context again, mon ami. Even today, those claiming to speak to the dead are fucking cold readers seeking to enrich themselves. That kind of influence is retardedly strong, and, if you're susceptible to it (which is heartbreaking - a sister of mine genuinely believes in this), pretty much impossible to defend against. Look up MacKenzie King, the Canadian Prime Minister (In WWII, I think) who consulted the spirit of his dead mother and had his dog stuffed (who he also consulted) for help making decisions that affected the country. I can see why, in a world where harsher punishments were the only ones people paid attention to, this would be acceptable.The traditional view is that ... the material (Leviticus) in it goes back to Moses' time. However, the tradition is comparatively late (it dates from Josephus, a 1st century CE historian), and scholars are practically unanimous that the book had a long period of growth, that it includes some material of considerable antiquity, and that it reached its present form in the Persian period (538-332 BCE).
fun leviticus facts quote:
I just don't have the energy to go on through all these now, but I'll give a more serious effort in the future....Although [Leviticus 18] is principally concerned with incest...
Apart from the questionable case of a man marrying his daughter, the list in Leviticus 18 roughly produces the same rules as were followed in early (pre-Islamic) Arabic culture. However, most tribal nations also disliked exogamous marriage—marriage to completely unrelated people ... In several prominent cases in the Torah, the incest rules are ignored in favour of marriage to a close relative; Jacob is described as having married his first wife's sister, and Abraham as having a father in common with Sarah (rather than a mother, which would have been permitted by the list). These are not seen as illegal marriages as the incest laws were not given until Moses.
atheist, Atheism. It doesn't matter to me, but the people who speak of themselves as Atheist(capital fucking A) piss me off for some reason.
And atheism is not tasked with disproving god. If that was the case, then (insert religion here) would be tasked with proving God exists. And no matter what you think, no religion ever tries to prove the existence of their God.
lik dis if u cry evertim
Both sides have to try to prove their position for legitimacy. Religious people have formulated various proof attempts for the existence of God. Do you mean religions as a whole don't, or the attempts are insincere?
This is a silly statement. That's a problem with the equipment they had at the time, not the scientific method itself.
When what you believe in only relies on Faith, then trying to prove what you believe in ignores the concept of 'Faith'.
lik dis if u cry evertim
this is nearly right -- i'd say that at the time, a scientific method didn't really exist. it was observational study and guesswork, and there often wasn't a clear line between the two.
science is held to a very rigorous and historically unprecedented standard nowadays. when we claim to know something scientifically, we know it. we may learn in the future that it's more complicated than we think, or we have some details wrong, but we know it. not so even a hundred years ago.
it's too early for me to give a full response to gwahir, so I'm just going to tackle VS for the moment.
regardless of who has the onus of proving the existence, how exactly do you plan on proving it? Scientifically?
The scientific method is fantastic for small phenomena that we can observe closely, but is more difficult to use for things at a distance. Keep in mind that science, because it relies on what we already know, can only use what we know to describe the things we don't. There is a huge gap between what actually goes on and what we say goes on.
A good example is back in the late 1800's, early 1900's scientists believed the globe floated in a liquid they called the "luminiferous aether". Now that we've been to space, we know the universe doesn't quite work like that, but for all our accomplishments to that point, we had no better answer to give except for a wrong one. Since God is beyond our understanding, much like space in the 1800's, how do you expect to begin to prove anything?
And then, thanks to advancements in science and technology, we found out. Now we know an incredible amount about the universe and all sorts of natural phenomena. Science is also very rarely in the business of explicitly disproving things. The vast majority of times what you call disproving is simply 1. Assertion 2. Data 3. Data failed to support initial assertion.
Many people think that a lack of proof for the existence of god is proof that god doesn't exist. This is a pretty explicit misuse of the scientific method. The best you can say is that we have no evidence. You can use that to estimate how probable god's existence really is, but you cannot use that evidence to say god exists or doesn't exist. That's why I maintain that trying is a fool's errand. Maybe god is out there, floating around in the ether. Maybe he exists on an entirely different energy plane entirely.
What I can say is that the existence of a biblical god is nearly impossible, in that so many of the creation stories are just factually wrong. Wouldn't god want the story of how he made everything to match observable reality? Wouldn't people be true believers if, 2000 years ago, people were able to give accurate descriptions of phenomena they had no way to observe or understand? Like if the bible were to describe the structure of galaxies, how the sun, though it looked overwhelming and inherently different than the white dots in the night sky, that it was one of billions of stars in one of billions of galaxies in the universe. But the bible spoke in ignorance about very basic universal facts, leading me to believe that god had no part in it.
I keep going back to the biblical god, because your (coquavins) god seems very personal to me, unattached to any religion, and thus I can't address specifics because he hasn't given any. You can believe what you want. I attack organized religion because of their insistence on indoctrinating people on a global scale.
But again, god as a concept, as a lifeforce flowing through the universe, is not a concept that can be proven or disproven. If you are looking for a proof that your god doesn't exist, you will never see one. But if you take that lack of proof to mean that he does exist, your method is utterly wrong. I'm not saying you do that, but it is worth pointing out.
and you completely missed the point. Yes, we did find out later what has happening (using that method, which is where the analogy is on shaky ground). The point is that, at the time, everything science had to say gave an answer that was completely incorrect and great and leading minds of that day accepted this fact as reality. Now, in this scenario, let's swap out "space/luminiferous aether" with "god does/does not exist" and changed the year to 2011. It's not exactly unlikely or improbable.
The thing is, you really need to read the Bible much more like you would read the Iliad. A lot of the quotes I see sound more like a recounting of history with after-the-fact God added in. I'm surprised no other atheist pointed this out.
The other thing is to understand that the Bible is a book from 2000 years ago, translated more than once and gone through several editors before we see the words today in English. Do you expect this to be 100% accurate? Do you expect no biases to show up?
The real thing to remember is that the Bible was inspired by God, and with few notable exceptions (I'm thinking things like the sermon on the mount, or Moses and the 10 commandments), He really doesn't say much of what happens. I am, of course, discounting much of the history-after-the-fact that occurs.
this is the thing - aside from a few bad things that get stressed waaay to much, organized religion is not a terrible thing. The problem is, I see, most people who are so profoundly against religion had a negative personal experience with it as a child and this bitterness flavours everything they say about it. I don't see anyone speaking from complete neutrality and genuinely considering things with the understanding that there is, at best, imperfect information.
This is also why I give no specifics about God - I don't know what God is, how can I describe something I don't know? Could you describe to me what "wahkomiwew" means, without using Google? Again, giving specifics is quantification, and as far as I know we don't have the units of measurement to quantfy God at this point.
wahkomiwewBut again, god as a concept, as a lifeforce flowing through the universe, is not a concept that can be proven or disproven. If you are looking for a proof that your god doesn't exist, you will never see one. But if you take that lack of proof to mean that he does exist, your method is utterly wrong. I'm not saying you do that, but it is worth pointing out.[/QUOTE]
You're pointing out something very basic and very obvious. I would like you to know that you should swing your arms when you walk to keep your balance as your weight shifts.
There are way too many words after this post, so I'll read them later.
What I was saying no one is tasked, or should even try to, prove that there is/isn't a god/Giod. Religions have their beliefs based on Faith. Where as Atheists have their beliefs on the lack of faith. Or the faith that there is no god/God.
Let me just say this;
I had no bad experience with religion. At all. I was raised to be a Catholic, when I say raised, I was baptized and taken to Mass every week... up until I told my mother I didn't believe in God, and that was around the age of 6 or 7. I remember the conversation clearly it went something like "Mom, I don't believe in Santa Claus..." "Well, honey, that's alright, Santa Claus just makes Christmas fun, kinda makes it special... it's alright if you don't believe in him." "Yea, well, if he's not real, I also don't believe in the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny." "Well, they're pretty much the same thing as Santa..." "And if they aren't real, then I don't believe in God either." At which point the car was pulled over and all I can remember her telling me was "Wow... that's an idea most people don't get until they are in college..."
That's why I stopped believing in God at a very early age. Since then, I've gone to private parochial schools, and attended different churches/Masses, going with friends, or in the case of going to school, I was forced to go to Mass. Since that age, I've looked at the world without the idea of God influencing me in any way.
You can only choose your religious ideas as much as you can choose your political beliefs(this comparison only applies to people who are firmly set in a political group). Only something that makes you think long and hard on your ideas, has any chance of changing it.
God is not falsifiable, so God does not get involved in the scientific method. To even try that is almost retarded.
Last edited by Vengeful Scars; 12-10-2011 at 04:52 PM.
lik dis if u cry evertim
Actually, I find this very interesting. This is much wiser than I would expect from you VS, which I hope is a compliment and not an insult.
Haha, I'll take it as a compliment. I know my persona screams "Retard" but I have a policy in how I represent myself: act retarded, dumb, ignorant, what ever, and people won't expect much from you, and when you say something that requires real Intelligence, people will be amazed.
I do actually carry myself as semi-simple in real life, but considering test scores, school, what I read etc etc, I'm more intelligent than your average bear.
lik dis if u cry evertim
okay, i'm going to respond to this to see if i can drift somewhere resembling back on track.
er... we don't. as VS described, the scientific process isn't asked for when looking at the existence of something as unscientific -- or ascientific -- as god. we have no tools or methods. and if we used electromagnets or chemicals or microscopes to look for proof of god, that'd be bad science.
i mean, really bad science. like, you'd have to be a stone cold idiot.
i don't have FAITH that there is no god. i think there's no god, but i'd be willing to change my mind if any compelling evidence came up. without that evidence, why should i believe in god? i don't believe in anything until there's evidence. that's where my invisible unicorns thing from ages ago is relevant: i'll believe in invisible unicorns when there's evidence that compels me. same goes for god.
that's the first reason i don't believe in god. that's the reason, if you will, that i have no belief. now, as for the reason i believe there is no god:
i know i'm using my puny human brain for this, but i don't believe there is any way that an omnipotent, omniscient and beneficent being can exist. maybe if the world was a better place, it would make sense. but one look at uganda, or palestine, or bosnia, or a guy who lives on the street talking back to the voices in his head tells me that there is so much suffering in the world, and there can be no purpose that makes it just. you can argue that His reasons are unknowable, but i just don't buy it. (because, see above paragraph about "no evidence".) maybe he's all powerful and means well, but we're just too complex a people to manage without some of us going to shit. but then he isn't omniscient. or he knows what to do and wants to help but he just doesn't have the ability to manage such a complex system. then, no omnipotence. but the existence of a universal creator who either doesn't know everything or isn't all powerful is hard to swallow, for me, so the only remaining possibility is that he created us and doesn't give a shit about our suffering. i refuse to believe that.
the three big holy books and the religions to which they are attached make it clear that the god they describe is mean, petty, desperately needy, horrfiyingly vengeful and limitlessly cruel (an ETERNITY of punishment for a mortal crime cannot be just to any rational thinking). holy texts and religions are the only reason one really has to believe in god, and i don't think that god is possible. he'd have flooded us again by now. sure, there are other descriptions of possible gods, like your baha'i faith, and that's fine. but i still don't see how he could possibly be all powerful, all knowing and still a loving god.
it's that inconsistency -- that inability to fit with what i KNOW is decent, just, moral and good -- is why i am completely confident there is no god.
if evidence ever appears, i'll change my tune. but he'll have a god damn time of trying to convince me he's all three of those things and not just the first two.
my atheism in a nutshell.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks