The Elevation of Religious Ideas

He means that it is always possible that Hipmonlee could respond by declaring that even if I were to come to his house and see that there is no ukelele on his desk I would not be -able- to see it because it's an invisible ukelele. It's an unfalsifiable claim. This is just it; by definition, an unfalsifiable claim is NOT FALSIFIABLE, ie you CANNOT DISPROVE IT. Because it cannot be disproved, it cannot be proved either. This makes it a fantastic, magical and (at the very least) utterly silly claim. This does not make it wrong.

It is entirely possible that there is indeed a ukelele there which is made of cleverly composed neutrinos which don't interact with anything so we can't detect them but happen to be arranged in the exact shape of a ukelele. We cannot prove this. It is an utterly absurd claim. However to say that there is with 100% certainty not a random combination of these particles in this pattern is disingenuous. We are not gods of knowledge with an absolute grasp on certainties, and therefore we cannot make a 100% claim about this. The chance of this is perhaps 1 in 10 to the googol googol googol googol googol^googol^googol times googol power, but that chance is still real in the end. I want to make this clear.

However, that said, this chance would is unreasonably small to appeal to (at the least). Asserting this invisible ukelele in the positive is absolutely ridiculous. Although the chance of its existence is a very real number, it is a very really small one. Therefore, in the interest of practicality in our logic and reasoning, we can approximate this probability to "so improbable that it's virtually impossible." Similar probabilities can be made for the assertion that when an object is dropped all the air molecules nearby will gather under it to lift it upward, or that in the sky is a magic deity who watches every atom and controls everything despite the random nature of quantum mechanics.

Kitten, I'd like to point out that implausible =/= impossible. While your view of science and atheism is a practical one, you're confusing pragmatism for certainty when you seem to imply that "you can't disprove x therefore it's right" indicates absolute certainty that it's wrong, and I think that this is where the misunderstanding between you and the people you're arguing with is.

Agnostic atheism (It seems no one really paid any attention to the gnosticism/theism diagram that Lati0s provided, which is the system I go by in classifying people's positions on this matter) is the practical form of acknowledging agnosticism. A gnostic theist claims to be able to prove with 100% certainty that there is a deity, while a gnostic atheist claims with the same certainty there is not. If you are only -reasonably sure-, that is anywhere less than 100% certain on the matter, I'd argue that you should be classified as an agnostic atheist as well as if you are undecided on the matter but reject all claims thus far or you are anywhere in between.

While one can be an agnostic atheist, the way I argued for its definition it does not mean that the person automatically snaps to conform to this rigid "I can't make any comment in any context" position; there are varying degrees of this position (and I'll clarify that I don't mean to imply that all of them are perfectly rational). Agnosticism and atheism definitely overlap because they don't address the same question (see lati0s's diagram).

Comments or objections or pointing and laughing - go right ahead.
I've found the definition of agnosticism changes a lot too; I think in part because people didn't want to be tarred with the same brush as 'atheist' and began using the agnostic term inaccurately.

The 'weak' agnosticism is "I am not sure that God exists." The 'strong' agnosticism is "It is impossible to ever know if God exists". Either way, I still understand them as subsets of atheism in a broad sense.
 
Yes, I know many people who call themselves agnostics because "atheist" is such a hissing term; it's very derogatory, anti-societal and evil in connotation. It's used as a dirty word and therefore some people are afraid to refer to themselves as one, even if I show them that it isn't in contradiction with agnosticism. :/

Strong versus weak agnosticism is not a term I had ever heard before, but I suppose then I'd lean toward strong agnosticism, since in a matter of practical terms it is very unlikely that natural evidence will ever appear which unambiguously and unquestionably point toward a supernatural deity.
 

Acklow

I am always tired. Don't bother me.
I usually don't get into these anymore, but I think something everyone needs to check up on is the difference in the definition of "faith" and "belief".

That is all...
 
The word you're looking for was faith, which you already explained. And in the words of the renowned author:
Really?
In the words of the preacher of Hebrews:

As far as the parking space that you offered as an example is concerned I also disagree that it's special treatment due to the driver's religious beliefs. Firstly, the owner of the lot was rewarding the driver for his/her actions, not his/her religious beliefs. You claimed that it's the drivers religious beliefs that lead him/her to buy the vehicle. However, there is more than one reason to buy a "green" vehicle. You may like the look of it, you may like the fact that after a certain number of years you'll have spent less money driving it than you would have driving a non-green vehicle or you may just like "rewards" such as the one you used as an example. It doesn't necessarily mean he/she's atheist or even worried about the environment(which is not a concern exclusive to atheists). It's more like me giving a kid a piece of candy for picking up the wallet I just dropped than me giving you free days off for publicly associating yourself with a particular religion.
are not beliefs the driving force of actions?

I was merely pointing out the delicious irony, not engaging you in anything. You're a zealot of which there is no fighting because logic rolls off you like water on a ducks back. Sorry to put it so bluntly but it's quite simply an observation I have made.
Ironic. You say so confidently that logic rolls off my back, when it is your religious beliefs that are so irrational and illogical. The very manifestation of non-material laws such as logic deals such a lethal blow to your beliefs.

Secular humanism can be a religion, but it's not equivalent and synonymous with atheism. I am an atheist but not a secular humanist. And a lack of a belief in the afterlife is not the same as belief in 'nothingness'.



It's perfectly scientific. I'm not as up to scratch on what comas entail in a technical sense, but I'm fairly sure they have brain activity, despite being unconscious. Sleepers definitely have consciousness.





Ah, I thought it was a State initiative. In that case, I disagree with it even more. However, beliefs like climate change and so on are different from religion in that they have evidence and scientific backing to support their validity. Religious beliefs are supported only because people believe in them particularly strongly, not because they are more likely to be true. So there is a difference between the two classes.



This is a really common mistake that anti-gay people make about DADT. First of all, you don't have a right to not be looked at by someone else as attractive, male or female, gay or straight. Second, even if you did, DADT did not protect that right. All DADT did was prevent the straight people in the military from knowing that their colleague might find them attractive. That's what I meant by a right to ignorance; DADT does not suddenly mean gay soldiers will find other members attractive where they did not before.

There's a bit of veiled bigotry in your comments, implying that gays only look at people as sex objects and not as life partners; it's far more common for women to be looked at as sex objects in day to day life and they don't get any special rights about it; but I'll chalk the veiled bigotry up to poor expression rather than actual vindictiveness.
Yeah, I'm just defining where the goalposts are because a debate method when on the ropes is to move the goalposts. :D


J-man, also, A tumor is the same genetics as a blastula. Both of them are parasitizing the host. Why is it so unacceptable to remove one and not the other? Coma patients have rudimentary brain function, that was established years ago. Having zero brain function means you are DEAD.

I find it another source of thick irony that you would deign to say what is and isn't scientific, especially when debating to people with formal training in science compared to your experience looking in from the outside. It's a poor debate tactic at best, can you perhaps do better than that?

Hip: I make the separating quite clearly. If you believe that COULD be a chance of a God existing without evidence (as there is none) on any level then you are agnostic. If you don't think about as viable in the least because it's childish/unsupported/pick your description then you are atheist because it's pretty much not worth your time.
If you're trying to say that it is hypocritical to complain because there are laws that support atheistic world views as well such as secular humanism you are wrong on two counts. Firstly the laws you cite are things that are supported by many Christians and other religious people as well. A quick glance at congress as all it takes to show how powerless atheists truly are in America. Secondly the main subject of this thread is not the influence that religion has over policies it is about times when people are given special treatment because of their religion. that is situations where a person could say "I want X" and be denied it but could say "I want X because it is my religion" and be given it. the policies that you cited do not give special treatment on the basis of religion or atheism.
I believe that the bible is being misused. Modern christianity is completely different from what it was intended to be.

The bible. Here we have a book that contains stories of water being split, ghosts, talking mountaintops, flaming bushes and asexual reproduction in humans. I think (and this is just my interpretation, I'm not saying that I think I'm right) that the bible was meant to be a storybook. At the time of its creation christianity was a moral compass, a way of teaching people morality and "the right thing to do," shaping civilizations into societies with laws and standards of behaviour. There was no belief in god, no heaven or hell, just sins. Christianity wasn't a faith, but a moral code. The bible was the handbook of this code, teaching people through stories in much the same way little timmy learns in his bedtime storybook that calling people names is bad. God wasn't an invisible man in the sky with divine powers, but an inspiration. He's an ideal role model, and you'd strive to be like him.

Christianity changed though. When it became mainstream, it was some kind of authority standing, very close to the government. Suddenly god and the bible became real, heaven and hell existed, and people became very scared. Suddenly, there was an all powerful being watching their every move, with a promise of either heaven, the eternal paradise or hell, the punishment for disobeying god.

In reality, people were being controlled by fear. It can be argued that a shaman is the true leader of a tribe, exclusively able to contact the gods and know their wishes. By extension, his word is law. A priest is no different. Everyone was terrified of going to hell, and did whatever they told them to do.

Creationism is a culprit here. It pushed evolution out of classrooms, and furthered the belief in god. The story of the bible was apparently real. There's a double standard here, seen in other "religions" like scientology. A Religion does not want to coexist with its alternatives. It needs to crush the opposition to flourish, and creationism is a perfect example of this.

Part of the reason that I don't believe in god is that he can't be proven to exist. That is, he doesn't do anything. In the bible, god had an active prescence, interacting with people in various ways, performing miracles and such. He must have retired or something.

Oh, and about the religion = morality thing, humans are social creatures. We group together and form societies, and morality develops from our interpersonal behaviour. We all act a certain way to fit to a standard of behaviour, and we all expect some degree of conformity. If your parents have sound morals and teach them to you, religion isn't needed at all.

Politically, religion is our bane. It divides us, fuels hate and compels us to wage war against each other. Unless we develop some kind of panreligious movement, world peace is impossible with religion present.
i have alot more to respond and am out of time. (ironic, i'll never know why i attract so many responders than DK in this thread). I'll be back.
 
J-man, you attract more responses because you spew the same rhetoric but with less precise and well presented ideas. You're also less versed in some of the counter arguements so you are basically being corrected more than debated. Also, to respond to you, I don't appreciate you applying religious belief values to me at all. That number should be zero. I would like to know what is irrational and illogical about demanding evidence. A reminder for you: A feeling in your heart does not constitute empirical evidence. Can you please show me how logic deals such a "lethal" blow to my "beliefs"? Let me help you define them: I believe in nothing to maintain fairness as best I can.


its not silly, its true. what is silly is to think that this statement lends any credence to the idea
I hope you never work within the constructs of scientific research. This quote is exactly why. No evidence, no credibility. I myself understand I'm not fit for proper research, but it's more because I'm a total asshole about everything and my unwillingness to "get along" and work in a community of peers rather than a lack of ability. :/

I didn't say they were reasonable I said they were possible.
Well of course it's possible, but with an open attitude like that it's almost impossible to sort the wheat from the chaff which is why it's easier to just whitewash and demand adequate data for everything. The problem is the modifier adequate, cause everyone seems to have a different line (fucking anthropologists).

The problem with being human is the human condition itself, I fear.


billymills said:
If you want to talk about correct processes for interpreting empirical results, attack someone who's talking about incorrect processes, not someone who is talking about metaphysical indeterminability.
This is something I struggle to understand about other people. For me, science and metaphysics are the same; I can't see value in metaphysics because I don't see the world in that way and instead offer an alternative view. Science presents as a way of working through some of that indeterminability through Occam's Razor, parsimony (same shit different pile) and other processes. I kinda wonder sometimes how anyone, anywhere, gets anything done with a thought process like that and from my perspective, it is ubiquitous and very wormy.
 
Check the dictionary.
The Oxford American said:
religion |riˈlijən|
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods (Oxford American Dictionary)
The list you provide that atheism does not have does not mean that it makes atheism not a religion.
Yet you still assert that atheism is a religion, despite how many people have clarified what it is and what it isn't. For a last time, atheism is in its basic form the lack of belief or the rejection of claims of a supernatural deity and in most cases religion as well.
I'm religious because I'm not religious.

I.
Am.
Thoroughly.
Convinced.

If i said "i lack a belief that i'd get a free autograph from a top Detroit Red Wings prospect", it'd be the same thing as saying "i believe i will not get a free autograph from a top Detroit Red Wings prospect".
To say "I'm not convinced that I'm getting a free autograph" and "I am certain I will not be receiving any free autographs" is vastly different in meaning. In the most technical sense, the atheism that I think most of us here are referring to is the default logical position, that is, no claims are being made with 100% certainty.

As Kitten, Hipmonlee and a few others are arguing, the degrees between gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism may vary or not and may be functionally or technically different or not, but at its root atheism is very simple; it's isn't believing in no deity, it's saying that your claims do not convince me. Yet the agnostic atheist does not rule out every possibility with 100% certainty that it is untrue.

I would call psychics, palm reading, and the like under things such as withcraft and The New Age, both of wich are religious.
Check the dictionary.
The Oxford American said:
religion |riˈlijən|
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods (Oxford American Dictionary)
The Oxford American said:
horoscope |ˈhôrəˌskōp; ˈhärə-|
noun Astrology
a forecast of a person's future, typically including a delineation of character and circumstances, based on the relative positions of the stars and planets at the time of that person's birth.
The Oxford American said:
psychic |ˈsīkik|
adjective
(of a person) appearing or considered to have powers of telepathy or clairvoyance
I see no mention of any superhuman controlling powers, much less a personal one and far less the worship of any, in those definitions.

Hardly belief in things you can't prove.
Rather than confront my argument directly and actually assert why my definition is false, you went and drew from a quote from the Bible as counterevidence that simply repeats your point. The fact that multiple people accept your point is not convincing me all of the sudden that my definition was skewed and I was wrong. I'd like an explanation as to why your definition and my definition is not at all the same thing, rather than random appeals to authority.

I realize my criticisms apply to my own assertions about the definition of faith so I'll expand on my own.
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
The substance of things hoped for - this very glaringly points out "fallacy of wishful thinking" to me.
Evidence of things not seen - essentially faith is equivalent proof by this part of the definition. From what I glean of this, then, hoping is on the same level as proving any claim. Is this what you mean to tell me?

You'll now, predicting based on my past encounters in this debate, probably ask how I know that air exists when I cannot see it. Yet the evidence can be easily measured by observing combustion in a non-vacuumed area of open space and the lack thereof in a vacuumed area which would, according to the Theory of Air, be devoid of the oxygen, a large component of our hypothetical air, which is necessary for combustion, according to the Theory of Burning. We could use spectroscopes and similar devices and measure other reactions to further determine the makeup of air. This is proof. If this requires any kind of faith, then it is vastly different than the one needed to accept the claim of a deity who cannot or has yet to be tested or demonstrably verified.

The Oxford American said:
faith |fāθ|
noun
1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something : this restores one's faith in politicians.
2 strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
The second definition is the one that applies to our argument.
Check the dictionary.
How interesting that when criticizing others' definitions you demand they consult a dictionary, but when applying a definition you fail to do so yourself.

In fact, i can prove God's existence, but that's for another debate.
Oho! If you've had evidence this whole time you should have just shown it from the beginning.
Carl Sagan said:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
EDIT: Responding to Kitten:
Kitten said:
Well of course it's possible, but with an open attitude like that it's almost impossible to sort the wheat from the chaff which is why it's easier to just whitewash and demand adequate data for everything. The problem is the modifier adequate, cause everyone seems to have a different line (fucking anthropologists).
You're confusing an open attitude with a fair analysis of very small but still real probabilities. In no way is lati0s advocating deities by saying "there's a very small chance that there is a deity." Credibility and very minute possibility is very different.

I can sympathize with what I'm guessing is the motivation behind your adamant insistence that we should deal at all with things of low probabilities. My guess is that you're hesitant to give any margin for proponents of deities to claim, "look, you can't disprove it therefore it's possible I'm right and therefore I'm going to say I am." I'm very cautious of things like quantum mysticism or other tangents of supernatural nonsense, and don't want to give it any opportunity to wiggle anywhere. However to be fair even quantum mysticism has some credence at an extremely low level. I think, Kitten, that you're confusing the claims made through sheer logic and the acceptance that we don't have infinite knowledge with saying that scientifically the idea of a deity has credibility. It does not. I'd like to point out the inherent nature of our finite (but ever expanding, I'll add optimistically) understanding of anything/everything, and the fact that the way quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and other aspects of our universe behave points toward a view that "every possibility has a near infinitely-small possibility," it seems somewhat foolish to discredit an idea with certainty.
 
I hope you never work within the constructs of scientific research. This quote is exactly why. No evidence, no credibility.
I don't get what you're trying to say here. I never said anything that would imply that I would give credence to an un-evidenced idea. In fact I explicitly stated that the fact that an idea cannot be perfectly disproven does not give it credence. All the time you've been responding to me you've been acting like I said "you can't disprove god so its a solid theory" I never said that or anything like it. what I said was "you can't disprove god so to make the claim that he does not exist with certainty is foolish"
 
In fact, i can prove God's existence, but that's for another debate.
Why, then, don't you provide it? Why don't you put us non-believers in our place? I'd love to see your proof.

The fact is, no matter what "proof" you put on the table, it cannot be an actual proof. There is no way to prove that God exists, nor is there a way to prove that he doesn't exist. This is the reason I am not religious. Science has proofs. There is at least evidence that evolution actually happens, and while it is not undeniable proof, it is still evidence. I see no evidence that God exists.
 
are not beliefs the driving force of actions?
I don't think you read my post :/

Sure, in a way, beliefs are the driving force of actions, but pointing that out in no way invalidates my argument. What I'm saying is that a person doesn't have to be atheist to drive a "green" vehicle. Consequently, the owner of the lot is not exclusively rewarding atheists, since, most likely, the majority of the people who park in that space aren't even atheists. The owner of the lot is rewarding a people for a particular action, behind which there could be various possible motives, such as those which I mentioned in my previous post.
 
Okay this thread was a messy train wreck from the start, so it was never really going to get better, and J-man will probably not even read this, but the reason that gays feel they have to hide who they are is because they are beaten as children (gays are beaten more relentlessly than non gays, I do not remember by how much, something like 20%+ was what I think was cited before), bullied at home by parents, bullied in churches by other adults, and bullied by public messages at large and the belligerent use of homosexuality as an insulting state of existence. I do not even know what fucking point you thought you had about gays not having a right to be open, what do you want to do, take away free speech if it involves making homophobes uncomfortable? Accommodating the right to make people uncomfortable by telling them that they are going to hell is not the same as making people uncomfortable by being gay and being proud of it, especially when most of the reason people need to be something ridiculous like "proud" of being gay is because people people, like say those in the former group, relentlessly try to repress the other group. Being obnoxious about how gay one is could be the same, but just being gay and trying to make people aware of the problems is not the same as the relentless promotion of religion for your souls/money. Gay people do not want your souls or money, they just want to be allowed to be gay + not be relentlessly harassed like they have been until now (and will be for at least a long while longer!) + probably not to really be around you if you have a problem with anything mentioned previously.

As to actual religious rights, religious rights should be those that are legal and do not bother people in an unwarranted manner. At the University of Texas, every single loud, public, annoying as shit pander I saw was religious. We have a main street where most of the classes are (all the math, most of the business, most of the base level general classes), and about 10,000 students are on it between each class period. For religious panders, they would often allow them to block off the middle of this street and make people late for class while we were annoyed by the general affair. While that may not be so bad, the biggest offender to me was when they put up a gigantic monument decrying abortion, including saying that it was a sin and you would go to hell if you aborted, and no I am not exaggerating this shit or distorting this shit. They also had students with loud speakers (whatever you call them, not microphones but the other thing) shouting at us. Daily we also had religious zealots shouting at us around campus in general (not sure if this was tacitly allowed or not, or just random zealots). There were masturbatory school sponsored "debates" that always just turned into Chrirstians shouting at Muslims and Muslims shouting at Christians (by far the most common result...really not a good one), but alternately Jews shouting at Christians, Muslims shouting at Jews, and all sorts of fun! They just did this outside where we ate food at most commonly...yup. Anyway, any protection or sponsorship of this shit was ridiculous, especially for something like the abortion monument, and the only reason it was allowed was because religious ideas get special protectionism. Sure they could do something similar for the environment or something, but this all routinely happened for religious purposes, not other purposes, at least a couple times a year something as absurd as the monument thing happened.

As to Deck Knight's ridiculous moralistic screed that I only saw the beginning of because I am forced to have him off ignore since you cannot ignore moderators, it takes a lot more ego and sinful arrogance to decry the morals of everyone not adhering to the arbitrary writings of 40+ men in a codex that books were put into and taken out of at random than to respect the morals of people who do not have some holy book. The reason our morals might slightly change is because it takes a lot of effort to decide and get them right, although like I just explained surely you should understand this, since Christians had to deal with matters like if gnosticism was okay, the varying takes on when Jesus was coming back, and various other fun debates that resulted in a shiftless, varying morality that was settled rather at random! Religious ideas and morals are elevated not because they are better or make more sense but because they have been adhered to and people cling to what they have adhered to, since change is scary, people living freely is scary, and whatever other silly reasons people cling to traditions far after they have plainly become farcical. I do not know about other schools, but in Texas elementary schools, religious ideas are relentlessly promoted. Of course people will end up regarding the morals more highly in the end when you inculcate them as children and hit them at school, home, and church. That does not make them more valuable or sensible, it only means that people are clinging to them harder.

A good paraphrase would be that the idea that only religion can provide morals is an alternative to a hell as an all damning reason that religion is utterly necessary. Unfortunately, it is a much more human, much more vain idea than the general idea of a scary afterlife (which is just silly idea more than malicious, it is a genuine fear anyone could invent for her or himself). Actually, the idea that only religious ideas can be correct is a microcosm of religion with a slightly different message...it is just a ridiculous notion.

Finally, to the insane derailing into what atheism is or is not, I do not see how it could possibly be seen as a religion.

1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Idiom: get religion Informal 1. To become religious or devout.
2. To resolve to end one's immoral behavior.

I realize that not everyone is the same, but the essence of what I try to get at in the following is that it does not have to be about a fixation with religion, which in the end essentially makes it the same as a religion to religious people (for some reason, why should it matter). If anything, for people like me at least, it is about not being a fixation. I moved on from religion completely, other than enjoying philosophy at large and it entering some of my readings. I only deal with it when others bring it up, I am comfortable with my complete lack of "spirituality". Then again, I am not sure any of this should even matter, why should it be a religion even if atheists were too fixated on other religions/the idea of god? It is just simply completely not religious...but even if you cannot accept that, I think I am providing some pretty no brainer reasons for why rejection does not have to be religious itself or a fixation.

1a. I do not remotely give a shit about gods or how the universe was created. It makes a lot more sense for some crazy scienctific shit to have happened no matter how it means "something had to be there" since a god cannot just spring out of nothing either!
1b. I do not have an institutionalized system of beliefs, and my atheistic beliefs only involve rejecting the idea of gods existing or that I should fucking remotely care. It is not even so much a rejection as "this makes no sense, please leave me alone, no one should care, seriously stop talking about it already". Christians have this obsession with how atheists must be obsessed with them back (and, unfortunately, a lot of atheists do not really help the case).
2. There is no religious order.
3. There is no spiritual leader.
4. There is no cause, although there could be principles formed from a rejection of a god as a starting point. I do not have any of these personally (when I dropped the jesus gods from my life, the only change in my morals was to pursue sex eventually, and while that was zealous, it has nothing to do with my rejection of god, I just really like women and every part of their bodies!), but I think any principles formed with/because of atheism would be more philosophical anyway, since they should not be formed with religious influence. A lack of religious influence can be a factor if religion was moved away from, but since it is not a necessary condition, it is not binding to "what an atheist is" in any way.
i.2There is definitely no resolve to end immoral behavior. I do not care about traditional ideas of moral or immoral, but rather sense and freedom. I enjoy life, others should try to enjoy theirs.
(i.1 was irrelevant)

These definitions were taken from thefreedictionary.com, and whatever definition of religion you use, my beliefs are not religious. The beliefs that stem from/cause me to be atheistic are also not antireligious. I am antireligious because I think religion is really fucking stupid, but nothing I said above needs any of that vitriol to be true or ever did, the two matters are separate.

Anyway, this whole post has not been as well linked together as it could be, my apologies for my nearly 4 A.M. writing.
 
I don't get what you're trying to say here. I never said anything that would imply that I would give credence to an un-evidenced idea. In fact I explicitly stated that the fact that an idea cannot be perfectly disproven does not give it credence. All the time you've been responding to me you've been acting like I said "you can't disprove god so its a solid theory" I never said that or anything like it. what I said was "you can't disprove god so to make the claim that he does not exist with certainty is foolish"
Clearly you got mixed up in something, I'm sorry, but I stand by the requirement for evidence for ANY progress. I hope you agree.

CK is great, once again.
 
I'm bowing out, not because i am losing, but because i am doing the same things that i did i had done before that got me in trouble, and i didn't desire to do that. Unfortunately, i'm doing it again. I feel it's best to apologize and just leave and let the thread return to normal.
 
Okay this thread was a messy train wreck from the start, so it was never really going to get better, and J-man will probably not even read this, but the reason that gays feel they have to hide who they are is because they are beaten as children (gays are beaten more relentlessly than non gays, I do not remember by how much, something like 20%+ was what I think was cited before), bullied at home by parents, bullied in churches by other adults, and bullied by public messages at large and the belligerent use of homosexuality as an insulting state of existence. I do not even know what fucking point you thought you had about gays not having a right to be open, what do you want to do, take away free speech if it involves making homophobes uncomfortable? Accommodating the right to make people uncomfortable by telling them that they are going to hell is not the same as making people uncomfortable by being gay and being proud of it, especially when most of the reason people need to be something ridiculous like "proud" of being gay is because people people, like say those in the former group, relentlessly try to repress the other group. Being obnoxious about how gay one is could be the same, but just being gay and trying to make people aware of the problems is not the same as the relentless promotion of religion for your souls/money. Gay people do not want your souls or money, they just want to be allowed to be gay + not be relentlessly harassed like they have been until now (and will be for at least a long while longer!) + probably not to really be around you if you have a problem with anything mentioned previously.

As to actual religious rights, religious rights should be those that are legal and do not bother people in an unwarranted manner. At the University of Texas, every single loud, public, annoying as shit pander I saw was religious. We have a main street where most of the classes are (all the math, most of the business, most of the base level general classes), and about 10,000 students are on it between each class period. For religious panders, they would often allow them to block off the middle of this street and make people late for class while we were annoyed by the general affair. While that may not be so bad, the biggest offender to me was when they put up a gigantic monument decrying abortion, including saying that it was a sin and you would go to hell if you aborted, and no I am not exaggerating this shit or distorting this shit. They also had students with loud speakers (whatever you call them, not microphones but the other thing) shouting at us. Daily we also had religious zealots shouting at us around campus in general (not sure if this was tacitly allowed or not, or just random zealots). There were masturbatory school sponsored "debates" that always just turned into Chrirstians shouting at Muslims and Muslims shouting at Christians (by far the most common result...really not a good one), but alternately Jews shouting at Christians, Muslims shouting at Jews, and all sorts of fun! They just did this outside where we ate food at most commonly...yup. Anyway, any protection or sponsorship of this shit was ridiculous, especially for something like the abortion monument, and the only reason it was allowed was because religious ideas get special protectionism. Sure they could do something similar for the environment or something, but this all routinely happened for religious purposes, not other purposes, at least a couple times a year something as absurd as the monument thing happened.

As to Deck Knight's ridiculous moralistic screed that I only saw the beginning of because I am forced to have him off ignore since you cannot ignore moderators, it takes a lot more ego and sinful arrogance to decry the morals of everyone not adhering to the arbitrary writings of 40+ men in a codex that books were put into and taken out of at random than to respect the morals of people who do not have some holy book. The reason our morals might slightly change is because it takes a lot of effort to decide and get them right, although like I just explained surely you should understand this, since Christians had to deal with matters like if gnosticism was okay, the varying takes on when Jesus was coming back, and various other fun debates that resulted in a shiftless, varying morality that was settled rather at random! Religious ideas and morals are elevated not because they are better or make more sense but because they have been adhered to and people cling to what they have adhered to, since change is scary, people living freely is scary, and whatever other silly reasons people cling to traditions far after they have plainly become farcical. I do not know about other schools, but in Texas elementary schools, religious ideas are relentlessly promoted. Of course people will end up regarding the morals more highly in the end when you inculcate them as children and hit them at school, home, and church. That does not make them more valuable or sensible, it only means that people are clinging to them harder.

A good paraphrase would be that the idea that only religion can provide morals is an alternative to a hell as an all damning reason that religion is utterly necessary. Unfortunately, it is a much more human, much more vain idea than the general idea of a scary afterlife (which is just silly idea more than malicious, it is a genuine fear anyone could invent for her or himself). Actually, the idea that only religious ideas can be correct is a microcosm of religion with a slightly different message...it is just a ridiculous notion.

Finally, to the insane derailing into what atheism is or is not, I do not see how it could possibly be seen as a religion.

1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Idiom: get religion Informal 1. To become religious or devout.
2. To resolve to end one's immoral behavior.

I realize that not everyone is the same, but the essence of what I try to get at in the following is that it does not have to be about a fixation with religion, which in the end essentially makes it the same as a religion to religious people (for some reason, why should it matter). If anything, for people like me at least, it is about not being a fixation. I moved on from religion completely, other than enjoying philosophy at large and it entering some of my readings. I only deal with it when others bring it up, I am comfortable with my complete lack of "spirituality". Then again, I am not sure any of this should even matter, why should it be a religion even if atheists were too fixated on other religions/the idea of god? It is just simply completely not religious...but even if you cannot accept that, I think I am providing some pretty no brainer reasons for why rejection does not have to be religious itself or a fixation.

1a. I do not remotely give a shit about gods or how the universe was created. It makes a lot more sense for some crazy scienctific shit to have happened no matter how it means "something had to be there" since a god cannot just spring out of nothing either!
1b. I do not have an institutionalized system of beliefs, and my atheistic beliefs only involve rejecting the idea of gods existing or that I should fucking remotely care. It is not even so much a rejection as "this makes no sense, please leave me alone, no one should care, seriously stop talking about it already". Christians have this obsession with how atheists must be obsessed with them back (and, unfortunately, a lot of atheists do not really help the case).
2. There is no religious order.
3. There is no spiritual leader.
4. There is no cause, although there could be principles formed from a rejection of a god as a starting point. I do not have any of these personally (when I dropped the jesus gods from my life, the only change in my morals was to pursue sex eventually, and while that was zealous, it has nothing to do with my rejection of god, I just really like women and every part of their bodies!), but I think any principles formed with/because of atheism would be more philosophical anyway, since they should not be formed with religious influence. A lack of religious influence can be a factor if religion was moved away from, but since it is not a necessary condition, it is not binding to "what an atheist is" in any way.
i.2There is definitely no resolve to end immoral behavior. I do not care about traditional ideas of moral or immoral, but rather sense and freedom. I enjoy life, others should try to enjoy theirs.
(i.1 was irrelevant)

These definitions were taken from thefreedictionary.com, and whatever definition of religion you use, my beliefs are not religious. The beliefs that stem from/cause me to be atheistic are also not antireligious. I am antireligious because I think religion is really fucking stupid, but nothing I said above needs any of that vitriol to be true or ever did, the two matters are separate.

Anyway, this whole post has not been as well linked together as it could be, my apologies for my nearly 4 A.M. writing.
*slow applause*
 

November Blue

A universe where hot chips don't exist :(
is a Contributor Alumnus
I believe that the bible is being misused. Modern christianity is completely different from what it was intended to be.

The bible. Here we have a book that contains stories of water being split, ghosts, talking mountaintops, flaming bushes and asexual reproduction in humans. I think (and this is just my interpretation, I'm not saying that I think I'm right) that the bible was meant to be a storybook. At the time of its creation christianity was a moral compass, a way of teaching people morality and "the right thing to do," shaping civilizations into societies with laws and standards of behaviour. There was no belief in god, no heaven or hell, just sins. Christianity wasn't a faith, but a moral code. The bible was the handbook of this code, teaching people through stories in much the same way little timmy learns in his bedtime storybook that calling people names is bad. God wasn't an invisible man in the sky with divine powers, but an inspiration. He's an ideal role model, and you'd strive to be like him.

Christianity changed though. When it became mainstream, it was some kind of authority standing, very close to the government. Suddenly god and the bible became real, heaven and hell existed, and people became very scared. Suddenly, there was an all powerful being watching their every move, with a promise of either heaven, the eternal paradise or hell, the punishment for disobeying god.

In reality, people were being controlled by fear. It can be argued that a shaman is the true leader of a tribe, exclusively able to contact the gods and know their wishes. By extension, his word is law. A priest is no different. Everyone was terrified of going to hell, and did whatever they told them to do.

Creationism is a culprit here. It pushed evolution out of classrooms, and furthered the belief in god. The story of the bible was apparently real. There's a double standard here, seen in other "religions" like scientology. A Religion does not want to coexist with its alternatives. It needs to crush the opposition to flourish, and creationism is a perfect example of this.

Part of the reason that I don't believe in god is that he can't be proven to exist. That is, he doesn't do anything. In the bible, god had an active prescence, interacting with people in various ways, performing miracles and such. He must have retired or something.

Oh, and about the religion = morality thing, humans are social creatures. We group together and form societies, and morality develops from our interpersonal behaviour. We all act a certain way to fit to a standard of behaviour, and we all expect some degree of conformity. If your parents have sound morals and teach them to you, religion isn't needed at all.

Politically, religion is our bane. It divides us, fuels hate and compels us to wage war against each other. Unless we develop some kind of panreligious movement, world peace is impossible with religion present.
Not much left to say really. But I would like some opinions on my earlier post^ How many of you agree with my interpretation? I know it's not chronologically sound, but it's interesting nonetheless.
 
Well, my viewpoint is atheistic, so obviously I will not have the instant anger a lot of people would have over the bible being called a storybook, but I can answer in a way. I kind of dealt with how the formation of the new testament was rather at random, with books being put in and taken out over religious debates and their contradicting (literally contradictory) ideas about the rapture and the like. I think that the particular fixation with JESUS IS THE BEST MAN EVER! and the rapture as well have both really skewed Christianity away from some of the better moral ideas and lessons actually in the book. The rapture definitely does not matter (if it happens, then great, but spending time fixating on it or actually practically deifying it is insanity), but a lot of Christians have this mindset of wanting to be saved from this life. Originally the different ideas about Jesus coming back in the gospels were because of the war the Jews were having with the Romans, the deep oppression they experienced at the time...the rapture is irrelevant to us now, where we basically have blessed modern lives except in the worst parts of the world compared to the past. There is no need for escape. Similarly, while it is great that Jesus might have been a really radical dude, actually fixing one's morals and following his lessons is a lot better than just praising Jesus so relentlessly! I get that his supposed death and resurrection have big implications to the actual faith as a whole, but not much relevance to daily life or following the religion!
 
I'm bowing out, not because i am losing, but because i am doing the same things that i did i had done before that got me in trouble, and i didn't desire to do that. Unfortunately, i'm doing it again. I feel it's best to apologize and just leave and let the thread return to normal.
You always say the same thing dude. I'm not asking for you to become an atheist. Instead, I'm just asking that you think about why some people are atheists and realize that the answers you give are just legitimately horrid/unconvincing. I have heard completely legitimate arguments from religious people, but you make none of those.
 
Deck Knight: Protip for you. Social animals such as wolves, and monkeys are able to form social constructs much like the ones human beings have formed. Something tells me that they don't believe in objective/absolute morality, or deities. I think humans would do just fine without a belief in either of those two things. We are social animals.

Here is an interesting little article. It details some of the social constructs that several types of godless barbaric, soulless, animals have formed in order to get along. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html
 
^In addition, some species of primates have been known to launch scarily organized guerrilla (no pun intended) warfare against other members from other troops or groups which they have broken off from, in order to establish some kind of dominance or exact some sorts of vengeance at others.
 


Not much left to say really. But I would like some opinions on my earlier post^ How many of you agree with my interpretation? I know it's not chronologically sound, but it's interesting nonetheless.
It's completely inaccurate. You clearly do not know what the Bible was viewed as and what early Christianity was. If you want a taste of what it was, then go to your local Lutheran (Missouri Synod), PRC, OPC, URC ect....
Or you can turn in your Bible and read Acts 2, which is a description (and prescription for today's churches against mainstream BULL CRAP *cough megachurches* with there works righteousness junk.) of the early church. Luke, its certified author, has not been refuted, nor his descriptions refuted.

It [The Bible] was never meant to be a "story book", or a "moral compass". It IS a history book. The people of the early church was a church that celebrated the risen Christ, whose resurrection can not, and shall never be refuted. This Christ is the Christ of the Bible.
In regards to the Bible, the early church put up a hard standard to decide what New Testament books would get in and what weren't viewed as "inspired by the Holy Spirit". the fact that books such as "Revelation" were debated only confirms that the Early Church wanted to get it right. You do not understand the biblical doctrine of salvation. For a quick taste of what it was, see the sig. Creationism is no culprit. Creationism is a defense of the Bible as God's authority (1 Timothy... Urgh, can't think of the verse). We don't argue against Science. Some of the science invovled in what you call "evolution" (in the molecules to man sense) we do not disagree with. Only an ignorant fool would try and dispute Natural Selection or variation within species. We do have sound scientific arguments (but that is for another day, but i encourage you to give it a chance and look into some). We do not oppose science, we promote its advance. We only oppose that which intentionally opposes the Authority of God's word.

As for God's existence, it can be proven. Much of the immaterial things we know can only be accounted for in the Christian World View. Only in a universe created by the Christian God (also the God of Judaism, though many Jews reject his gospel, and thus unfortunately worship in vein)

See:
http://carm.org/transcendental-argument
http://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality
http://carm.org/i-lack-belief-god
http://carm.org/failure-atheism-account-rationality

In addition, no other world religion makes rational sense in regards to Humanity. They all require some form of working righteousness that is impossible in reality to achieve. They offer no assurance of salvation.

Claiming that God has ceased to interact with this world is also false. He continues to uphold his creation, though he has cursed it. He continually builds his church through the Holy Spirit. He sets up rulers and knocks them down. He "knit you together in your mother's womb". In fact, when the sun rises and the clock turns to 12:00 midnight and the new day arises, guess what? We Christians profess that to be an act of God as well. There are plenty of interactions between God and his creation. Most of it just isn't in the ways the Bible displays, but they are just as important and necessary for the Church.
In regards to morality, i don't think anyone, The American, The Frenchman, The Russian, The Japanese, would disagree that it is not okay to murder. There is a striking universal standard held. However, in an irrational Atheistic worldview There is no need to conform to moral standards (or listen to them for that matter) (however, to say that the Atheist can not be ethical and live morally would be very wrong and ignorant, even though morals are constantly shifting), because there really is no harm in doing wrong unless you get caught (see, snitching- one of the most hated actions of human beings in our high schools apparently). For example, teachers in classrooms continue in vein to silence their pupils for the sake of their education, but they never stop. Clearly they aren't being held to a standard that has any relevance to them. They will continue to talk. Morality requires religion because there is now a standard that you are measured to. We, as Christians, though we may fall because it is a fallen world, are commanded (thought it has no effect on our salvation) to be Christ-like. Why? Because we are dead to sin and our new man is struggling with our old man. Faith without good works is dead.
To conclude, religion is no bane, however world peace is a farce and will never be reached. There will always be that one Adolph Hitler type. Christianity, in its truest form, offers nothing but peace and logically sound assurance that though i am a sinner and have fallen mightily short of my Creator's expectations, I have an advocator in Christ. The true picture of Christianity is nothing like this garbage that you have attempted to paint, nor is it the picture that most smogonites hold i would wager.

Here is the response you asked for.
 
We only oppose that which intentionally opposes the Authority of God's word.
ie "It's ok as long as it doesn't step over the line. But if it does it is false by default."

And the website has a minor problem. It basically says if you take away god there is no right or wrong, so we should believe in god. But that doesn't mean a god exists. It's just wishful thinking. Sure it would be nice if a god existed but that doesn't make it true...
 
It [The Bible] was never meant to be a "story book", or a "moral compass". It IS a history book. The people of the early church was a church that celebrated the risen Christ, whose resurrection can not, and shall never be refuted.
Historical evidence refutes several parts of the Bible, notably in relation to statistics and population numbers in different regions. In any case, the fact that something is written down does not make it true.
We do have sound scientific arguments (but that is for another day, but i encourage you to give it a chance and look into some).[/quote]

No they don't. Every single Creationist argument against evolution comes from profound misunderstanding of the science.

We do not oppose science, we promote its advance. We only oppose that which intentionally opposes the Authority of God's word.
We promote Science as long as it doesn't show us we're wrong.

As for God's existence, it can be proven. Much of the immaterial things we know can only be accounted for in the Christian World View. Only in a universe created by the Christian God (also the God of Judaism, though many Jews reject his gospel, and thus unfortunately worship in vein)
Prove it. None of this is true.

In addition, no other world religion makes rational sense in regards to Humanity. They all require some form of working righteousness that is impossible in reality to achieve. They offer no assurance of salvation.
No, religion at all makes no rational sense. All of the problems with atheism in terms of rationality and "atheism is irrational why do we have morality" are all logically incorrect and stem from either misunderstanding or deliberate falsehoods about what atheism and rationality are.

In regards to morality, i don't think anyone, The American, The Frenchman, The Russian, The Japanese, would disagree that it is not okay to murder. There is a striking universal standard held. However, in an irrational Atheistic worldview There is no need to conform to moral standards (or listen to them for that matter) (however, to say that the Atheist can not be ethical and live morally would be very wrong and ignorant, even though morals are constantly shifting), because there really is no harm in doing wrong unless you get caught (see, snitching- one of the most hated actions of human beings in our high schools apparently).
What's your point? There are plenty of reasons to conform to moral standards; the chief among them being that humans are a social species and the benefits of being in society and following the rules outweigh the short-term gains of going against them.

For example, teachers in classrooms continue in vein to silence their pupils for the sake of their education, but they never stop. Clearly they aren't being held to a standard that has any relevance to them. They will continue to talk. Morality requires religion because there is now a standard that you are measured to. We, as Christians, though we may fall because it is a fallen world, are commanded (thought it has no effect on our salvation) to be Christ-like. Why? Because we are dead to sin and our new man is struggling with our old man. Faith without good works is dead.
This argument fails because the comparison of human morality to god's morality necessarily assumes that there is a baseline of human morality to judge. It therefore follows that the standardised God morality is not actually necessary; humanity could enforce it's own morality independently.
 
RESPONSE TO ORIGINAL POST:
As a non-believer, I say religious people certainly have rights to perform their neccessary cultural obligations. Public holidays for religious people are perfectly fine: the people who are comitted to their religion will spend their day doing what the holiday is for. Small and trivial things like kosher meals reflect on the culture of religious people and their country, but for very small perks, there is little reason to deny others that privilege. One reason some people find this infuriating is because undedicated or plain shifty people may misuse their religion to gain their small and unneccessary perks. This does not mean everyone should get the same thing. In Australia, I know a large number of undedicated Christians, who never seem to bring up their religion, and are treated identically. Having been at a very multicultural school and a very open-minded school I can say that accomodations are made for religions in highly overseen controlled working environments, but because a child is Bhuddist or Christian does not give them comfits from their teachers and peers. However, at my first primary school, all the children bar one or two were Christian. Here the tables were turned: Christianity was the norm, but all the Christians were still given favouritism and us few atheists were shunned. I support others' religions, and am not going to assert a god/s do/es not exist, but it seems that often religious people are given benefits in no way related to their actual religion too.

RESPONSE TO CURRENT ARGUMENT:
The Bible is at least partly a history book. Many events have been proven to be true eg: 'Moses'did lead some people across a shallow seasonal lake called the Reed Sea.
Also, J-Man, many religions in their base ideal(like political ideals) are perfect, but looking at Europe's bloodthirsty massacres between Christians, Atheists, Protestants, Catholics and such it is clear to see that (while you did say world peace is unnattainable) religion is not as pure as you claim. I'm not discrediting any religion, but pressing yours upon someone else and disparaging everyone's views as garbage when scientific atheists have just as much of a right to claim their beliefs in unreligion isn't right.

EDIT: Also, to everyone I'd just like to point out further the very spurious link of morality and a deity. I won't trash-talk it, but arguments need a stronger base than this link-free style.
 

Hipmonlee

Have a nice day
is a Community Contributoris a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnusis a Four-Time Past WCoP Champion
On the Carm logic arguments. These come from a fundamental lack of understanding of what logical laws actually are.

When we say it is impossible for a thing to be a cloud and not a cloud. The statement, while appearing to be about the nature of clouds, is actually a statement about what sort of sentences are meaningful in the English language and which ones are not. In this case, the statement "its a cloud and not a cloud" is not meaningful. Think about it, if someone said this to you, you would actually be no wiser about what the thing described actually is. Because this is a meaningless statement.

Logical laws are nothing to do with the universe and are in fact solely concerned with language. They describe what sentences are functionally equivalent, as well as what sentences are meaningful and what are not.

So ultimately, the logical laws are indeed created by Mankind.

Have a nice day.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top