 sj |
||
|
||
BS: True Test of an Atheist
|
|
|
Subject: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Slag Date: 29 Sep 10 - 05:52 PM Well, a survey was given and the same old teams have donned their uniforms and gear...AND they're off! And getting nowhere fast. A couple of points got me to thinking. One is that agnostics and atheists seem to know as much or more about "religion" than adherents and believers. The other is that atheists and agnostics are drawn like moths to the flame whenever something about faith is posted. What would be my response if I were really a decided non-believer? If I grew up not believing, I most likely would not respond at all. Why should I? I would not care what others thought or felt about the subject nor would I try to convince someone they were wrong or that I was correct in my thinking. There are so many things in the world that could capture my attention and so many other matters of timely importance that it most likely would not reach even the threshold of curiosity. The other group would be those who have been raised under a "religious" influence. Theirs would be a more complex picture. You would have to consider matters such as: 1) Which religion(s) are they rejecting? 2) What aspect of the religion do they reject? 3) Are there any other psychological factors in their opposition? 4) Have they looked in depth at their religion or at all religion? Not an exhaustive list to be sure but I would conclude this. It acounts for WHY atheists and agnostics have parity in knowledge or even surpass folks who purport to have religious convictions. After all, the unexamined life is not worth living! Right? But I still run up against the problem of "response" as with those who were unschooled in any religion and reject religion and God altogether. It seems to me that if someone has really ultimately decided to not believe, it would no longer be of any concern to them. So why the morbid fascination with a discussion about faith or a survey about religion? If you truly do NOT believe why not just go your way and leave those who do to wallow in their collective imagination? Could it be that you really do have some part of your being that is not convinced that there are things beyond you knowledge that do or may have a real existence? That would put you in the agnostic boat and not in the atheist category. Or is it that you have a deep-seated hostility against God and or religion? Do you feel superior to those who believe and want to rub their noses in it? Why the seeming fascination? And to the agnostics, why are you still looking? You should know by now that matters of faith are not really subject to pure logical thought. That is why it is called faith. The two can never truly intersect in a way that will allow reason to triumph over faith by proving one way or the other. Rational answer comes by why of the rigorous application of scientific thought(although I would argue here that modern theoretical physics has far exceeded religious thought in imagination and speculation as to the true, ultimate reality). So why don't you leave it alone? And I would submit that this IS the true test that you are truly an atheist or an unbeliever: That you do not respond to matters of faith and religion. It does not leave you hot or cold but just dissinterested. Otherwise, you are maybe not being honest with yourself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Amos Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:00 PM Pshaw! People will debate anything in which they have an interest. Being an atheist does not mean one is not interested in religiosity, as a phenom. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: gnu Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:01 PM Thought provoking indeed. Well said and questioned, Slag. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Richard Bridge Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:11 PM Religion remains relevant to atheists because of the harm that it does, and the harm it reflects. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: John P Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:17 PM When the laws of |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: gnu Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:18 PM I recently saw on Larry King Live a "debate" between a Jesuit, Choprah, and the guy that wrote the recent book with Hawking. The arguement of "logic", as an example, which asks, "Can God make a stone he cannot lift?", was countered by the Jesuit, and I paraprase, without quotes... how can the universe be created from nothing in a big bang? If there was nothing, nothing could be created. Soooo, logic in itself neither confirms nor denies the existence of God OR the existance of God within the human mind. Perhaps humans need to define and REFINE their morality rather than debate it based on the "God" thing. Anyway, it's all in Rapaire's mind. If he calves out, we no longer exist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Slag Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:27 PM Well Amos, Pshaw! tells me something about you but Yes! You are right. And that is the only other alternative I see, that would answer my question. As an element of the humanities, religion holds a certain facination as a phenomenon and an object of study. That was why my undergrad major at Cal State U. at Bakersfiled, was "Special Major, Religious Studies" under the Philosophy Department. Why "Pshaw!" Isn't my question valid? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Slag Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:36 PM Religion as a social force fairs about the same as many other human endeavors as to whether is causes harm or helps Mankind. Millions upon millions of people died in WWII under the banners of socialism, Russian and German versions but todays socialists would tell you that it was the leaders and adherents who were flawed, not the theory and that forms a mighty big debate. So too, religionists might rightly argue the same: it is the users and abusers of relgion who do the harm. I fail to see any validity in the wholesale dismaissal of religion as a force for good rather than evil. You might want to rephrase. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Jim Carroll Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:42 PM "So why the morbid fascination with a discussion about faith or a survey about religion?" Atheists question - believers accept without question. Religion is taught as a fact; believers swallow it wholesale, atheists look for a rationale. The slogan of The Christian brothers is "give me a child of five and I will give you a believer for life." Here in Ireland we have just become aware of a massive and long-term outbreak of clerical child abuse by Christins using their influence though their position in the church to carry out serial rapes of children. We want to know how they got away with it for so long and on such a scale - oh - and where was their god while all this was taking place? No mystery, just open your newsaper. Now let's here your theory. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Desert Dancer Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:42 PM If it's a big deal to other people, and shapes how they make decisions, then unless you're going to squirrel yourself away in isolation it helps to have some knowledge and understanding of others' beliefs, even if you don't share them, no matter what perspective you are coming from. True in democratic society, true for the mobile world we live in. For these reasons, I'd say "Pshaw" to your assertion, too. I don't see value in being confrontational about differences in belief. That I'll happily ignore, if I can. ~ Becky in Long Beach |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Jim Dixon Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:43 PM I did notice one interesting thing in the survey results which no one else commented on: While "Atheists/Agnostics" ranked high in their knowledge of religion, people who said their religion was "nothing in particular" ranked rather low. One wonders, what is the difference between "atheists/agnostics" and "nothing in particular?" Well, my first guess is, the "atheists/agnostics" are people who are interested in religion (as a social phenomenon, or whatever), and the "nothing in particular" people who are not interested, and therefore don't even bother to adopt a label for themselves. Another possibility: the "nothing in particular" people believe in some kind of god, but they don't want to join any religious group. But that doesn't explain why they would rank so low in their knowlege of religion--or does it? I guess we are free to speculate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: GUEST,David E. Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:47 PM Thank you for your post Slag. I do find it interesting that so many self proclaimed atheists still have all these demands that people be treated with what we recognize as Judeo-Christian values. If there really is no Creator or intelligent design then it must be survival of the fittest and no one would need to respect anyone, right? Or is that just too simple? David E. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Herga Kitty Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:50 PM This is a pretty sterile discussion unless you consider ethics and codes of conduct, including humanist as well as religious belief. Kitty |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: olddude Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:53 PM I have heard this many times ... what laws can someone give me an example of a law that is based on religion? Laws are based on a code of moral and social conduct ... it so happens that they go hand in hand with religious doctrine ... but what ones would you like to get rid of .. the killing one or the stealing one or the cheating on taxes etc .. I submit the same character defect that causes a pediphile priest to assult a child is the same character defect that causes a non believer that does the same. If you remove all religion .. it is what it still is . In any event I wish mudcat had a separate category for religion bashing .. at least it wouldn't get cludder up in the stuff that makes me laugh or feel good. In any event, no disrespect intended on my part .. I am what I am ... sometimes I don't like me, other times I do ... I am human but my faith tends to keep me in line somewhat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Mrrzy Date: 29 Sep 10 - 07:05 PM Ah, OK, let me explain my moth to the flame response, in your terms (not explain in your terms, Ima gonna splain in my own terms, but the moth-flame analogy was yours). I see it more as a rearguard action, here in these By God Yewnited States. You see, what I consider the worst enemy of humanity is the *harm* that is done under the umbrella of religion. Cannot recall who said that for good people to do evil takes religion, but what I think is closer to another unattributably (by my memory, try Google if you're curious) quote, that people who will believe absurdities will commit atrocities. I *know* that Hitler wasn't a statistically normal Catholic, but without Christianity (and Islam but irrelevently here) already teaching to hate Jews, would almost my entire maternal extended family have been mass-murdered only for their *perceived* beliefs (their family was actually secular, candles on the Christmas tree and all), along with tens of millions of other people, so effortlessly? I repeat: what I fight is the harm. I know the terrorists who've been slaughtering Americans wholesale overseas since at least Nov. 1979, when some teenagers took over the Tehran embassy trying to commit martyrdom/suicide but the Marines couldn't believe what was happening, through the bombing of all those planes and embassies *long* before Sep. 11 2001, and who've been doing it ever since with no end in sight, weren't average moslems either. In fact, the individual ones who blew up the Beirut embassy (the first time), killing my pacifist atheist WWII-consciencious-objector father along with 60-odd others, mere weeks before my college graduation ceremony, were Ayatollah-loving, Syrian-trained, moslem Lebanese. I don't have a problem with Iranians, or with Syrians, or with Lebanese, but without their faith and Dad's *perceived* Christianity, that bombing, the first of its kind, would not have been *motivatable* (at least, not nearly as easily). (As an American it was always assumed Dad was a Protestant, and in fact his family's Quaker -- in fact one of our most beloved cousins, Cousin Mather (Lippincott) just died, you may have heard of him -- nonetheless Dad he always answered "none" to the question of what his religion was. And where I grew up, in the largest city of barely-post-colonial west Africa, there were roughly equal proportions of (I didn't know they were Sunni but they were) Moslems, Catholics, and animists who didn't consider their various beliefs to be a religion per se, and I had some Jewish relatives. So at home, the moslems would all pray on their little carpets, all at the same time, no matter what else was going on like they were your taxi driver, and on Sundays the christians ate their god. Then when we touristed the girls all covered their heads for mosques, males covered theirs for synagogues if we were in Europe, and throughout the animists could believe, and argue about since there were so many different tribes, way more than 6 impossible things before breakfast. So basically you end up seeing that all these various beliefs are equally worthy of respect, to wit, equally silly, you might say... if it weren't for the harm they can do. I was occasionally asked "est-tu croyante" meaning kind of Do you believe, but No was always an acceptable answer. I miss *that* kind of tolerance... Again, what I fight is the harm that only belief in the completely unverifiable can do with the minds of the credulous. I do it mostly to protect the minds of the credulous, in a "teach a man to fish" kind of philosophy, since by getting people to think for themselves means you end up with people who won't be led into incredible nastininess *without good reason* - and "My shaman/priest/imam/rabbi is better than your SPIR" wouldn't be good enough. Faith, defined by Mark Twain as believing what you know ain't so or something similar, can do so much harm when harnessed by bigots to the believers, that many of us, not only those whose mom happens to be a Holocaust survivor and whose father was blown up by islamic terrorists, have stopped putting up with the whole shebang. I work on one smalal piece of the puzzle: getting really smart people to question their rationales, and to know how to think critically (which is why I so enjoy teaching experimental methodology, but wow, this is getting to be a really long post so I'll shut up now...) It's The Harm. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Mrrzy Date: 29 Sep 10 - 07:07 PM Oops.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Slag Date: 29 Sep 10 - 07:08 PM Jim Carroll lumps all religions as the same, paints them all the same with one broad stroke and dismisses followers and adherents as mindless morons and lemmings. Thank you for your most critical and in-depth analysis, Jim! Don't you see any complexity? Why the hostility? Do you think believers don't questions and struggle with matters of faith and reason? Have you never read the life of Martin Luther? for one? It is a huge and diverse field and virtually every culture in the world is somehow rooted in religion. That is the part that interests me in my question: Why the antagonism? Why the hostility against? Think of it this way. As a parent, you care for your kids. You try to direct them in paths that will be beneficial to them. You correct them. You can be angry with them or happy for them but you are CONNECTED to them. If you see someone's child, other than your own, your connection is only at what you might call a moral level. You don't correct them unless their act has been egregious. If they are well behaved stranger-children you ignore them for the most part. They are really of no concern to you. So I would think it would be with matters of religion. No big deal, no concern, unless you are REALLY CONNECTED to it in some manner and that is my contention, otherwise it wouldn't matter and this thread would die a speedy death. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Amos Date: 29 Sep 10 - 07:11 PM The Pshaw, my good friend, was only directed against the implied notion that IF one were an atheist THEN one would not discuss religion. As a proposition, that strikes me as bunkum (that's how we spell it ovah heah). The rest of your rhetoric is pleasant and charming as always. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: John P Date: 29 Sep 10 - 07:17 PM Well, homosexual marriage is still widely illegal, mostly based on the religious convictions of lawmakers. Any laws about what can and can't be done on Sundays are certainly based on religion. Laws about nudity, drugs, prostitution, and polygamy probably all have some basis in religious belief. There are school boards all over the country, most notably in Texas and Kansas, who are dictating that religion be taught in schools. They have required that "Intelligent Design" to be taught as a theory alongside the theory of evolution. In Texas, they are requiring text book authors to paint a prettier picture of the Christian foundation of the country. People are allowed to send kids to religious schools where they are taught to believe -- and be proud of it -- things that aren't possible. I think that's part of why the Republicans are able to convince so many people to believe their crap. It's not law, in fact it's illegal, but no one who is not a religious person will ever achieve high political office in the U.S. This is a wide-spread and generally unquestioned bias that plays itself out in the way our laws are made. If you get out of the United States or Europe, many countries have very stringent religious laws. Even in Europe, there is a push on to make insulting someone's religion illegal. So, yes, lawmaking is heavily informed by religious belief. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 29 Sep 10 - 07:39 PM "how can the universe be created from nothing in a big bang? If there was nothing, nothing could be created." Well your problem with this is just semantics - just what meaning you ascribe to the words in a particular context. What the cutting edge of scientific speculation now says is that "in THIS universe that we can detect with our senses, there WAS nothing. Energy flux in dimensions we cannot detect leaked though into the dimensions we CAN detect now, and created the Big Bang - all that follows is purely the effect of the natural laws, based on mathematics so complex, we struggle to untangle it slowly, bit by bit - including the delusions of the resultant thought processes that there MUST have been some magic sky fairy that created it." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Slag Date: 29 Sep 10 - 07:42 PM FS, it is ALL magic. That ANYTHING exists is the miracle, and yet, here we are! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Paul Burke Date: 29 Sep 10 - 08:00 PM Slag- a totally uncomprehending pillock. I think that's all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: olddude Date: 29 Sep 10 - 08:03 PM Textbook selection in Texas like all states is dictated by the elected school board representatives. I am the first to scream foul at some of their antics however, they were elected by their people Nuff said. Most everything you cited is based on social conduct of accepted behavior which just happens to go hand in hand with most religious teaching. I suppose in some cultures it is ok to steal but for a society to succeed it needs moral values of some kind or chaos occurs. Laws are based to preserve order. The Sunday "blue laws' were rule unconstitutional a long time ago. In other countries sure, but take away their religion and you still have the thuds doing what they do .. your argument doesn't hold. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 29 Sep 10 - 08:05 PM "I do find it interesting that so many self proclaimed atheists still have all these demands that people be treated with what we recognize as Judeo-Christian values" Except the humanistic values were already there, before Religion came along and stole them for itself, to pretend that Religion owned everything. "Jim Carroll lumps all religions as the same, paints them all the same with one broad stroke and dismisses followers and adherents as mindless morons and lemmings. Thank you for your most critical and in-depth analysis, Jim!" Well the negation response to this is along the line of the old arguments of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. If there are no angels, then the answer is simple - none.... To the non-believer in any religion, all religions ARE merely offshoots of the same basic belief, the only argument being which one is supreme over all the others! Because since almost every religion claims that it IS the Supreme one and all others are merely 'mistaken beliefs' and 'you should come over to their side'. "Do you think believers don't questions and struggle with matters of faith and reason? Have you never read the life of Martin Luther?" I was raised a Lutheran and well schooled in the subtleties and history of the RC church from day one. What he was searching for was not that God did not exist (he was never an agnostic!), but that his own particular invisible magical sky fairy that spoke in his ear had said that he was the only one right and everyone from the Pope down was wrong, that they 'had lost the true path'. What causes me to fall about in laughter is the widespread strongly held delusion by many Americans - just read Yahoo Answers for a while - that some how Catholics are not Christians.... thereby showing that many US Protestants are raised in total ignorance of the history of their 'Protestant' Faith. What are they 'protesting' about? The original Protestants were protesting that oh, here we go again, the RC had 'lost the true path'.... Ignorance is not bliss for a 'believer', but ignorance by your followers is definitely bliss for a dictator, religious or secular... Religious Intolerance is inevitably caused by the bigoted delusion that only one approved set of religious beliefs is 'correct' - the atheist simply says - it's all just made up by people, no divine inspiration is possible, because there is no magic sky fairy, so none is correct .... 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.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: olddude Date: 29 Sep 10 - 08:14 PM the Constitution has a separation of church and state. Any law that is based solely on religion would and can be challenged and would be ruled unconstitutional. Laws are setup to maintain order in a society, laws can be changed and many should. That we why we elect law makers. You assume that no one who isn't religious could not be elected. Wrong but it doesn't hurt I agree. However there are many members of congress that have varied faiths or no faith at all ... there are many gay people in congress also. The gay marriage stuff someday will be challenged up to the Supreme court and then it will be settled. I know lots of people who are opposed not because of their religion or lack their of , but because they are bigots period and hate gay people. And it is very sad also. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Janie Date: 29 Sep 10 - 08:33 PM What Amos said.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Jeri Date: 29 Sep 10 - 08:40 PM Just because a person doesn't believe in a deity doesn't mean we don't enjoy talking about beliefs--ours, yours, or anyone's. I find the belief that we should be exempted from all discussions on religion to be, well, defensive and pretty weird. Mrrzy, I don't expect you'll get a lot of intelligent comments on your post as most people at Mudcat these days aren't terribly fond of reading, let alone trying to understand what a person writes. I don't always agree with you, but I found your post to be an exceptional piece of writing, honest and enlightening. It helps me know you a little bit better. Thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: GUEST,David E. Date: 29 Sep 10 - 08:57 PM "humanistic values were already there, before Religion came along and stole them for itself..." I'm rather skeptical about that. David E. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Bill D Date: 29 Sep 10 - 09:02 PM I was JUST about to post that Mrrzy's post was well worth reading, no matter what your preference. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Ed T Date: 29 Sep 10 - 09:28 PM The true test of an atheist, I suspect, is death and clearly discovering whether he/she is right or wrong? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 29 Sep 10 - 10:01 PM "The true test of an atheist, I suspect, is death and clearly discovering whether he/she is right or wrong?" But if the atheist is also a non-spiritualist, and believes that the human personality (and all the ideas that it creates, including magical sky fairy religions and various forms of eternal life) is just the inevitable emergent behavior of the hardware (brain circuitry), then they also believe in just oblivion when the hardware shuts down, so your comment is meaningless and from their viewpoint nonsensical - only someone who 'has faith' in the very things the atheist non-spiritualists do not can even think this .... :-) In other words 'there is nothing to discover'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Jeri Date: 29 Sep 10 - 10:09 PM I think the whole concept of a "true test" of any individual's beliefs is pretty stupid. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 29 Sep 10 - 10:27 PM Yep Jeri - after all we get bogged down in defining 'True' long before we try to agree just what a 'test' is , what to 'test', how to 'test' ... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Bill D Date: 29 Sep 10 - 10:46 PM As I have said many times, it ain't fair....atheists and skeptics, if they are right, don't get to thumb their noses and say "I TOLD you so!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Desert Dancer Date: 29 Sep 10 - 11:46 PM Can't we all just get along? :-) (For those who are not LOLCat fans, "Basement cat", the/a black one, and generally portrayed as the personification of evil.) (or is that catification?) (For example... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 30 Sep 10 - 02:09 AM Foolestroupe: "...But if the atheist is also a non-spiritualist, and believes that the human personality (and all the ideas that it creates, including magical sky fairy religions and various forms of eternal life)...? I guess I could have picked a number of posts, to comment on, but there is something in this one, that pops out...and has a lot to do with people's concept of 'religion' verses 'truth'. In the beginning, God created man after his own image....and ever since, man has been trying to return the favor! Maybe, the whole of everything, is bigger than your imagination. As to 'the true test' (thread topic, lest we forget), I guess you could shut up the argument, in your own head.....if you can. Who's arguing? Probably your sense of reality, versus the way you want it to be!.....Then, one of the 'voices' will still be with you, and one won't...when you 'die'....Being as energy cannot be created nor destroyed, what about conscious energy?....Is yours an unattached island, in a sea of nothing?? Don't drown! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Gervase Date: 30 Sep 10 - 02:56 AM Perhaps the true test of a libertarian would be to ignore the actions of oppressive states and ideologies; to simply shrug and walk on by when, say, neo-nazis are on the rise, or when tyrannical regimes repress their populations. Perhaps the true test of a good person and a humanitarian would be to ignore the manifest injustices and suffering in the world. I'm an atheist and I find religion fascinating. The good and ill that have been done in its name I carry in my genes, from the vespers of Monteverdi to the pogroms of the Ukraine. It's too big a subject to be ignored. So the argument of the original post doesn't hold water for me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Jim Carroll Date: 30 Sep 10 - 03:55 AM "Thank you for your most critical and in-depth analysis, Jim!" And thank you for ignoring the single greatest harm perpetrated against our children by Christians sheltering under god's umbrella, certainly in my lifetime - it confirms the hypocricy that appears to go with many religions. My non-belief in a god is my own business, just as the faith of others is theirs, and I am more than happy to keep it that way. But when religious belief infects the everyday lives of all, believer or non-believer, to the extent that it has with the systematic and long-term rape and abuse of children, and the cover up of same by officers of a universal Christian church, then it becomes the business of us all. I ask again - if there is a god, where was he/she when the children were being raped by his/her representitives on Earth, and where is he/she now when all but a few scapegoats continue to avoid having to face their crimes as the criminals they are? "Jim Carroll lumps all religions as the same" I make no distinction between the Christian savages who serially raped children and those who strap themselves up with bombs and go off to slaughter in the name of Allah, except, of course, the latter show more than a little more committment and courage than do their Christian counterparts who continue to take sanctuary behind their vestments and the power of their holy church. 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. You want your religious views and practices respected - then keep them to yourself as a private matter and stay out of our lives - oh, and don't start crass threads such as this one. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 30 Sep 10 - 04:34 AM Oldude wants to know of a law based on religion. try buying a pack of screws from B&Q after 4.00pm on a Sunday. The original post was thought provoking but misses the point that if agnostic / atheist / irreligious people are what they say, why do they get hot & bothered over religion? Probably because having an imaginary friend seems to give some people the right to exert their moral codes on others. We have Bishops scrutinising laws and voting on them in The House of Lords, public money spent on schools based on faith and charitable status for organisations that preach charity whilst ... I could go on. In a fit of agreeing with Jim Carroll, I found no problem with the "Jim Carroll lumps all religions as the same." I do, it's easier that way. Mind you as I have always said, if we didn't have religion, we would end up inventing it. (Which of course we did...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Steve Shaw Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:09 AM The original post is just well-written, patronising tosh. Atheists discuss religion because religion is a big part of this planet. It's the default position even in countries that are allegedly secular. Religion influences billions of people and that is not unimportant and easy to dismiss. Outrages such as the indoctrination of millions of children in schools and families, almost from birth, are rife. We have to look at religious icons wherever we go. The mindset of that post is the same as the one that emerged in that survey thread: get out of my bloody thread, was the basic message, unless you want to join in with the rest of us cosy band of believers. The poster here betrays the usual believer attitude to atheists: we're just an irritating, argumentative and, er, slightly threatening bunch. Hows about we put this the other way round. If believers are so secure in their faith, and really do embrace the certainties that their prayers contain, why bother arguing with us atheists at all? Laugh us off! Er, not so easy, is it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Jim Carroll Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:11 AM "Probably because having an imaginary friend seems to give some people the right to exert their moral codes on others." Sums it up perfickly for me! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: TheSnail Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:36 AM Mrrzy It's The Harm. I Ain't Afraid |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Steve Shaw Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:40 AM Atheists with sound "moral codes" are living proof, surely, that moral codes don't come from religion. In fact, what an admission of failure it is to say that your moral code comes from your religion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 30 Sep 10 - 06:03 AM Moral code... if ants and termites don't work together and sacrifice themselves for the good of the community, the community doesn't survive. Technically, the genes don't get to use living creatures as hosts. I suppose that to say altruism is hard wired into us is, to those grasping at facts to support belief; proof of intelligent design. If so, I hate to tell you this, but we weren't built in his image, chromosomes were... And I for one wouldn't buy one a drink with a view to losing all my money by marrying it.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Ed T Date: 30 Sep 10 - 06:21 AM "they also believe in just oblivion when the hardware shuts down" Not necessarily true, even if there were no God, in the religious sense. While the physical hardware shuts down from our perspective, I suspect there are other possibilities that could evolve from the human energy. Some of these one could speculate on, others are likely beyond our current knowledge. We really do not know, now do we? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: MGM·Lion Date: 30 Sep 10 - 06:22 AM "Intelligent design" always strikes me as a most inapposite phrase when I think of, say, childbirth. "Unintelligent design" seems to me to fit the case much better. I mean, what sort of Loving God would have designed his Creations with the inconvenient necessity of constant pissing and shitting? Surely he could have done better than that, with just a bit of intelligent thought? It's a design fault which should have been corrected as he created more and more models before culminating in this one ~ that's what one would have expected in any other area of design: we don't still have to use a cranking handle to start our cars, do we? ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Slag Date: 30 Sep 10 - 06:37 AM You may have noted in the original post that the word "religion" is set apart in quotes. I also made a distinction between adherents to a religion and believers. I also left believers as a vague, general term. I asked a QUESTION which was related to the other thread about a religious survey which caused me to wonder as I did? And quite contrary to many of your perceptions of me about what you THINK you know about my beliefs I am not a big supporter of organized religion. I have a very narrow view of religion. I am in agreement with the writer of James. To him, true religion is the caring for widows and orphans within the Christian community and without as Christ demonstrated who a person's neighbor is in the story of the Good Samaritan. All the horrendous acts that Mrrzy listed and all the awful acts he could have listed are, to my way of thinking, horrible abuses of the religions involved and the doctrines of peace espoused by many of them. Whether it is a religious movement or a political movement there seem to always be those who will corrupt the intent or goal of either for their own evil purposes. And there always seems to be a mindless cadre that will follow the corrupt to oblivion while never catching on to the truth about either or seeking out answers for themselves. It doesn't mean there is no God nor does it prove there is a God. It is, perhaps, a true picture of the state of Man and an indicator of how far we have to go. I could argue from a Christian perspective that God shares your concerns and understands your criticisms as He voiced similar concerns over those who were supposed to be His people. I believe God hates most all the same evils you hate but not those who perpetrate the same. I can argue this from scripture but somehow, I don't get the impression that many are willing to endure such, here and now. Closed systems of understanding our world and the folks in it are intolerable, be they political or religious or some other specie. Shame to the person who allows someone else to do their thinking for them. Not only is the unexamined life not worth living, it is downright dangerous to those about. Religion can be a response to a spiritual awakening or epiphany or it can be a cop-out. It can be a way for making business contacts or it can be a means of fleecing people. It can be a pathway of psychoses as in the Jones Town incident or it can be a political tool. Is it any wonder why religion cannot be ignored? Guest David E. (whose given name means, in the Hebrew "Beloved") thinks that humanism was already in place before religion but doesn't bother to demonstrate how he knows this. It is an unsubstantiated claim. Humanism as it is understood today as a movement began in the 1800's AD that is. I think religion, in the general term has been around a little longer than that. I would hold that Mankind and religion grew up together and that religion, his ability to question that which he did not understand, was the impetus for all that has followed. Earliest man is always found in proximity with those things which are considered religious. To address Foolestroupe's list of concerns: My response to Jim Carroll's statement was to the point and logical. He made a blanket declaration against "religion" based on narrow and anecdotal information at best and regardless of the ABUSES of religion it still does not touch in any meaningful way the phenomenon of religion or faith or belief in a supreme deity or many deities nor does it address any object of many Far Eastern religions. And yet how many of you looked at his post and unquestioningly agreed with him? I find THAT scary. And to which Foolestroupe somehow discerns that I must be talking about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Which, you will note is NOT an ARGUMENT. It is, rather, a question. Even if this were an attempt to set up a straw man argument, it is a non sequitur to what has gone before. But just for fun, I'd like to answer anyway. If the entire universe could fit inside the seminal infinitesimal that preceded the "Big Bang", why all of them AND none of them! "To the non-believer in any religion, all religions ARE merely offshoots of the same basic belief, the only argument being which one is supreme over all the others! Because since almost every religion claims that it IS the Supreme one and all others are merely 'mistaken beliefs' and 'you should come over to their side'." Again it is the informal fallacy of the hasty generalization. You do a great disservice to many religions that do NOT believe in ONE supreme being. You do a historical disservice to many polytheistic religions. You need to check out Sufism, Baha'i, Rosicrucian and some other religions I could name. They are NOT all the same and their followers would be the first to tell you so. "I was raised a Lutheran and well schooled in the subtleties and history of the RC church from day one. What he was searching for was not that God did not exist (he was never an agnostic!), but that his own particular invisible magical sky fairy that spoke in his ear had said that he was the only one right and everyone from the Pope down was wrong, that they 'had lost the true path'." I'm sure many Lutherans would be dismayed at your portrayal of their faith. I never said he was agnostic, YOU did. It is so much easier to shoot down a lame argument of your own design, isn't it? And you were studying Roman Catholicism and it's subtleties? I thought you were raised Lutheran!! (yes facetious, sort of). Nor did Martin Luther believe in magical sky fairies. I have read his life story from different authors and no one mentioned sky fairies. I know he did learn Greek, Hebrew and Latin and the discrepancies between what he read and what the Roman Catholic Church was putting forth at the time cause him to QUESTION the church and later to seek to REFORM the same. You see, you need to get your facts straight before you launch out with an "argument" otherwise, you look kind of foolish to the honest inquirer. "What causes me to fall about in laughter is the widespread strongly held delusion by many Americans - just read Yahoo Answers for a while - that some how Catholics are not Christians.... thereby showing that many US Protestants are raised in total ignorance of the history of their 'Protestant' Faith. What are they 'protesting' about? The original Protestants were protesting that oh, here we go again, the RC had 'lost the true path'...." This next comment assumes that "many Americans" are delusional and you cite that most learned and prestigious institute of higher education "Yahoo Answers" to substantiate all that follows: "that some how Catholics are not Christians". 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. Now if YOU are an atheist this is a most extraordinary statement! How can you tell? You are an unbeliever! Nonetheless, you conclude from the article that "many US Protestants are raised in total ignorance of the history of their 'Protestant' Faith." How so? Luther was not a Protestant but a Reformer. For his efforts the Bishop of Roman tried to have him silenced by that age old, tried and true Christian method: murder. You know, the same one that was used against, uh, Christ! His protege, Philip Melanchthon was more responsible for the German Protestant movement. Nowhere did Luther or Melanchthon say that Catholic people were not Christian but everywhere that the Church was not correct in it's teachings in all things. And yet you would have us believe that Yahoo has the inside story. Where are your FACTS? "Ignorance is not bliss for a 'believer', but ignorance by your followers is definitely bliss for a dictator, religious or secular" Finally a point upon which we may agree. I'm certainly glad YOU are not ignorant, my friend. "Religious Intolerance is inevitably caused by the bigoted delusion that only one approved set of religious beliefs is 'correct' - the atheist simply says - it's all just made up by people, no divine inspiration is possible, because there is no magic sky fairy, so none is correct .... " Shall we discuss bigoted delusion? Could it be delusional and bigoted to assume that everyone's religion teaches that all other religions are wrong? Could it possibly be that you do not speak for ALL atheists? Isn't that bigoted? And that religionists and believers knowingly "made up" religions and "God"? Isn't THAT bigoted? And somehow (and you don't say how) you just know there is no divine inspiration because there is no sky fairy? By the way I am really curious about this "Sky Fairy" religion. I've never come across it in my studies. Could you sarcastically be using that as a substitute for deity? History and most of the world is wrong but you, the enlightened one KNOW there is no God. And that is a FACT? "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.... " And this is your stunning conclusion. First, nothing was made mention about religious tolerance or intolerance. But that aside your "ergo" your conclusion is, that if one were to admit that someone else in some aspect of their beliefs were correct then no other path is "Supreme" (whatever that may mean) and then your second conclusion "thus no others can be correct..." I'm really having a hard time following you logic here. Thus you are defining religion as a "path" to the divine? The breadth and scope of your understanding of religion simply amazes me. Had I know that, I could have foregone 7 years of intensive study. Oh well, you live and you learn. 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? Well, at any rate, thanks for clearing all that up for us. And I hope none of you will fault me too much for MY sarcasm (I expect yours) but so much that passes here, unquestioned as logic , just isn't so. I could go on but I bet you are kinda tired of it by now. I know I am. I'll check back with you all later. But hey! I really am learning what and why atheists and agnostics are so concerned about religion. Many valid points have been made and for that I thank you all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 30 Sep 10 - 06:38 AM "Being as energy cannot be created nor destroyed, what about conscious energy?" This displays a misunderstanding of Science, a layman's mungling of terms that have precise meanings in Science and often are assigned various sorts of semantic gibberish by the scientifically untrained. "energy cannot be created nor destroyed" - it however can be converted endlessly from one manifestation to another. "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. The 'energy' doesn't 'go anywhere', because what happens is that the source of the energy (chemical reactions) just stops when the organism ceases to function ... "Is yours an unattached island, in a sea of nothing" This reminds me of a Star Trek episode plot .... a nice piece of entertaining fiction (and may even provide some warm comfy feelings to many), but has no basis in currently known scientific fact... ... a nice touchy feelie idea that "one's consciousness (you mean some sort of Alien Energy Field, Spock?) merges with all the other ones floating around in empty space" ... Beam me up Scotty! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 30 Sep 10 - 06:47 AM "While the physical hardware shuts down from our perspective, I suspect there are other possibilities that could evolve from the human energy. Some of these one could speculate on, others are likely beyond our current knowledge. We really do not know, now do we? " Yep, that that sort of belief is defined as 'magic'.... since it is already defined as being beyond the capabilities of 'Science' - a 'belief system' based on clear observations and 'easily' reproducible results. One can thus speculate in this way endlessly, and it is difficult to refute any of it, because any refutation is of itself merely more speculation ... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist From: Steve Shaw Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:20 AM "Could it be delusional and bigoted to assume that everyone's religion teaches that all other religions are wrong?" Well the biggest ones certainly seem to. Witness the common references to infidels and one true faith, etc. But it would be a fairly unwise generalisation to make. "Could it possibly be that you do not speak for ALL atheists? Isn't that bigoted?" No. Atheism is not a creed. It isn't complicated. The Pope may well not speak for all Catholics, but then Catholicism is riddled with all sorts of complicated rules and doctrines. Atheism is simple. There may be differences in the ways atheists like to say things, but it is much easier to speak, as an atheist, for all atheists that it would be for someone adhering to a huge body of dogma. Over the years I must have posted thousands of posts about my atheism all over the place, but not once has any atheist come back at me to complain that I wasn't speaking for them. "And that religionists and believers knowingly "made up" religions and "God"? Isn't THAT bigoted?" No. It's self-evident, that's why. An invisible being who breaks all the laws of physics, whom there's no evidence for and who can't be explained must have been invented. As an atheist I can't prove that he isn't there but I've concluded, rationally I think, that the chances of his existence are vanishingly small. So it isn't "bigoted" to say he was knowingly invented. It's an eminently reasonable (though perhaps not a particularly diplomatic) thing to say. "By the way I am really curious about this "Sky Fairy" religion. I've never come across it in my studies. Could you sarcastically be using that as a substitute for deity? History and most of the world is wrong but you, the enlightened one KNOW there is no God. And that is a FACT?" Well you call it God and we call it the sky fairy. As I don't think fairies exist and I equally don't think God exists (note: I don't know he doesn't so we're not actually in the realms of fact here) it's not an unreasonable soubriquet to my mind, though again not diplomatic. Oddly, I never feel like being diplomatic about religion. |
