 sj |
||
|
||
BS: True Test of an Atheist
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Slag Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:25 AM Excellent Steve! And your name isn't even Foolestroupe! I'm sure he'll appreciate the assist. Simple, yep. I see your point... but, alas, to bed. It will be new world tomorrow and I will see how it all looks then! Night all! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:47 AM Slag, I basically agree with your opinion of what 'real religion' is, mostly, which is why I am so disappointed with what many hypocrites claim ... I was being a little satirical too - didn't expect that you wanted a real factual documented position. :-) In the church I was brought up in, we DID spend weeks on basic theology and the history of theological things that led to the current day including the merges and schisms of the Lutheran Church - I have forgotten most of that now! - the pastor was quite elucidatory about the areas I mentioned ... Martin WAS a reformer, but Politics as exercised by real world Princes (of which the Pope was just another! what with running around with armies and all that!) took over and steered his legacy in directions that he had no control over. He did love a good drink (go away Conrad!), nosh up and sing session, and many other 'mortal things'. I studied many other 'paths' - for instance I found that Buddhism was more a tool of social control - many of its 'wisdoms' seemed to be such useful tools as 'respect your elders', etc. I am aware of various pantheisms too. But, I live in a culture that is mainly swamped by a Monotheistic dominated religious base (and I believe that you do too). Hence I am surrounded by ""Religious Tolerance is thus only a wimpy cop out, because if you say that others may also be correct, then you admit that no path is 'Supreme' and thus no others can be correct.... "" .. "defining religion as a "path" to the divine?" - well I have been swamped with this all the time during my life... and endlessly told that the current flavor of the ranter is the 'only path' by people knocking on my door ... :-0 "Had I know that, I could have foregone 7 years of intensive study." It only took me about 30 years to get there, mate... :-) I'll accept donations if you found it 'helpful' ... :-P "And how does it follow that no others can be correct. Do you mean inside knowledge on the pathway to the divine(s)? Or do you mean having God in your pocket, so to speak?" If a 'Supreme Deity' has revealed 'the only absolute path to salvation' - as I am constantly brainwashed here, and am informed that it is even stronger in the USA - daily mass incantations of 'for God and Country', etc... then logically ANY other contrary idea is heresy, and must be evil and destroyed.... :-) "do you mean having God in your pocket, so to speak" Well many of these ranters claim that they do - AND he speaks direct to them and them only, personally I think they've got SOMETHING in their pocket ... :-P "You don't say WHY anyone might hold this view but you do tend to imply that the reverse is true, that Catholics (Roman?) are true Christians." Well I see this and similar 'madcap' questions pop up all the time in the R&S section - you CAN take the logical reverse concept if you want (I didn't say that - you inferred it!) - my point is that you can't HAVE Protestants, WITHOUT the original that they are protesting against - what with Peter of Rome and all that baggage... :-) In other words they want to reject/deny their own documented historical path to where they are today... as if that gives them some sort of 'moral superiority'. I'm only 'concerned with religion' because I was brainwashed with it when little (no choice) and also so much of society is saturated with the 'magic sky fairies' thinking (and he will destroy his 'empire' and take all the good bunnies to live with him in fluffy cotton wool for ever and ever and ever!), and it seriously interferes with much of the functioning of society, including insisting on a level of ignorance in scientific matters (people and dinosaurs living together, denying 'evolution' or as least as the bigoted misunderstand it!, etc), pushing the USA (and all of its politically subjugated minions!) to become eventually one of the most backward nations on earth, once all the foreign scientists go home ... :-) Me, I've recently become a follower of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Religion. It's perfectly logical, I understand it's origins, and it makes just as much sense as any other 'religion' - i.e. matter of 'faith and belief'... :-) And now I too 'have found religion'! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:52 AM Actually, I'm NOT an Atheist. I'm a 'non-spiritualist'. And apparently that hurts too many heads who can't get around that, so many think I'm just an Atheist... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Fergie Date: 30 Sep 10 - 08:05 AM The test of an athiest is in my opinion very simple; would an athiest change her/his fundamental belief when confronted with objective proof for the existance of a "diety"? Believers must accept that there is not a scintilla of objective evidence of any kind, that a diety exists. Fergus |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: GUEST,Patsy Date: 30 Sep 10 - 09:50 AM And I suppose if someone was to declare that they were a Paganist would they be accused of Devil worship and Witchcraft or Atheism? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Joe Offer Date: 30 Sep 10 - 10:25 AM I typed most of this twelve hours ago. When I tried to post it, Mudcat was shut down. Good thing I save it....or not. I wanted to say something about the very thoughtful posts from Mrrzy and Slag (original post and others), but what I wanted to say has already been said. Posts like those are the reason I have so much respect for you. But other people have other statements that I disagree with:
All of these statements view religion from what I would call an absolutist perspective of religious belief. This perspective assumes that religion is acceptance and adherence to of a code of religious "truths" (doctrines) and a moral code, and often involving obedience to some sort of religious authority. This may hold true as a definition of fundamentalist religious faith, but even fundamentalism is more complex than that. Interestingly, fundamentalists and anti-religious atheists seem to share this absolutist perspective of religious faith. This perspective is almost obsessed with dualism - what's right and what's wrong, what's true and what's false, what's black and what's white, and so on. But many deeply religious people are not like that at all. Even St. Paul allows for lack of certitude (and perhaps even doubt) in the famous "through a glass darkly" verse, 1 Corinthinans 13:12). For some people, religious faith is an exploration of the questions of life and of what is beyond, with hope of achieving perspectives without absolute answers. For others, religious faith is an expression of who they are and what is deep inside them, with very little emphasis on information or doctrine - Islam is a good example of this, and so are Polish Catholics and many other ethnic Catholic groups. Mystics go beyond doctrine and simply seek union with the divine. Here at Mudcat, it is well-nigh impossible to carry on a discussion of religious issues because the anti-religious absolutists always feel compelled to jump in and say how wrong religion is, never stopping to think that "right and wrong" may not be the question. That's what happened in the thread on the U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey - although I note that even a reputable organization like the Pew trust, seems to emphasize information as a necessary aspect of religious faith. So, anyhow, the question persists: how can we have the freedom to carry on a discussion of a religious topic without always getting bogged down in a "right-and-wrong" argument? Most other forums are dominated by the absolutists on both sides of any issue - isn't it possible for us to find a way do a more open discussion, rather than squabbling about right and wrong all the time? Another thing that stops a lot of discussion here, is the constant dwelling on what's wrong with religious faith. Jim Carroll's comments are a good example, as are those of Fionn. What they say is the absolute truth - there is much that is evil that is done in the name of religion. But a good many religious people deplore that evil just as much as Jim and Fionn do. The trouble with religions groups, is that they are human institutions. In every human institution, we have to deal with some people who are evil, many who are mediocre, and some that are extraordinarily good. It is the good and the evil people who have the greatest effect. Now, we can dwell on the evil side of things and paralyze ourselves, or we can do our best to combat the evil while still carrying on with the good side of life. But Jim and Fionn, I think it's unfair of you to insist that vast numbers of religious people condone the evil that takes place in their churches - that just doesn't happen. So, acknowledging the bad side of things, couldn't it be possible to carry on at least some religious discussions without dwelling on evil? There is evil everywhere, and it can stop us dead in our tracks if we let it. I prefer not to do that. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: theleveller Date: 30 Sep 10 - 11:08 AM "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." Stephen Hawking |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: olddude Date: 30 Sep 10 - 11:47 AM Steamin suggest you go to Walmart they are open till 10 in every state that I know of .. got lots of screws thats what I do. Store hours are set by the owners and my local hardware ma and paw store ain't open on Sunday. I suspect cause they work 6 other days .. Blue laws in the past were ruled unconstitutional and it wasn't because of "church" it was the theory that people back then worked 6 days a week and they thought it good for society in general for a working person to have a day with their families and spend family time. Didn't work out too well. There is no law in the States based solely on religion. When was the last time you were arrested for not attending service? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 30 Sep 10 - 11:49 AM Part of the question raised by this thread is, essentially, "Why do so many atheists display not just interest or concern about religion and the religious, but an undertone (at least) of hostility to religion and the religious?" Having spent some time in examining my own attitudes and those of certain other atheists about that question, I believe a good part of the answer is "reciprocation". I discovered early in life that many, many religious bodies and religious persons are hostile toward anyone they can characterize (correctly or incorrectly) as atheists; and conversely, that anyone who expresses "wrong" concepts is, ipso facto, to be so characterized as that hated enemy, an atheist, even though those concepts do not exclusively pertain to atheism. So, reciprocate: Since you threaten or attack me, on specious grounds, I'll tend to hate or attack you. Or at least see you as ridiculous. q.e.d. None of which, of course, deals with the actual subject at issue. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Mr Red Date: 30 Sep 10 - 12:08 PM One is that agnostics and atheists seem to know as much or more about "religion" than adherents and believers. Athiests "Know" and the religious "Believe". But not necessarily the same data. Mr Red (Moth) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: olddude Date: 30 Sep 10 - 12:16 PM Uncle Dave brings up a good point. I have heard people who claim the love of Christ say things that appalled me about gays about people of non faith ... you hear it on TV with some Preachers talking like those of no faith are right there next to Hitler or something ... One thing I know for certain in this life is hate spawns hate which spawns more hate and so it goes ... Again what ever happened to live and let live. Free will is so important, the right to choose ones path in this life without interference from any other person or group .. For me, my faith makes sense, I don't want to go through life thinking cosmic accident and I have had too many things happen to me that made me believe in my faith ... and yet I too challenge it all the time and one should .. the challenge only makes my faith stronger. However those who choose a different path that doesn't conflict with me in any manner at all. As long as they do not infringe on my rights. All too often I have seen and heard way too many messages of hate against other groups who choose different. That is why there is such a difference between faith and religion I think. I could never do that nor anyone I know who believes in God I suspect Uncle Dave hit it on the head here |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: GUEST,999 Date: 30 Sep 10 - 12:37 PM General Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf said (words to the effect) when asked about forgiving those who were responsible for the destruction and death of September 11: It is God`s province to forgive them. It is OUR job to arrange the meeting. Possibly one difference is that atheists do not blame or praise God, G-d, god for things that go wrong or right. The common area for so-called TV Evangelists, some Imams, some Rabbis (etc) seems to be that they speak for their heavenly leader and one can`t help wondering how the Boss talks to THEM. Also, possibly atheists in order to get away from childhood teachings actually study various of the world`s holy books and in the course of doing so find holes. And when they do, they rightfully get POed. The Bible was edited, usually for the benefit of the various churches. I suspect so to were other so-called holy books. The Book of Mormon: `It was revealed.` Yeah, right. Even a cursory glance at the schisms in Christianity, Islam and Judaism attest to the shakiness of the whole structure. For those who believe, good for you. For those who don`t, may the same good fall on you, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 30 Sep 10 - 12:40 PM Ok, Olddude, although we don't have Walmart here in the UK, (we do in a way, they own Asda.) Some things you can buy, and smaller private street corner shops have a cop out but large department shops can only open so many hours and have browse but can't reach the checkout hour before they officially open. One place (Ikea) the lady told me she wasn't allowed by law (!) to talk to me before the tills open.... I too have joined a religion!!! I do work for the government and on their monitoring forms want to know my religion. I went on the internet to find a religion (true this..) and signed up to The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, just like foolstroupe did. We are fellow Pastafarians!! Right on bro!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Steve Shaw Date: 30 Sep 10 - 12:55 PM "Athiests "Know" and the religious "Believe"." Really? Show me an atheist who "knows." I've never met one in spite of years mixing in atheistic circles. Tosh! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Desert Dancer Date: 30 Sep 10 - 01:11 PM Joe, you said "even a reputable organization like the Pew trust, seems to emphasize information as a necessary aspect of religious faith". The point of that "religious knowledge" survey was to look at just that -- information -- without any judgement as to what's necessary to faith. Stephen Prothero's book, "Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know – And Doesn't" does make that such literacy is important in American life. There was no good data, however, and that's what the survey was meant to correct. I don't think either Pew or Prothero judged it as a "necessary aspect of religious faith". From the Preface to the report: "...we also decided that, no matter what the results, we would not give the public an 'A,' an 'F' or any other grade because we have no objective way of determining how much the public should know about religion. Moreover, we could have designed harder questions, or easier ones. As it happens, through a combination of good survey design and good luck, the results were an almost perfect bell curve in which the average score was exactly half of the 32 possible correct answers, and very few people got all questions right or all questions wrong. Readers can decide for themselves whether this justifies Prothero's conclusion or not." ~ Becky in Long Beach (who's going to copy some of this to the other thread!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Steve Shaw Date: 30 Sep 10 - 01:11 PM "...anti-religious absolutists always feel compelled to jump in and say how wrong religion is" Ignoring the faintly pejorative tone of that, that isn't what happens. Taking issue with some of the nasty things that goes on among some clerics is not saying how wrong religion is. Making cogent arguments against the existence of God is also not saying how wrong religion is. I happen to think that all religion is predicated on a deluded belief, but that doesn't mean that everything ever done in religion's name is wrong. There are religious people who have done a damn sight more good in this world than I ever have, but good things don't need religion in order to get done and never have. As for jumping in, that is not fair. There is no rule as far as I know that says certain topics should be a closed book to certain factions. I've never touched a flute in my life but I've just posted something in a flute thread on another forum. No-one's telling me to bugger off and stop jumping in. This is the internet, and we're not a dedicated-to-worship website or a prayer meeting. Nearly every thread I've ever posted anywhere that's lasted more than a few posts has been sidetracked. It's the nature of the beast. Cheer up and live with it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Bill D Date: 30 Sep 10 - 01:43 PM I think militant atheism in more an 'attitude' than a position about 'knowing' anything. Most intelligent atheists realize that "you can't prove a negative", so the militant ones are usually just against what they see as problems in religion....they have no more evidence than a vacillating agnostic. ...and Fergus posted above.."The test of an athiest is in my opinion very simple; would an athiest change her/his fundamental belief when confronted with objective proof for the existance of a "diety"? I think most would...but they would demand a pretty strong 'proof'....like the clouds parting and glowing letters apperaing in the sky in all languages saying" "I TOLD you to stop that stuff!"...or maybe the same message beamed into everyone's head all at once. After all, an all-powerful diety would have no problems with that...hmmm? To me, the strangest claim of certain religions is that an all-powerful Creator issued, to a weak, fallible people, commands about our behavior...once...under strange circumstances....to ONE individual..then expected the billions who followed to make sense of all the varied interpretations. Any creator who CARED about being followed and/or worshiped should be aware that we would need many, many reminders, and that "free will" was a two-pronged 'gift'. (and no...floods & earthquakes are NOT 'signs from God', no matter what certain religious leaders, like Pat Robertson, say.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Steve Shaw Date: 30 Sep 10 - 01:54 PM Atheists don't seek or acquire or need evidence. You've got that slightly arse about face. It isn't atheists who make hugely improbable assertions then sit back and say all we need is faith. I like the rest of your post though. Atheists who do little except bang on about dirty clerics or suicide bombers give the rest of us a bad name (of course, there is an appropriate context for banging on about such things). The core atheist arguments are very simple and they don't need religions to have bad men to make them more sound. I'm waiting for someone to chime in and tell us that God works in mysterious ways. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 30 Sep 10 - 01:59 PM Joe Offer, That was a really good, well thought out post!..as was the one from Slag!! Foolestroup: "...energy cannot be created nor destroyed" - it however can be converted endlessly from one manifestation to another...." If you would have CAREFULLY read my post, I said the Same thing, (you phrased it, "it however can be converted endlessly from one manifestation to another".... Then I posed the question, based on that premise, that the very 'life force', is just that...to which you disagreed!?! Also, you got into ""what about conscious energy" - there is no such thing! (manifestion of energy) as "conscious energy". There is something scientifically vague we call (a state of) 'consciousness', which is the observed emergent result of complex electrical currents in the neurons. When that current flow stops, so does the consciousness -> oblivion. ..." Those things, of which you speak, PROCESS, not CREATE energy. You've effectively contradicted yourself, but at least it SOUNDED impressive, as if you knew what you were talking about....It's a common mistake...I forgive you..that being said, you might want to re-examine your thoughts on the matter! (wink) Jim Carroll: "Why am I interested in matters religious? Because I have witnessed its malign influence; from afar as a member of the general public, and up close on a personal level, with the effect upon my family and friends." (Jim, My following is not argumentative in nature to you, so when you read it, try not to project a hostile difference, or contention) I think it was in one of your (I could be wrong, about yours) posts, that you also mentioned, the quote, about, 'Give me a child under five and he'll be (something), all his life" (something to that effect, I scrolled back, and couldn't find it, nonetheless, its somewhere, there). That quote is most often quoted by Roman Catholics...I've heard it before, and coupled with your other quote(which I cut and pasted), and the tone of other posts you've posted, it sounds to me that you have a deep hurt, and/or disillusion with the Catholic Church, possibly something you grew out of, but still carry the scars, in the form of (a)hostility...which I can understand. Plus all the bad PR that the church has accrued, with all the child abuse scandals, tend to re-reinforce your personal bitterness. (Safe to say?) Then the CC puts a thing on your head, that to hear about Jesus/God/anything 'religious', outside of the CC is a 'heresy'..because the CC is the ONLY 'true representative' of the 'correct' teachings of Jesus, and they are the ONLY true church...correct? The reason that I'm inquiring, is because in your posts, there comes through a DEFINITE anger, and closed mind on the issue...Which, I can empathize with, ok?.......Let me know if I'm correct, so far, ok? I have NO intention of 'jumping your case'...'or getting in your face'.....However, as my mom used to say, "Try not to run from something(Bad), but rather, to GO to something good, but let go of the hurt"......It does not do a lot of good, to kill a poisonous snake that bit you...if the venom, is still in you. Hopefully this was received, in the right intention, that I sent it. Regards, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Mrrzy Date: 30 Sep 10 - 02:10 PM Thank you for reading my long-ass post, many of you. It is hard to discuss the whole faith/god/religion thang (as we say here) without the inevitable fallout from all the evil that happens and is happening and will happen again in its name. O and thank you much for the link to I Ain't Afraid, too. I don't see how they can remain unafraid of the mosques/churches/temples/gods, given their fear of what is best taught there. I mean, it would be a lot harder to teach anywhere else. Not to mention that if you rise above the god/religion/faith thing, why would you then have to search for yet another higher power? Couldn't you just relax? The obverse, of course, is that all the *good* that people can do through community effort can be done by good people without religion/faith/gods, all it takes is community spirit. Look at the masses of people who went to Obama's inauguration or the midnight release of the latest Harry Potter book. Wouldn't it be nice to see all those people united for something like, oh, say, poverty? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Bill D Date: 30 Sep 10 - 02:21 PM "You've got that slightly arse about face..." No, that was the point of my post. They have 'no more than an agnostic' is intended to say that they have none, and 'usually' don't try to claim any. 'Proof' is just not relevant when belief is the issue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Ed T Date: 30 Sep 10 - 02:47 PM "Yep, that that sort of belief is defined as 'magic'.... since it is already defined as being beyond the capabilities of 'Science' " I submit that this may be a current science, but likely not the last science word on that, for eternity that is, as you seem to be putting forward. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Ed T Date: 30 Sep 10 - 03:23 PM Three laws of progress by The science fiction writer Arthur C Clarke, who wrote '2001: A Space Odyssey': First law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. Second law: The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. Third law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Jim Carroll Date: 30 Sep 10 - 03:38 PM Not going to have time for this - off to Sligo tomorrow. "Another thing that stops a lot of discussion here, is the constant dwelling on what's wrong with religious faith." There is nothing whatever 'wrong' with religious faith; it is the imposition of the 'laws' of that faith that does the damage. Religion should be a private choice, but once it gains any sorty of credance and influence in society, that ceases to be the case; the church holding the reins quickly sees to that. People should be free to believe what they wish to believe, but not force those beliefs on others, nor to take advantage of the power that sometimes come with the the status any given religion may achieve, brings with it (the root of many of todays problems here in Ireland). I was accused earlier of basing my stance on "narrow and anecdotal information". All knowledge of and opinions on religion is based on such information; society tends to lock up people who claim to have spoken directly to god. I find it impossible to separate religion and the church - they are the self-appointed carriers of 'the word' and we all know, to our cost, that they are capable of allthe evils going. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:16 PM "We are fellow Pastafarians!! Right on bro!!!" Now brothers, the sauce for today is ... what? a schism already? Oh no!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:19 PM QUOTE "Also, you got into ""what about conscious energy" - there is no such thing! (manifestion of energy) as "conscious energy". There is something scientifically vague we call (a state of) 'consciousness', which is the observed emergent result of complex electrical currents in the neurons. When that current flow stops, so does the consciousness -> oblivion. ..." Those things, of which you speak, PROCESS, not CREATE energy. You've effectively contradicted yourself, but at least it SOUNDED impressive, as if you knew what you were talking about....It's a common mistake...I forgive you..that being said, you might want to re-examine your thoughts on the matter! (wink)" UNQUOTE |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Slag Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:26 PM I have some specific comments which I hope to get out later. However: Religion and politics, those perennial favorites, cover the entire arena of human activity. To address either category as a specific entirely misses what either category is about. To say you are against religion because group A does this and group B does that and then make a blanket dismissal of the "category" merely demostrates ignorance of the subject. The same is true for "politics". So then you begin to discuss a specific religion and that hits you wrong because it can often be offensive to others folks and other religious orders hence the "true path" vs all other paths comes into play and with out focus any calm, rational discussion evaporates into the ionosphere! Clearly, if one religion advocates peace, soft answers, loving your enemies, going the extra mile, etc. it is fundamentally different from one that says "kill your enemies, your doing God a favor" or another that tells its adherents to turn their minds inward to discover truth. Religion, the ways people have of being religious and how they use religion and how religion uses people, in my opinion, is a fascinating topic, worthy of study. And again the same is virtually true of the political arena as well. My thread title tended to narrow down the subject a little as Atheism indicates the rejection of the idea of one God. The reasons for rejecting this concept are also many and varied and the proof of that is in the above posts. A most lively discussion! Yes, the title is provocative, as I intended it to be. I think it is a little more inticing than "Tell Me Why You Are An Atheist" and a little shorter too. It also let's me tell you the questions that came to my mind on the other thread about the survey which, had I voiced it over there, would have been major thread drift. But Hey! The 'Cat never dissappoints! Clearer is to say something like, "I am opposed to a religon that____!" Or that, "if it does not satisfy "reason" per se, then I reject it out of hand." That is a good, valid argument. One thing really amazes me here is how much emotion is brought to the topic, strong feelings from many directions and, like Mrrzy's posts, not without cause! I believe I did state my very narrow view on my own religion, care of the needy, and that I am generally not in favor of highly organized religions, but I DO understand them. It has been said that religion is Man's way of reaching out to God (that is, when it is not fraud or has been a tool of evil here on Earth) but I would be a little broader by saying religion is one way Man reaches out for something beyond Himself. Hence science can be a religion (Mill's Method of Scientific Reasoning in particular). Sexual fetishes and practices not only can be a religion but they ARE as in the Kama Sutra. Religion is a huge topic. It has also been said that when a man talks to God, that is called prayer. When God talks to a man, that is called Schizophrenia! Perhaps! When you are talking about THE God represented in the book commonly called the Bible then you have a more focused target for discussion as, that is what most folks in the Westernized world think of when God is mentioned and indeed, that was what I had in mind from the beginning. Judaism and Christianity are called a "revealed" religion. God and all that follows is an assertion. It is a faith proposition to be believed or reject by the individual listener. No argument or reason is put forth and therefore it purports having a knowledge of a different order and since the God set forth is a personal God (that is, not "the Force" or some other concept of deity) the knowledge is of a personal nature. And that is to say, you know OF Him or know Him directly. Such knowledge can only be compared with the internal picture of God as presented in the Bible. Is it a consistent picture? Does it contradict the character of God as set forth in the Bible? To claim to have this knowledge of God is to claim that you have somehow met this being becasue He has revealed Himself to you and that is the question at hand. If you claim to know Mr. Snuffaluffagus (of Sesame Street fame) and someone else denys his existence, you have a delima! Short of having Mr. S meet the denier how do you prove his existence? And that was the gist of the story line in the TV series. To an atheist who set human reason forth as the standard whereby to judge all things, there is no God in the picture and that little voice one claims to hear inside is the "Sky Fairy" or some such. And I understand why this can be maddening, to hear someone go on about God is an insult to reason! The Apostle, Paul says "...the Greeks seek after wisdom (reason)... and to the Greeks (Christ) is foolishness..." (see I Cor 1, 17-31). And that is, to me, the crux of the whole issue: is there more than one type of knowledge? In legal courst across America there is recognized more than one type of "truth". There is a "preponderance" of the evidence which is in line with inductive reasoning. There is also "conclusive" proof or truth where no other explanation is possible (deductive reasoning). Stephen Hawking would have some fun with this! And then there is the evidence offered by an eyewitness. The latter almost always has to have collaborating testimony or evidenceto be considered valid or worthy of consideration by a jury. I see the foregoing as the parameters of the discussion but I'm always open to any new arguments or ideas. I'll post those individual comments a little later on. Thanks for listening! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:28 PM Bugger - wrong button ... QUOTE "Also, you got into ""what about conscious energy" - there is no such thing! (manifestion of energy) as "conscious energy". There is something scientifically vague we call (a state of) 'consciousness', which is the observed emergent result of complex electrical currents in the neurons. When that current flow stops, so does the consciousness -> oblivion. ..." Those things, of which you speak, PROCESS, not CREATE energy. You've effectively contradicted yourself, but at least it SOUNDED impressive, as if you knew what you were talking about....It's a common mistake...I forgive you..that being said, you might want to re-examine your thoughts on the matter! (wink)" UNQUOTE Tiredness and being asked to share the computer before I finish cleaning up what I am in the process of explaining. As I seem to remember I went on to talk about how the energy to run that process was 'created by chemical energy' i.e. 'was sourced from chemical energy' which is just another transformation. "There is something scientifically vague we call (a state of) 'consciousness', which is the observed emergent result of complex electrical currents in the neurons. When that current flow stops, so does the consciousness -> oblivion." Thus the 'energy of consciousness' doesn't go anywhere when the organism ceases to function, i.e. 'continue to precess transformations of energy' that end up being perceived by external observers as a 'state of consciousness'. I suspect you really understood, but are just trying to have fun by 'misunderstanding' - either that or you are genuinely confused between 'hard science' and 'layman misrepresentation of semantic objects' :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:39 PM "Atheism indicates the rejection of the idea of one God" This is the view held by Christians and those of the branch of religions that stem from the 'Abrahamic Faith Systems', and of course any other of the other groups that also believe in Monotheism, including Zoroastrians, follows of Aten, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. Atheism just rejects the idea of the existence of any magical invisible sky fairy beings (at all, at all, at all!) with any powers outside those able to be exercised by anyone who understands how those powers work - there is no 'being outside the system', no 'miracles (things that cannot be explained inside the system)' - it has nothing to do with any number of gods in any pantheon, thus logically it also cannot accept just One of them either! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:51 PM Slag said: My thread title tended to narrow down the subject a little as Atheism indicates the rejection of the idea of one God. Wrong! Atheism indicates the rejection of ANY god or gods. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:51 PM Foolestroupe, If you are saying that the combination of chemicals create energy, then I think you are in error. What causes them to re-act? What system? ....and where did that come from??..More re-action from....? Somewhere, along the line, there is an 'origin'...... ...Oh, and by the way, if you are saying they are 'self-existing'... then you just translated the Hebrew word, Yahweh,...(self existing one)...which means God, (the giver of life)...or the 'I Am'. I knew you were just kidding! You just had the wrong words! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Jim Carroll Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:52 PM "True Test of an Atheist" When you boil it down, there is no test neccessary for the non-belief in gods, ghosts, fairies, honest politicians or any other mythical manisfestations you care to name - the burden of proof rests entirely on the shoulders of the believer - not much more to be said really. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:54 PM QUOTE "Yep, that that sort of belief is defined as 'magic'.... since it is already defined as being beyond the capabilities of 'Science' " I submit that this may be a current science, but likely not the last science word on that, for eternity that is, as you seem to be putting forward. UNQUOTE There is nothing wrong with having ideas about the possible future discoveries of 'Science' (just don't smear it into our current 'Reality') - people have done that for ages - it's now officially called 'Science Fiction' though... :-) Where we are, is where we are - for example 'Science' has not said that FTL travel 'is impossible' (although a few ignorant self important clowns in the past tried to say things like 'heavier than air flight is impossible' - even though birds did it ...), but merely that a few 'back of the envelope' calculations to move mass X at Y times the speed of light over Z lights years distance in a given perceived period of 'current physical Earth based Solar time' is ... mumble, mumble, .... Holy F*** Batman! That's a LOT of energy! We certainly can't handle that amount per second right now ... :-) Hence all the cute gobbledegook terms invented for the SF genre - they almost always fall back on just 'reversing the polarity' to fix the current scenario problem though ... :-P (I'm not making that up, you know!) Thank You Mr Spock! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 30 Sep 10 - 06:14 PM QUOTE Foolestroupe, If you are saying that the combination of chemicals create energy, then I think you are in error. What causes them to re-act? What system? ....and where did that come from??..More re-action from....? Somewhere, along the line, there is an 'origin'...... UNQUOTE You cannot discuss Science with someone who does not understand any of its basic concepts. Eg, "What causes them to re-act - What system?" - Science merely says - the 'desire of the universe to tend towards a lower state of energy - entropy. Hey - 'entropy' is 'just one of the convenient explanations we have for things we can't fully explain, yet' "Somewhere, along the line, there is an 'origin'" That is clearly outside the bounds of 'Science' - by the very definition of what 'Science' is - so that's where 'matters of faith and belief' - usually referred to as 'religious matters' take over. I don't particularly CARE WHAT anyone believes as 'the origin', personally it doesn't matter to me - and most 'atheists' also just aren't too obsessed or worried - but 'the religious' DO have 'a need' for a 'simple' explanation, such as 'my very own personal magical invisible sky fairy did it'. If that 'belief' makes people happy, and easier to live with in a cooperative society in general, fine - atheists are fairly pragmatic, but definitely do get annoyed when those who believe in their own particular 'magical invisible sky fairy' insist - for their own personal psychological reasons - on everyone ELSE following the alleged dictates of this 'magical invisible sky fairy'... it's called 'dominating others' - 'politics' etc, ... it gets REALLY annoying when it turns into 'my very own personal magical invisible sky fairy talks to me all the time and nobody but me can hear him and you must all do what I say!' - atheists just wait patiently for the day (that pragmatically will probably never dawn) when all those who profess that are just considered mental patients ... :-) Oh, and referring to various comments by others, when those making such controlling demands of society definitely 'say one thing and do another contrary to what they publicly profess', then try to hide from the very consequences they demand of others when exposed, the limits of Tolerance by Atheists do get rather close to the limit ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 30 Sep 10 - 06:18 PM QUOTE It has also been said that when a man talks to God, that is called prayer. When God talks to a man, that is called Schizophrenia! UNQUOTE When a man talks to God, and he talks back, that is also Schizophrenia! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 30 Sep 10 - 06:22 PM QUOTE To me, the strangest claim of certain religions is that an all-powerful Creator issued, to a weak, fallible people, commands about our behavior...once...under strange circumstances....to ONE individual..then expected the billions who followed to make sense of all the varied interpretations. UNQUOTE Many years ago, I read a short 'SF' story about the group of aliens who sent out missionaries, and just one found a lone half crazed hermit in the desert, and told his story about his civilization sacrificing itself in a violent incineration for the good of all the other civilizations in the galaxy - the sky then blazed - and then he said, now I want you to go and tell everyone what we have done for you all ... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: John P Date: 30 Sep 10 - 06:25 PM "Atheism indicates the rejection of the idea of one God" In my case, I never actually rejected the idea of the existence of god(s). "Rejection" makes it sound like I considered it and decided against it. It never made any sense to me in the first place, so "rejection" isn't really what happened. I remember being five years old in Sunday School, wondering why all the adults were saying such bizarre and impossible things. It was confusing for a while, but then it was a great lesson in human frailty. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Dave MacKenzie Date: 30 Sep 10 - 06:32 PM I switched on BBC Radio4 a few months ago and caught a well known scientist making a very good case for the existance of God - it aws Richard Dawkins. As I've said before, I don't believe in the same god that the atheists don't believe in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Ed T Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:01 PM "There is nothing wrong with having ideas about the possible future discoveries of 'Science' (just don't smear it into our current 'Reality') - people have done that for ages - it's now officially called 'Science Fiction' though... :-) " Attempts to minimize science investigation to "current reality" and refering to future science investigation as "science fiction" is belittling to science, The RC church tried to stifle science investigation and keep it within "current realities" a few centuaries ago. Fortunately, because of the rigor of science, it met with marginal success over the long term. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:20 PM Foolestroupe, Your premise is quite contradictory to the THEORY of evolution, which says things are EVOLVING upwards, but entropy is just the opposite. You can't have it both ways. You may wish to re-consider, but a cool discussion is always good! Evolution, and entropy both are explanations to get around energy being manifested, from a consciousness, and by design, or purpose....random. How far does 'random' go, before you come to the conclusion that ALL is meaningless?? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Ed T Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:20 PM "What Skepticism Reveals about Science, A skeptic's journey for truth in science. Scientific American Magazine » July 2009, By Michael Shermer Exerps from the article: "In science, lots of mysteries are left unexplained until further evidence arises, and problems are often left unsolved until another day. In the meantime, it is okay to say, "I don't know," "I'm not sure" and "Let's wait and see." "Most people (scientists included) treat the God question separate from all these other claims. They are right to do so as long as the particular claim in question cannot—even in principle—be examined by science". "There is one mystery I will concede that science may not be able to answer, and that is the question of what existed before our universe began. One answer is the multiverse. According to the theory, multiple universes each had their own genesis, and some of these universes gave birth (perhaps through collapsing black holes) to baby universes, one of which was ours. There is no positive evidence for this conjecture, but neither is there positive evidence for the traditional answer to the question—God. And in both cases, we are left with the reductio ad absurdum question of what came before the multiverse or God. If God is defined as that which does not need to be created, then why can't the universe (or multiverse) be defined as that which does not need to be created? In both cases, we have only negative evidence along the lines of "I can't think of any other explanation," which is no evidence at all. If there is one thing that the history of science has taught us, it is that it is arrogant to think we now know enough to know that we cannot know. So for the time being, it comes down to cognitive or emotional preference: an answer with only negative evidence or no answer at all. God, multiverse or Unknown. Which one you choose depends on your tolerance for ambiguity and how much you want to believe. For me, I remain in sublime awe of the great Unknown. There is one mystery I will concede that science may not be able to answer, and that is the question of what existed before our universe began. One answer is the multiverse. According to the theory, multiple universes each had their own genesis, and some of these universes gave birth (perhaps through collapsing black holes) to baby universes, one of which was ours. There is no positive evidence for this conjecture, but neither is there positive evidence for the traditional answer to the question—God. And in both cases, we are left with the reductio ad absurdum question of what came before the multiverse or God. If God is defined as that which does not need to be created, then why can't the universe (or multiverse) be defined as that which does not need to be created? In both cases, we have only negative evidence along the lines of "I can't think of any other explanation," which is no evidence at all. If there is one thing that the history of science has taught us, it is that it is arrogant to think we now know enough to know that we cannot know. So for the time being, it comes down to cognitive or emotional preference: an answer with only negative evidence or no answer at all. God, multiverse or Unknown. Which one you choose depends on your tolerance for ambiguity and how much you want to believe. For me, I remain in sublime awe of the great Unknown". The article and intesting comments can be found in the link below: Skepticism and Science |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Ed T Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:26 PM Note that I cut and repeated the last couple of paragraphs in my last post...sorry about that. Did anyone pick up on one statement in the post: "It is arrogant to think we now know enough to know that we cannot know". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Bill D Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:37 PM "...the THEORY of evolution, which says things are EVOLVING upwards, but entropy is just the opposite." Now THAT is a basic misunderstanding of both entropy and evolution. 'Evolving' is changing... it has little to do with states of energy. Entropy is the **tendency** of the universe to gradually seek lower states of energy. As living entities reproduce, they are just re-arranging some of the matter/energy which has not dissipated thru entropy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:48 PM "Attempts to minimize science investigation to "current reality" and refering to future science investigation as "science fiction" is belittling to science, The RC church tried to stifle science investigation and keep it within "current realities" a few centuaries ago. Fortunately, because of the rigor of science, it met with marginal success over the long term. " Unlike 'Religion', as you describe, 'Science' isn't the slightest bit interested in 'stopping progress'. But when claims about 'ground-breaking' things like 'cold fusion' are made, Scientists do insist that the rigorous processes of explaining clearly exactly what you did, and why you think it works is necessary so that others can do it too. Also mistakes can be made in the process of analysis of the methods or results, which exposure to other minds may reveal, and improve the future path of investigation. If you are the only one that makes this claim of 'some new magical stuff that no one but me can do and, Good Lord, you will have to pay me lots of gold to see me create gold from chickenshit again', then there is natural skepticism from 'Scientists'. That is not 'belittling to Science' nor 'restricting' anything but the genuinely deluded - Google 'Perpetual Motion Machine', or the outright charlatan. The Perpetual Motion Machine devotees simply cannot understand Mathematics or Science, but obsessively keep repeating poorly designed 'experiments' that do not have the desired result, then rationalize away the results - there is very little difference between their compulsory obsessive 'Pseudo Science' and 'Religion' - they also have very strong 'faith' in their delusive 'beliefs'. Sad, but true ... but then if it keeps them from socially unacceptable activities like molesting little children, I know which activity I'd prefer that they get obsessed with... then again, they MAY just stumble over something 'useful and interesting' ... most real scientific advances are often a serendipitous combination of persistence and faith in areas that are outside 'current realities' (eg recent Aussie Nobel Prize winners in stomach ulcer research)... "The RC church tried to stifle science investigation and keep it within "current realities"" This was purely for Political Purposes (based on 'magical sky fairy' beliefs) - CONTROL of People's MINDS - and if any ONE thing in their 'irrefutable revealed thesis' was disproved, they FEARED THEY WOULD LOSE CONTROL, especially of all the money! :-) They really weren't the slightest bit interested in 'Advancing Science' - after all 'All that was needed to know had already been revealed'. This is NOT 'Science', but 'Religious Faith', as it was all 'revealed' by their 'magic sky fairy' - going contrary to it was not only religious heresy, but would lead to people 'losing faith in the belief system, and the leaders losing political POWER'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:52 PM QUOTE Foolestroupe, Your premise is quite contradictory to the THEORY of evolution, which says things are EVOLVING upwards, but entropy is just the opposite. You can't have it both ways. You may wish to re-consider, but a cool discussion is always good! Evolution, and entropy both are explanations to get around energy being manifested, from a consciousness, and by design, or purpose....random. UNQUOTE I can see little progress in our mutual discussion along these lines as you and I are not arguing from the same basic premises. Bill D has already given all the answer needed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Steve Shaw Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:55 PM Oh dear. John P has it right, but I fear I must contradict some others among my fellow atheists here. Atheists don't reject anything. Good atheists refuse to be put on to the back foot by believers, who feel they have the default position. "I believe in this, so, as you don't agree with me, you are a non-believer. An a-theist (without God.)" Well no thanks. That makes me sort of negative, and at this moment I don't feel especially negative, thanks. I'm not having people who believe in entirely improbable beings, for whom there is neither evidence nor explanation, defining me. I'm not having people who have come to an entirely irrational conclusion about how the universe should be explained characterising me. I'll discuss this on my territory (if at all), not theirs, thank you very much. I'll make just one small concession: you may call me an atheist, even though this insulting term puts me squarely on your turf, simply because we need to use a convenient word that everyone gets. But don't get big ideas from that that I take your big ideas seriously. I don't. You're deluded! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Steve Shaw Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:57 PM Anyone who thinks there's anything random in evolution doesn't understand evolution. Not in the slightest. The word doesn't belong in any discussion of evolution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 30 Sep 10 - 08:02 PM "As living entities reproduce, they are just re-arranging some of the matter/energy which has not dissipated thru entropy. " If you can't understand HOW a more complex structure like a more complex molecule being built up by processes that process/transmute energy/matter from less complex components, 'displays entropy', i.e. the transition of energy from higher states to lower states, then you certainly won't benefit from me trying to expound and express thousands of PHD theses and millions of man hours of laboratory research in any length message that anybody would read here. It's taken ME my whole life to just understand enough to peek under the rug.... and be totally unsatisfied by the 'my magical sky fairy did it all, now just shut up and obey me' approach. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Steve Shaw Date: 30 Sep 10 - 08:02 PM "There is one mystery I will concede that science may not be able to answer, and that is the question of what existed before our universe began." This is a bogus mystery and your notion of it demonstrates that you don't understand space-time. Go and read some Hawking. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Bill D Date: 30 Sep 10 - 08:07 PM No real atheist believes that getting the 100th post wins him anything.... ☺ |
