ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Rants and Debate => Topic started by: Spreadbury on November 26, 2010, 01:17:50 am
-
would there be less conflict? Operating on the definition that an atheist is "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods," could such a lack of religious belief benefit the world through less conflict (in religious matters)
Also, do people believe it would work another way; for example, if everyone was Catholic? In considering the second point, keep in mind that within a single religion, there can be many different interpretations of a single deity; one could view 'God' as an omnipotent force guiding Earth's goings-on while another may just view 'God' as a representation of what is 'good'.
Anyone care to discuss?
-
In my opinion people will find anything and everything to fight over so no. Whilst religion would be gone, many people would remain passionate about moral values which they personally believe in and upholding these is still likely to lead to conflict.
-
clearly there would be less conflict without religion, it has been the cause of so many wars and fights between people in general...
i'd be happy to have a fight with a religious person (not particularly online) any day because i'm extremely against religion, but if everyone was not religious i would avoid any of these fights in the future.
-
Whilst religion would be gone, many people would remain passionate about moral values which they personally believe in and upholding these is still likely to lead to conflict.
From other debates i've come across on VCEnotes, some individuals here have demonstrated that they draw their morals directly from their religion, and while it may be a generalisation (and thus unreliable), i'm sure many people in the wider community would do so as well.
-
In my opinion people will find anything and everything to fight over so no. Whilst religion would be gone, many people would remain passionate about moral values which they personally believe in and upholding these is still likely to lead to conflict.
Yes, I agree. If there were no religions people would just find other reasons to fight each other. It's human nature really. It's in our DNA!
Religion is really just an excuse for violence exhibited in society it is not the cause.
Violence will continue to be prevalent in the future to come whether or not there is religion or law enforcement (which is really just a physical/psychological deterrence and not the solution). Maybe in the future we'd be able to genetically modify humans to get rid of all their undesired traits (both physically and emotionally i.e. their brutal personality). I believe this is the only solution to human brutality.
-
Wars without religion... Remember communism?
-
Whilst religion would be gone, many people would remain passionate about moral values which they personally believe in and upholding these is still likely to lead to conflict.
From other debates i've come across on VCEnotes, some individuals here have demonstrated that they draw their morals directly from their religion, and while it may be a generalisation (and thus unreliable), i'm sure many people in the wider community would do so as well.
Whilst I understand this (was actually waiting for you to point it out haha) I base my morals purely off what I personally believe is appropriate and what is not appropriate rather than the rules I am supposed to uphold as a Christian.
And there is also politics which I know is often attached to religion, but I still believe political disagreements over things such as land and resources will lead to conflict.
-
I think the most crucial thing to ending violence is education. In the future, the most important things education needs to teach (aside from maths&english) are history and philosophy (esp. ethics). Learning history prevents us from repeating mistakes, and philosophy teaches us how to think and live a meaningful life. The study of religions should also be a major part of these courses - not just one religion, but all religions as a whole.
So if everyone were atheistic that would be progress, but I think religion is merely a primitive philosophy, and what we really need to do is get people thinking more about philosophy in general. There are many ways to be ignorant.
Also, if everyone were catholic, then conflict would be inevitable and eventually catholicism would splinter into many sub-religions. Eventually some new prophet will come along and start a new religion, and we will have come full circle.
-
To a theist:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
I love this quote.
If we tried to restrict everyone to one religion this would happen.
Also, if everyone were catholic, then conflict would be inevitable and eventually catholicism would splinter into many sub-religions. Eventually some new prophet will come along and start a new religion, and we will have come full circle.
Yay another religious debate is going to start. It's funny because everyone knows my views and EVERYONE knows yitzi and chavi will be in this.
-
I think the most crucial thing to ending violence is education. In the future, the most important things education needs to teach (aside from maths&english) are history and philosophy (esp. ethics). Learning history prevents us from repeating mistakes, and philosophy teaches us how to think and live a meaningful life.
presumably Alexander the Great learned ethics and philosophy from Aristotle, as well as the (military) mistakes of the past. didn't stop him going to war though ;)
-
Definitely
-
Less conflict? Yes.
Will it happen? No.
Should it happen? No.
-
If we tried to restrict everyone to one religion this would happen.
Assuming it's forced. If everyone was voluntarily and atheist and a... disbeliever (can't really say 'believer' about atheism can I? haha) would you still see the outcome being that?
-
Well if everyone was an athiest then the need for religion would cease to exist. The fact is that this scenario is pretty much not going to happen. Vegans would love everyone to stop eating meat but as if that will happen (I don't want to stop eating meat).
Athiests are disbelievers not believers in atheism.
-
Less conflict? Yes.
Will it happen? No.
Should it happen? No.
Why should less conflict happen?
BUt yes obviously it will never happen, there will always be some religion if not other cults, groups, gangs of differing beliefs and the like - what stonecold said, but i am confident there would be far far less conflict anyways.
-
I was referring to the question in the title, whether everyone would become athiest or not.
-
I think there's still room to argue about spirituality, even if everyone identified themselves as an atheist. For instance, plenty of atheists believe in The Secret and rubbish like that.
There would also be lots of other things to argue about, like politics, science, music, art, who owns what, etc. There probably would be less conflict though, I suppose.
-
There might be less conflict if everybody thought the same way about everything. A lot of fights about really are really wars between different races of people, who happen to have different beliefs, but they also disagree about a lot of other things, and they're fighting more because they are of different races. And when you look at the core texts and beliefs of the major religions, none of them really appear to condone conflict or war.
-
No. It's human nature to fight and to partake in war and to kill. We are all just animals clothed in parochialisms such as political correctness, conformity and society. These invisible constraints are the only thing stopping us from descending into anarchy right here and now.
Man generally fights over three things:
1) Money
2) Women
3) Land
Even if everyone was Atheist or Catholic or any other group, the innate need to fight would not disappear. Do you fight with your siblings? Well wars are simply a larger scale of that.
Also, has anyone heard of militant Atheism? I hear that they can get pretty extreme
-
Whilst religion would be gone, many people would remain passionate about moral values which they personally believe in and upholding these is still likely to lead to conflict.
From other debates i've come across on VCEnotes, some individuals here have demonstrated that they draw their morals directly from their religion, and while it may be a generalisation (and thus unreliable), i'm sure many people in the wider community would do so as well.
Do you deny that our society is built upon the morals taken from Judeo-Christian theology?
-
would there be less conflict? Operating on the definition that an atheist is "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods," could such a lack of religious belief benefit the world through less conflict (in religious matters)
Also, do people believe it would work another way; for example, if everyone was Catholic? In considering the second point, keep in mind that within a single religion, there can be many different interpretations of a single deity; one could view 'God' as an omnipotent force guiding Earth's goings-on while another may just view 'God' as a representation of what is 'good'.
Anyone care to discuss?
Some members have already said it, and it was the first thing that came to mind when I read your post.
No-human nature won't allow it. I don't see how God or belief in God would be the cause of conflict, and believe me, if there was no religious conflicts, people are going to search for "other" things they can fight about.
Sometimes in religion there is conflicts, and they begin to spread into different sects-for example, in Islam, it is narrated in our tradition that we are going to be broken into 73 different sects, and if you look around today, you would find this to be true.
But I say we cannot just leave it as "human nature won't allow it". Conflict is inevitable. ( lol I studied encountering conflict in VCE ok) It's going to happen whether you like it or not, but that is not what is important, but how to deal with it is.
Just my 2 cents.
-
Humans are generally social animals. Every aspect of man's life is organised into certain groups and hierarchies. Anyone outside of these groups would be treated with some degree of animosity. I don't particularly enjoy playing the human nature card but this has been prevalent and was a key to the survival of the primitive human.
Just like race and culture, religion is a key to social cohesion. Without religion, the people's allegiance to a social group would be weaker. Whilst the term human nature is I believe, a bullshit term, I also hold that mankind appears to be most concerned about survival (anything else is secondary). Every war is done in order to protect something. So really, remove religion and man would have one less thing to protect.
-
No. It's human nature to fight and to partake in war and to kill. We are all just animals clothed in parochialisms such as political correctness, conformity and society. These invisible constraints are the only thing stopping us from descending into anarchy right here and now.
Man generally fights over three things:
1) Money
2) Women
3) Land
Even if everyone was Atheist or Catholic or any other group, the innate need to fight would not disappear. Do you fight with your siblings? Well wars are simply a larger scale of that.
Also, has anyone heard of militant Atheism? I hear that they can get pretty extreme
Bah, I think "militant" is idiomatic in that context
Not sure if your last sentence was serious there :P
-
*fetches can opener for a huge can of worms*
I contend that if everyone was atheist, there would be MORE conflict. As it is, several billion people subscribe to a moral code which forbids murder and theft. (Yes, I know that some of those people commit murder nonetheless, but most don't.) If all these billions of people were to switch to a purely arbitrary, ever changing, manipulatable moral code which is different for every person, I would imagine that we would see far more conflict as a result.
-
I think the most crucial thing to ending violence is education. In the future, the most important things education needs to teach (aside from maths&english) are history and philosophy (esp. ethics). Learning history prevents us from repeating mistakes, and philosophy teaches us how to think and live a meaningful life.
presumably Alexander the Great learned ethics and philosophy from Aristotle, as well as the (military) mistakes of the past. didn't stop him going to war though ;)
Yeah, but you can't compare ancient greek philosophy with modern philosophy. I mean, Greek religion came even before Christianity. It is clear that Alexander had great training in the waging of war, something which we wouldn't teach nowadays because we don't have a culture of war. (On second thoughts, perhaps America still does)
Also, although we still have monarchs in our modern civilization, they don't command the same amount of power that kings of Alexander's time would have. And in the future, with any luck, monarchy and theocracy will be gone. This means that people are not obligated to obey commands and wage war, unless they can justify it to themselves.
-
Yeah, but you can't compare ancient greek philosophy with modern philosophy. I mean, Greek religion came even before Christianity. It is clear that Alexander had great training in the waging of war, something which we wouldn't teach nowadays because we don't have a culture of war. (On second thoughts, perhaps America still does)
I think the comparison between Aristotle's philosophy and modern philosophy holds up so far as ethics goes. I'm not sure our moral philosophy is much improved, or that it teaches you to think for yourself any more than Aristotle's insistence on taking the real world into account rather than idealism. I thought the topic meant religion in general, not just christianity. there were wars before christianity, as well as piety and religious persecution - in other words, conflict.
What i was getting at was that even people who have been educated in philosophy, history or science still engage in war. Alexander must have been educated in ethics, and a system of ethics which probably rings somewhat true to our own world-view today. Churchill himself wrote history, including an account of what he termed the first world war, and Robert McNamara minored in philosophy and mathematics and still worked towards increasing the efficiency of the aerial bombings of civilians during world war two.
-
I contend that if everyone was atheist, there would be MORE conflict. As it is, several billion people subscribe to a moral code which forbids murder and theft. (Yes, I know that some of those people commit murder nonetheless, but most don't.) If all these billions of people were to switch to a purely arbitrary, ever changing, manipulatable moral code which is different for every person, I would imagine that we would see far more conflict as a result.
So if everyone was atheist, what morals do you believe would collapse and be detrimental to society?
-
@
*fetches can opener for a huge can of worms*
I contend that if everyone was atheist, there would be MORE conflict. As it is, several billion people subscribe to a moral code which forbids murder and theft. (Yes, I know that some of those people commit murder nonetheless, but most don't.) If all these billions of people were to switch to a purely arbitrary, ever changing, manipulatable moral code which is different for every person, I would imagine that we would see far more conflict as a result.
that's fucking retarded. You're saying the only thing stopping murder/violence is the belief in religion? lmfao those people are fucking retarded then. That's why prisons are filled with atheists right? terrorists attacks are done by athiests? nice (Y)
If religion is the only reason you're not murdering people, you should put a bullet in your head since your too naive and worthless to society. You might not believe this, but atheists are PEOPLE TOO and have MORALS just like anybody else. Most atheists are good willed people, stop talking shit you have no idea about.
-
*fetches can opener for a huge can of worms*
I contend that if everyone was atheist, there would be MORE conflict. As it is, several billion people subscribe to a moral code which forbids murder and theft. (Yes, I know that some of those people commit murder nonetheless, but most don't.) If all these billions of people were to switch to a purely arbitrary, ever changing, manipulatable moral code which is different for every person, I would imagine that we would see far more conflict as a result.
I've linked to this before, and if threads like these keep popping up, I don't know if I'll ever be able to stop: http://www.mrwiggleslovesyou.com/rehab477.html
(God prefers atheists!)
Besides, I don't think killing people in the name of a holy war is very ethical. Do you?
-
@*fetches can opener for a huge can of worms*
I contend that if everyone was atheist, there would be MORE conflict. As it is, several billion people subscribe to a moral code which forbids murder and theft. (Yes, I know that some of those people commit murder nonetheless, but most don't.) If all these billions of people were to switch to a purely arbitrary, ever changing, manipulatable moral code which is different for every person, I would imagine that we would see far more conflict as a result.
that's fucking retarded. You're saying the only thing stopping murder/violence is the belief in religion? lmfao those people are fucking retarded then. That's why prisons are filled with atheists right? terrorists attacks are done by athiests? nice (Y)
If religion is the only reason you're not murdering people, you should put a bullet in your head since your too naive and worthless to society. You might not believe this, but atheists are PEOPLE TOO and have MORALS just like anybody else. Most atheists are good willed people, stop talking shit you have no idea about.
And this is the point where you've completely lost the plot with a non-argument masked over with a childish attack on someone you disagree with.
-
*fetches can opener for a huge can of worms*
I contend that if everyone was atheist, there would be MORE conflict. As it is, several billion people subscribe to a moral code which forbids murder and theft. (Yes, I know that some of those people commit murder nonetheless, but most don't.) If all these billions of people were to switch to a purely arbitrary, ever changing, manipulatable moral code which is different for every person, I would imagine that we would see far more conflict as a result.
I've linked to this before, and if threads like these keep popping up, I don't know if I'll ever be able to stop: http://www.mrwiggleslovesyou.com/rehab477.html
(God prefers atheists!)
Funny cartoon. However consider that the definition of God is an omnipotent all-powerful being unconstrained by time or physical limitations. By that definition, God isn't 'bothered' even by an infinite amount of complaints - if He as a being transcends our reality.
Besides, I don't think killing people in the name of a holy war is very ethical. Do you?
Exactly. We have no debate here.
-
On a side note, to all those who defend Atheism as having the higher moral ground over all religion, lets not forget that Atheist ideology was directly responsible (in the guise of Communism) for hundreds of millions of deaths. From Stalin's great purges to Mao's starvation marches and everything in between.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_atheism
So don't give us that sanctimonious holier-than-thou (pun intended) bullshit about Atheism being the key to world peace.
-
What atheist ideology? Can you outline the principles of atheist ideology?
-
*fetches can opener for a huge can of worms*
I contend that if everyone was atheist, there would be MORE conflict. As it is, several billion people subscribe to a moral code which forbids murder and theft. (Yes, I know that some of those people commit murder nonetheless, but most don't.) If all these billions of people were to switch to a purely arbitrary, ever changing, manipulatable moral code which is different for every person, I would imagine that we would see far more conflict as a result.
Yitzi your a total moron to suggest that all morals people have would cease to exist if religion no longer existed. I still abide by the law because:
i) Obviously it's the law
ii) Using common sense you can prove to yourself why there is a law against something. Say murder.
On a side note, to all those who defend Atheism as having the higher moral ground over all religion, lets not forget that Atheist ideology was directly responsible (in the guise of Communism) for hundreds of millions of deaths. From Stalin's great purges to Mao's starvation marches and everything in between.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_atheism
So don't give us that sanctimonious holier-than-thou (pun intended) bullshit about Atheism being the key to world peace.
Stop this nonsense about Athiesm => Communism.
What about Osama Bin Laden? He is Islamic and is the founder of the "lovely" extremists al-Qaeda. Can you call him a moral person?
-
*fetches can opener for a huge can of worms*
I contend that if everyone was atheist, there would be MORE conflict. As it is, several billion people subscribe to a moral code which forbids murder and theft. (Yes, I know that some of those people commit murder nonetheless, but most don't.) If all these billions of people were to switch to a purely arbitrary, ever changing, manipulatable moral code which is different for every person, I would imagine that we would see far more conflict as a result.
Yitzi your a total moron to suggest that all morals people have would cease to exist if religion no longer existed. I still abide by the law because:
i) Obviously it's the law
ii) Using common sense you can prove to yourself why there is a law against something. Say murder.
On a side note, to all those who defend Atheism as having the higher moral ground over all religion, lets not forget that Atheist ideology was directly responsible (in the guise of Communism) for hundreds of millions of deaths. From Stalin's great purges to Mao's starvation marches and everything in between.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_atheism
So don't give us that sanctimonious holier-than-thou (pun intended) bullshit about Atheism being the key to world peace.
Stop this nonsense about Athiesm => Communism.
What about Osama Bin Laden? He is Islamic and is the founder of the "lovely" extremists al-Qaeda. Can you call him a moral person?
this.
Chavi and yitzi, single minded fools
-
Stop this nonsense about Athiesm => Communism.
Why? If you want to prove the moral supremacy of Atheism over all religions, you should be able to back it up with examples.
What about Osama Bin Laden? He is Islamic and is the founder of the "lovely" extremists al-Qaeda. Can you call him a moral person?
Nobody would dream about defending Osama bin Laden. But your pointis completely moot (and dare I say - not clever at all), because he only represents a fringe group of cave-dwelling illiterates in Waziristan. Communism however, was always seen as the upholder of Atheist, Marxist secularism during the 20th century.
-
*fetches can opener for a huge can of worms*
If all these billions of people were to switch to a purely arbitrary, ever changing, manipulatable moral code which is different for every person, I would imagine that we would see far more conflict as a result.
I think most people who aren't blinded by bias would see that religious moral codes are USUALLY even more "arbitrary, ever changing, manipulatable"
-
Imo, if religion was taken away, it would be the destruction of human choice, and subsequently of life itself.
I also subscribe to the line of thought that if there was absolutely no religion or root thereof, the morals that people create for themselves would forever differ, and create even more conflict. To one person murder could be completely fine, and to another abhorrent, but who would then decide that?
Better allow people to choose clearly defined stances, than to create 6 billion minute ones where groups of the same ideology would subsequently form anyways.
^-^
-
I would just like to produce a snippet from a blog:
Atheists and atheist political regimes have committed horrible crimes against humanity. Josef Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, perhaps Hitler, and their atheistic tyrannies tortured and murdered millions.
Given that atheists make up a tiny proportion of the world’s population, and that religious governments and ideals have held sway globally for thousands of years, believers will certainly lose in a contest over “who has done more harm,” or “which ideology has caused more human suffering.” It has not been atheism because atheists have been widely persecuted, tortured, and killed for centuries nearly to the point of extinction.
Sam Harris has argued that the problem with these regimes has been that they became too much like religions. “Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag, and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.”
I'm lucky that I'm an atheist now and not 500-1000 years ago because I would probably be killed for my disbelief.
I hate this concept that atheism is a religion itself because we are saying that we dont believe in a god. Each religion fights with other religions about who's the most superior. Religions then constantly try to force this notion of atheists (disbelievers) being against everyone.
Perfect example:
Chavi calling atheists communists.
That's enough to turn any American away from Atheism. 'Communism' was actually the tactic used to keep HMO's in business.
-
Hmm? If everyine was atheist, how would militant atheism work?
-
back it up with examples.
Ironic how you always insist for something to be reliable it needs evidence, yet you believe a religion that states the world was made 4000~ years ago.
-
Atheist ideology was directly responsible (in the guise of Communism) for hundreds of millions of deaths. From Stalin's great purges to Mao's starvation marches and everything in between.
Mao's actions were undertaken with the aim of ensuring a functioning Communist society the way Mao himself believed it. Mao did not lead "starvation" marches because people worshiped God.
Imo, if religion was taken away, it would be the destruction of human choice, and subsequently of life itself.
I also subscribe to the line of thought that if there was absolutely no religion or root thereof, the morals that people create for themselves would forever differ, and create even more conflict. To one person murder could be completely fine, and to another abhorrent, but who would then decide that?
Better allow people to choose clearly defined stances, than to create 6 billion minute ones where groups of the same ideology would subsequently form anyways.
I dislike this post. How would atheism destroy human choice? Because people would be able to decide for themselves their own moral code (in accordance with the law, and other social norms, and of course your own personal values) rather than conform with archaic ideas?
Secondly, religion needs to get off its damn high horse. Why the hell should religion- which has itself been the root cause of so many wars, tortures and other atrocities be allowed to determine what is 'right' when it can't even learn off its past mistakes. The same atrocities, such as torture, have been committed in most religious sects i'm sure. What has religion done to deserve the view that its morals are correct, unquestionable, and obviously better than anyone elses? Because I don't believe in God my morals are of less value? Ignorance at its peak if I may say so myself.
And to your final statement, consider the second part of what I wrote (in the starting post), and the definition of atheism I provided. Atheism is the desbelief of deity's, and this idea would be far more uniform between people than an omnipotent force- who has been interpreted in countless ways.
-
the key to world peace.
I know neither religion, nor atheism is the key to world peace, and I doubt such a thing is attainable; but can a religion accept another religion as valid as it sees itself without sacrificing its own principles or compromising belief in it?
-
Whilst religion would be gone, many people would remain passionate about moral values which they personally believe in and upholding these is still likely to lead to conflict.
From other debates i've come across on VCEnotes, some individuals here have demonstrated that they draw their morals directly from their religion, and while it may be a generalisation (and thus unreliable), i'm sure many people in the wider community would do so as well.
Do you deny that our society is built upon the morals taken from Judeo-Christian theology?
And also the Enlightenment, which served to circumscribe the more pernicious and disempowering elements of religion.
Atheist ideology was directly responsible (in the guise of Communism) for hundreds of millions of deaths. From Stalin's great purges to Mao's starvation marches and everything in between.
Mao's actions were undertaken with the aim of ensuring a functioning Communist society the way Mao himself believed it. Mao did not lead "starvation" marches because people worshiped God.
Absolutely. Chavi's quoted argument is a perfect example of a genetic fallacy. He may as well argue that a serial killer going on a mindless rampage (and happening not to believe in God) is an example of atheism killing people. Or that Hitler's purported vegetarianism is pertinent in understanding his motives.
As for whether atheist populaces are more or less likely than religious ones to commit crimes and to swindle, lie, cheat on partners etc, I think it'll need an econometric test to prove anything; pure rhetoric will simply leave each side disagreeing.
I do agree with the writer here, in that if religious instruction is proven to prevent recidivism among prisoners, it should be used.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/alexsingleton/100045599/the-best-way-to-stop-prisoners-reoffending-send-evangelicals-to-proselytise-them/
-
Just a point to note in terms of Russia and China's imposed atheism; it was done to sever connections with the old society, not necessarily because religion was bad.
-
On a side note, to all those who defend Atheism as having the higher moral ground over all religion, lets not forget that Atheist ideology was directly responsible (in the guise of Communism) for hundreds of millions of deaths. From Stalin's great purges to Mao's starvation marches and everything in between.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_atheism
So don't give us that sanctimonious holier-than-thou (pun intended) bullshit about Atheism being the key to world peace.
Neither religion nor atheism is morally corrupt in any fundamental way. People are.
-
On a side note, to all those who defend Atheism as having the higher moral ground over all religion, lets not forget that Atheist ideology was directly responsible (in the guise of Communism) for hundreds of millions of deaths. From Stalin's great purges to Mao's starvation marches and everything in between.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_atheism
So don't give us that sanctimonious holier-than-thou (pun intended) bullshit about Atheism being the key to world peace.
Neither religion nor atheism is morally corrupt in any fundamental way. People are.
That said, you'd rather a morally corrupt person had a peashooter than had access to a nuclear button.
-
^ True.
-
where'd Chavi go?
-
where'd Chavi go?
No idea. I hope he never comes back.
-
where'd Chavi go?
No idea. I hope he never comes back.
hahahahahahaha/ fag.
-
On a side note, to all those who defend Atheism as having the higher moral ground over all religion, lets not forget that Atheist ideology was directly responsible (in the guise of Communism) for hundreds of millions of deaths. From Stalin's great purges to Mao's starvation marches and everything in between.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_atheism
So don't give us that sanctimonious holier-than-thou (pun intended) bullshit about Atheism being the key to world peace.
Neither religion nor atheism is morally corrupt in any fundamental way. People are.
That said, you'd rather a morally corrupt person had a peashooter than had access to a nuclear button.
or perhaps the morally corrupt person was the one to theorize a weapon that has the power to destroy humanity. (and no, Einstein wasn't an Atheist per se)
-
Well I don't think you can really credit religion with too many innovations... *cough* dark ages
-
I would just like to produce a snippet from a blog:
Atheists and atheist political regimes have committed horrible crimes against humanity. Josef Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, perhaps Hitler, and their atheistic tyrannies tortured and murdered millions.
Given that atheists make up a tiny proportion of the world’s population, and that religious governments and ideals have held sway globally for thousands of years, believers will certainly lose in a contest over “who has done more harm,” or “which ideology has caused more human suffering.” It has not been atheism because atheists have been widely persecuted, tortured, and killed for centuries nearly to the point of extinction.
Sam Harris has argued that the problem with these regimes has been that they became too much like religions. “Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag, and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.”
I'm lucky that I'm an atheist now and not 500-1000 years ago because I would probably be killed for my disbelief.
I hate this concept that atheism is a religion itself because we are saying that we dont believe in a god. Each religion fights with other religions about who's the most superior. Religions then constantly try to force this notion of atheists (disbelievers) being against everyone.
Perfect example:
Chavi calling atheists communists.
That's enough to turn any American away from Atheism. 'Communism' was actually the tactic used to keep HMO's in business.
ok. I stand corrected. However I ask, why is the belief in the non-existence of God not considered an organized religion? The burden of proof lies as much with the skeptics as it does with the believers (that said, I'm not out to prove anything to you. I absolutely detest proselytism of all kinds)
Some religions have synagogues, Mosques and Churches, others have Atheist conventions. . . Agnosticism - now there's a set of beliefs (or lack thereof) that are inherently incompatible with organized religion.
On a side note, a question to our Atheist members - do you feel spiritual? Do you believe in mother nature, or some natural guiding laws of the universe?
-
I do not feel spritual myself. While I lack a comprehensive understanding of the world of physics, I can still accept them as true, and that (to me) is what logically determines the outcomes of events in the Universe.
-
I do not feel spritual myself. While I lack a comprehensive understanding of the world of physics, I can still accept them as true, and that (to me) is what logically determines the outcomes of events in the Universe.
I just find it interesting that many non-believers (not necessarily atheists, just non-religious) believe in the supernatural, abstract concepts such as destiny and fate, and 'spirits' and 'ghosts'.
-
I do not feel spritual myself. While I lack a comprehensive understanding of the world of physics, I can still accept them as true, and that (to me) is what logically determines the outcomes of events in the Universe.
I just find it interesting that many non-believers (not necessarily atheists, just non-religious) believe in the supernatural, abstract concepts such as destiny and fate, and 'spirits' and 'ghosts'.
+1
Very true.
-
I would just like to produce a snippet from a blog:
Atheists and atheist political regimes have committed horrible crimes against humanity. Josef Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, perhaps Hitler, and their atheistic tyrannies tortured and murdered millions.
Given that atheists make up a tiny proportion of the world’s population, and that religious governments and ideals have held sway globally for thousands of years, believers will certainly lose in a contest over “who has done more harm,” or “which ideology has caused more human suffering.” It has not been atheism because atheists have been widely persecuted, tortured, and killed for centuries nearly to the point of extinction.
Sam Harris has argued that the problem with these regimes has been that they became too much like religions. “Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag, and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.”
I'm lucky that I'm an atheist now and not 500-1000 years ago because I would probably be killed for my disbelief.
I hate this concept that atheism is a religion itself because we are saying that we dont believe in a god. Each religion fights with other religions about who's the most superior. Religions then constantly try to force this notion of atheists (disbelievers) being against everyone.
Perfect example:
Chavi calling atheists communists.
That's enough to turn any American away from Atheism. 'Communism' was actually the tactic used to keep HMO's in business.
ok. I stand corrected. However I ask, why is the belief in the non-existence of God not considered an organized religion? The burden of proof lies as much with the skeptics as it does with the believers (that said, I'm not out to prove anything to you. I absolutely detest proselytism of all kinds)
Some religions have synagogues, Mosques and Churches, others have Atheist conventions. . . Agnosticism - now there's a set of beliefs (or lack thereof) that are inherently incompatible with organized religion.
On a side note, a question to our Atheist members - do you feel spiritual? Do you believe in mother nature, or some natural guiding laws of the universe?
Looking at the first bolded section.
I attended a Maths colloqium by your logic Maths is a "religion".
Now for the next.
I am not a spiritual person.
One hypothesis suggesting why some people see ghosts in 'haunted' houses is that there may be a high level of carbon monoxide that is causing hallucinations. As for the soul, a perfectly normal person can get brain damage and never be the same person again.
If it is any consolation I do believe that life exists in other parts of the universe and I wouldn't be surprised if they also believed in some god. More to the point, how could there not be anything else than us? It would be an awful waste of space (contact).
-
Looking at the first bolded section.
I attended a Maths colloqium by your logic Maths is a "religion".
You are very, very smart. That's precisely my definition
Now for the next.
I am not a spiritual person.
One hypothesis suggesting why some people see ghosts in 'haunted' houses is that there may be a high level of carbon monoxide that is causing hallucinations. As for the soul, a perfectly normal person can get brain damage and never be the same person again.
If it is any consolation I do believe that life exists in other parts of the universe and I wouldn't be surprised if they also believed in some god. More to the point, how could there not be anything else than us? It would be an awful waste of space (contact).
If the atheist is prepared to believe in supernatural agents that can't be proven, rationally discerned or that don't comply with the scientific method - why is the belief in an omnipotent, all-knowing force any less of a taboo is the his mind?
If you are truly in a quest to find the absolute truth on God's existence, why being with presumption that He doesn't exist? That would place the onus on you to prove his non-existence (in the same way that someone attempting to convert you must first prove His existence). If you admire the scientific method as a means of developing a logical model for the origin of the universe, the natural place to start would be from an agnostic position, rather than an atheist one. Or a religious one for that matter. AS the French model states - guilty until proven innocnet, or to paraphrase and keep in with the religious status quo - God exists until proof is found otherwise.
-
Looking at the first bolded section.
I attended a Maths colloqium by your logic Maths is a "religion".
You are very, very smart. That's precisely my definition
Now for the next.
I am not a spiritual person.
One hypothesis suggesting why some people see ghosts in 'haunted' houses is that there may be a high level of carbon monoxide that is causing hallucinations. As for the soul, a perfectly normal person can get brain damage and never be the same person again.
If it is any consolation I do believe that life exists in other parts of the universe and I wouldn't be surprised if they also believed in some god. More to the point, how could there not be anything else than us? It would be an awful waste of space (contact).
If the atheist is prepared to believe in supernatural agents that can't be proven, rationally discerned or that don't comply with the scientific method - why is the belief in an omnipotent, all-knowing force any less of a taboo is the his mind?
If you are truly in a quest to find the absolute truth on God's existence, why being with presumption that He doesn't exist? That would place the onus on you to prove his non-existence (in the same way that someone attempting to convert you must first prove His existence). If you admire the scientific method as a means of developing a logical model for the origin of the universe, the natural place to start would be from an agnostic position, rather than an atheist one. Or a religious one for that matter. AS the French model states - guilty until proven innocnet, or to paraphrase and keep in with the religious status quo - God exists until proof is found otherwise.
I actually agree. I think that atheism is essentially a religious belief and can't really be backed up that well. Atheism isn't a lack of belief, it is a strong belief that no god exists. That being said, I really do find it grating when people say religion is stupid and then have really irrational superstitions and the like. Most people believe in something, and atheists can be as spiritual and irrational as religious people.
-
Looking at the first bolded section.
I attended a Maths colloqium by your logic Maths is a "religion".
You are very, very smart. That's precisely my definition
Now for the next.
I am not a spiritual person.
One hypothesis suggesting why some people see ghosts in 'haunted' houses is that there may be a high level of carbon monoxide that is causing hallucinations. As for the soul, a perfectly normal person can get brain damage and never be the same person again.
If it is any consolation I do believe that life exists in other parts of the universe and I wouldn't be surprised if they also believed in some god. More to the point, how could there not be anything else than us? It would be an awful waste of space (contact).
If the atheist is prepared to believe in supernatural agents that can't be proven, rationally discerned or that don't comply with the scientific method - why is the belief in an omnipotent, all-knowing force any less of a taboo is the his mind?
If you are truly in a quest to find the absolute truth on God's existence, why being with presumption that He doesn't exist? That would place the onus on you to prove his non-existence (in the same way that someone attempting to convert you must first prove His existence). If you admire the scientific method as a means of developing a logical model for the origin of the universe, the natural place to start would be from an agnostic position, rather than an atheist one. Or a religious one for that matter. AS the French model states - guilty until proven innocnet, or to paraphrase and keep in with the religious status quo - God exists until proof is found otherwise.
I actually agree. I think that atheism is essentially a religious belief and can't really be backed up that well. Atheism isn't a lack of belief, it is a strong belief that no god exists. That being said, I really do find it grating when people say religion is stupid and then have really irrational superstitions and the like. Most people believe in something, and atheists can be as spiritual and irrational as religious people.
They also have a tendency to declare themselves everyone's moral compass, to instantly reject all positions they disagree with, and to bask in a false sense of complacency and a belief that they won't screw everything up like the church did during the Dark ages.
Religious dogma at it's worst.
-
Looking at the first bolded section.
I attended a Maths colloqium by your logic Maths is a "religion".
You are very, very smart. That's precisely my definition
Now for the next.
I am not a spiritual person.
One hypothesis suggesting why some people see ghosts in 'haunted' houses is that there may be a high level of carbon monoxide that is causing hallucinations. As for the soul, a perfectly normal person can get brain damage and never be the same person again.
If it is any consolation I do believe that life exists in other parts of the universe and I wouldn't be surprised if they also believed in some god. More to the point, how could there not be anything else than us? It would be an awful waste of space (contact).
If the atheist is prepared to believe in supernatural agents that can't be proven, rationally discerned or that don't comply with the scientific method - why is the belief in an omnipotent, all-knowing force any less of a taboo is the his mind?
If you are truly in a quest to find the absolute truth on God's existence, why being with presumption that He doesn't exist? That would place the onus on you to prove his non-existence (in the same way that someone attempting to convert you must first prove His existence). If you admire the scientific method as a means of developing a logical model for the origin of the universe, the natural place to start would be from an agnostic position, rather than an atheist one. Or a religious one for that matter. AS the French model states - guilty until proven innocnet, or to paraphrase and keep in with the religious status quo - God exists until proof is found otherwise.
I actually agree. I think that atheism is essentially a religious belief and can't really be backed up that well. Atheism isn't a lack of belief, it is a strong belief that no god exists. That being said, I really do find it grating when people say religion is stupid and then have really irrational superstitions and the like. Most people believe in something, and atheists can be as spiritual and irrational as religious people.
That is why atheism is split into two areas, weak atheists (I don't believe in god) and strong atheism (I say there is no god).
I personally consider myself a weak atheist who just doesn't like people who use their religion as a means to doing stuff that otherwise seems out of the ordinary or potentially dangerous. Do I have friends that are religious? Yes. Does that bother me? No. Would it if they forced it upon me? Definitely.
By the way, I know some Jewish people pretty well, having said that, they aren't nearly as self-righteous as Yitzi or Chavi. It seems that the problem is more the person than their religion.
-
Looking at the first bolded section.
I attended a Maths colloqium by your logic Maths is a "religion".
You are very, very smart. That's precisely my definition
Now for the next.
I am not a spiritual person.
One hypothesis suggesting why some people see ghosts in 'haunted' houses is that there may be a high level of carbon monoxide that is causing hallucinations. As for the soul, a perfectly normal person can get brain damage and never be the same person again.
If it is any consolation I do believe that life exists in other parts of the universe and I wouldn't be surprised if they also believed in some god. More to the point, how could there not be anything else than us? It would be an awful waste of space (contact).
If the atheist is prepared to believe in supernatural agents that can't be proven, rationally discerned or that don't comply with the scientific method - why is the belief in an omnipotent, all-knowing force any less of a taboo is the his mind?
If you are truly in a quest to find the absolute truth on God's existence, why being with presumption that He doesn't exist? That would place the onus on you to prove his non-existence (in the same way that someone attempting to convert you must first prove His existence). If you admire the scientific method as a means of developing a logical model for the origin of the universe, the natural place to start would be from an agnostic position, rather than an atheist one. Or a religious one for that matter. AS the French model states - guilty until proven innocnet, or to paraphrase and keep in with the religious status quo - God exists until proof is found otherwise.
I actually agree. I think that atheism is essentially a religious belief and can't really be backed up that well. Atheism isn't a lack of belief, it is a strong belief that no god exists. That being said, I really do find it grating when people say religion is stupid and then have really irrational superstitions and the like. Most people believe in something, and atheists can be as spiritual and irrational as religious people.
That is why atheism is split into two areas, weak atheists (I don't believe in god) and strong atheism (I say there is no god).
I personally consider myself a weak atheist who just doesn't like people who use their religion as a means to doing stuff that otherwise seems out of the ordinary or potentially dangerous. Do I have friends that are religious? Yes. Does that bother me? No. Would it if they forced it upon me? Definitely.
that's weak.
-
Looking at the first bolded section.
I attended a Maths colloqium by your logic Maths is a "religion".
You are very, very smart. That's precisely my definition
Now for the next.
I am not a spiritual person.
One hypothesis suggesting why some people see ghosts in 'haunted' houses is that there may be a high level of carbon monoxide that is causing hallucinations. As for the soul, a perfectly normal person can get brain damage and never be the same person again.
If it is any consolation I do believe that life exists in other parts of the universe and I wouldn't be surprised if they also believed in some god. More to the point, how could there not be anything else than us? It would be an awful waste of space (contact).
If the atheist is prepared to believe in supernatural agents that can't be proven, rationally discerned or that don't comply with the scientific method - why is the belief in an omnipotent, all-knowing force any less of a taboo is the his mind?
If you are truly in a quest to find the absolute truth on God's existence, why being with presumption that He doesn't exist? That would place the onus on you to prove his non-existence (in the same way that someone attempting to convert you must first prove His existence). If you admire the scientific method as a means of developing a logical model for the origin of the universe, the natural place to start would be from an agnostic position, rather than an atheist one. Or a religious one for that matter. AS the French model states - guilty until proven innocnet, or to paraphrase and keep in with the religious status quo - God exists until proof is found otherwise.
I actually agree. I think that atheism is essentially a religious belief and can't really be backed up that well. Atheism isn't a lack of belief, it is a strong belief that no god exists. That being said, I really do find it grating when people say religion is stupid and then have really irrational superstitions and the like. Most people believe in something, and atheists can be as spiritual and irrational as religious people.
That is why atheism is split into two areas, weak atheists (I don't believe in god) and strong atheism (I say there is no god).
I personally consider myself a weak atheist who just doesn't like people who use their religion as a means to doing stuff that otherwise seems out of the ordinary or potentially dangerous. Do I have friends that are religious? Yes. Does that bother me? No. Would it if they forced it upon me? Definitely.
that's weak.
Pun intended?
-
If you are truly in a quest to find the absolute truth on God's existence, why being with presumption that He doesn't exist? That would place the onus on you to prove his non-existence (in the same way that someone attempting to convert you must first prove His existence). If you admire the scientific method as a means of developing a logical model for the origin of the universe, the natural place to start would be from an agnostic position, rather than an atheist one. Or a religious one for that matter. AS the French model states - guilty until proven innocnet, or to paraphrase and keep in with the religious status quo - God exists until proof is found otherwise.
I have posted this before, and seeing this post, I see the need to post it again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo
-
If you are truly in a quest to find the absolute truth on God's existence, why being with presumption that He doesn't exist? That would place the onus on you to prove his non-existence (in the same way that someone attempting to convert you must first prove His existence). If you admire the scientific method as a means of developing a logical model for the origin of the universe, the natural place to start would be from an agnostic position, rather than an atheist one. Or a religious one for that matter. AS the French model states - guilty until proven innocnet, or to paraphrase and keep in with the religious status quo - God exists until proof is found otherwise.
I have posted this before, and seeing this post, I see the need to post it again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo
Very humorous video. It just doesn't account for the fact that we are predisposed to to believe in irrational things (which mayor may not be true). We are conditioned from a young age to believe certain truisms or accept illogical statements (Santa climbs through your chimney, the tooth fairy will give you $2 tonight). The simple fact is therefore that religion is our status quo, so it is the starting base for every argument on faith, and it is the reality that you must contend with first prior to accepting or discarding other positions.
What I should add (the video covers everything very logically), is that faith is in most cases, is based on factors other that logic. It's just that: faith, belief. It defies reason. This is why you will probably not succeed in convincing someone to discard their religion based on facts alone. Faith transcends logic.
-
I just watched this, and found it rather interesting (just thought i'd share):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk
-
back it up with examples.
Ironic how you always insist for something to be reliable it needs evidence, yet you believe a religion that states the world was made 4000~ years ago.
-
back it up with examples.
Ironic how you always insist for something to be reliable it needs evidence, yet you believe a religion that states the world was made 4000~ years ago.
You have no idea what I believe, you can only guess.
On a side note, if you want a scientific explanation to reconcile the universe's age of 13 billion years with the ~5770 years enunciated by biblical texts, check out:
"The science of God" http://www.amazon.com/Science-God-Convergence-Scientific-Biblical/dp/076790303X
The physics and maths behind it is relativistic, Einstein, Minkowski and bateman (if you can handle them). The basic premise is that time becomes a vector quantity as the universe stretches, thus making Earth time, in effect relative to the movement of space-time in physical centre of the universe (big-bang origin). Just like with a rubber band, the local cluster (incl the milky way galaxy) moves father apart from other elements within the universe, and in doing so, our time and physical reality morphs.
-
Do you agree that Religion was made by MAN in an era that wouldn't fit in today's world?
How long have people been predicting the Messiah is coming?
Why can't evolution and God co-exist? why does it have to be one or the other?
-
Do you agree that Religion was made by MAN in an era that wouldn't fit in today's world?
How long have people been predicting the Messiah is coming?
Why can't evolution and God co-exist? why does it have to be one or the other?
1. In the non-religious community that question is widely disputed. Some scholars claim multiple-authorship for biblical texts (i.e. man made), some maintain that the bible (5 books of Moses) is the word of God and the later Prophets and Writings that make up the Old testament (bible) are written by man. A further group claims that the entire bible was divinely inspired and written by man. A necessary presumption of all monotheistic faiths is that the bible is the word of God. Pure and simple. The debate continues, and my perspective is irrelevant for the purposes of your argument
2. The fact that the Messiah hasn't appeared yet is not conclusive proof that he doesn't exist. You can only speculate either way.
3. Who stated evolution and God can't co exist? Surely if a being is omnipotent and almighty, He can accommodate any form of biological evolution - regardless of how literally you interpret religious texts.
Now a question for you: If you were to meet 3 Atheists and all of them were snobs, could you conclusively assume the corollary that all Atheists are snobs?
-
still about the snob comment?
I was relating to the fact that your school is so exclusive, ie belief the same faith/ most students are well off.
How would I know? i spent 3 years at sholom Aleichem and half a year @ yeshivah before moving to public schools.
-
still about the snob comment?
I was relating to the fact that your school is so exclusive, ie belief the same faith/ most students are well off.
How would I know? i spent 3 years at sholom Aleichem and half a year @ yeshivah before moving to public schools.
And your personal bad experience makes you an expert on the entire faith-based education system in Melbourne.
I thought you had a vendetta against religion. Now I see that you are purely shallow.
-
*sigh* Please don't take the thread to a point where it will be locked
-
still about the snob comment?
I was relating to the fact that your school is so exclusive, ie belief the same faith/ most students are well off.
How would I know? i spent 3 years at sholom Aleichem and half a year @ yeshivah before moving to public schools.
And your personal bad experience makes you an expert on the entire faith-based education system in Melbourne.
I thought you had a vendetta against religion. Now I see that you are purely shallow.
I was actually raised atheist, except upon coming to Australia and renting a cheap flat, those schools where the only ones available. I'm shallow? lmao, I'm sorry but when teachers tried to explain to me the world was made 4000~ years ago, jews built the pyramids as slaves, Noah's Ark and the messiah, i constantly lol'd. surprisingly there were quite a few kids @ sholom who were christian/athiest at the time aswell.
What's wrong with living by your experiences? explain to me why you have this vendetta against muslims then? do you even have any muslim friends? no. you're surrounded by your kind. you're the shallow person here.
-
still about the snob comment?
I was relating to the fact that your school is so exclusive, ie belief the same faith/ most students are well off.
How would I know? i spent 3 years at sholom Aleichem and half a year @ yeshivah before moving to public schools.
And your personal bad experience makes you an expert on the entire faith-based education system in Melbourne.
I thought you had a vendetta against religion. Now I see that you are purely shallow.
I was actually raised atheist, except upon coming to Australia and renting a cheap flat, those schools where the only ones available. I'm shallow? lmao, I'm sorry but when teachers tried to explain to me the world was made 4000~ years ago, jews built the pyramids as slaves, Noah's Ark and the messiah, i constantly lol'd. surprisingly there were quite a few kids @ sholom who were christian/athiest at the time aswell.
What's wrong with living by your experiences? explain to me why you have this vendetta against muslims then? do you even have any muslim friends? no. you're surrounded by your kind. you're the shallow person here.
I questioned you on your senseless comments, not your life story.
-
The next person to ad hominem attack one another wins a 1 week ban. Keep this otherwise interesting discussion civil or it will be locked and bans doled out because I think we've all had enough of the petty bickering.
-
What I should add (the video covers everything very logically), is that faith is in most cases, is based on factors other that logic. It's just that: faith, belief. It defies reason. This is why you will probably not succeed in convincing someone to discard their religion based on facts alone. Faith transcends logic.
This is a cause of most of the conflict. Atheists (for the most part) seem to be scientifically based and have their feet firmly planted in physics, chemistry and other worldly factors that are possible to be proven or disproven. And this seems unfair. I think Qualiasoup, who you so readily mocked, made valid points placing the onus on you.
Were I to claim that a Centaur existed and watched over Earth would you not place the onus on me to prove his existence?
Faith seems to be a refuge from what I would deem reality; and religious folk seem far too defensive (and often, self-righteous) in defending their beliefs. "Faith transcends logic" - on what grounds?
-
I would just like to add that I think Spreadbury is the shining example of how you can completely disagree with somebody and yet argue and debate the issue with such decorum and respect for the other. I wish everyone (including myself sometimes :P) would follow your example, good job on keeping a very respectable level of civility to this discussion :)
-
still about the snob comment?
I was relating to the fact that your school is so exclusive, ie belief the same faith/ most students are well off.
How would I know? i spent 3 years at sholom Aleichem and half a year @ yeshivah before moving to public schools.
And your personal bad experience makes you an expert on the entire faith-based education system in Melbourne.
I thought you had a vendetta against religion. Now I see that you are purely shallow.
I was actually raised atheist, except upon coming to Australia and renting a cheap flat, those schools where the only ones available. I'm shallow? lmao, I'm sorry but when teachers tried to explain to me the world was made 4000~ years ago, jews built the pyramids as slaves, Noah's Ark and the messiah, i constantly lol'd. surprisingly there were quite a few kids @ sholom who were christian/athiest at the time aswell.
What's wrong with living by your experiences? explain to me why you have this vendetta against muslims then? do you even have any muslim friends? no. you're surrounded by your kind. you're the shallow person here.
I questioned you on your senseless comments, not your life story.
I provided, to some extent "evidence", even though its your word against mine.
TO answer you question, I do believe private schools produce snobby people, even to a little extent. The comment about the jewish school was directed at you since you DO go to a jewish school. If you where Christian, i would've state "Christian private school". it was never directed at the population, rather you. I believe when you're surrounded by people just like you, you tend to think alike. Now I'm not saying every single person, but a majority.
Now answer my question.
What do you have against muslims, that drives you to go insane in every single thread about islam, constantly portraying them as terrorists, linking to terrorist natures?
Do you have any good friends who are muslim that you see regularly? (non of this fb crap)
-
Faith seems to be a refuge from what I would deem reality; and religious folk seem far too defensive (and often, self-righteous) in defending their beliefs. "Faith transcends logic" - on what grounds?
Faith transcends logic because it does not require logic. You can believe in whatever you like, and in can be completely irrational to everybody else but yourself. Faith can defy scientific theory, because belief and thought do not require the scientific theory to operate.
This is a cause of most of the conflict. Atheists (for the most part) seem to be scientifically based and have their feet firmly planted in physics, chemistry and other worldly factors that are possible to be proven or disproven. And this seems unfair. I think Qualiasoup, who you so readily mocked, made valid points placing the onus on you.
No, like was mentioned earlier, people are the cause of conflicts. I brought up the entire militant Atheism example to show that Atheists are not exempt from human nature, regardless of the status they believe they hold in future of humanity's evolution
Where I to claim that a Centaur existed and watched over Earth would you not place the onus on me to prove his existence?
Yes. But as a non-believer in the Centaur the onus is equally mine to disprove it's existence. The decision to adopt a theistic, agnostic or atheistic view is entirely personal for everyone else.
-
I would just like to add that I think Spreadbury is the shining example of how you can completely disagree with somebody and yet argue and debate the issue with such decorum and respect for the other. I wish everyone (including myself sometimes :P) would follow your example, good job on keeping a very respectable level of civility to this discussion :)
this has to be a cruel joke. . .:)
-
Faith seems to be a refuge from what I would deem reality; and religious folk seem far too defensive (and often, self-righteous) in defending their beliefs. "Faith transcends logic" - on what grounds?
Faith transcends logic because it does not require logic. You can believe in whatever you like, and in can be completely irrational to everybody else but yourself. Faith can defy scientific theory, because belief and thought do not require the scientific theory to operate.
I find this somewhat dangerous. Look at the power religion has had, and still holds. As far as I know (yes, unreliable evidence), a significant proportion of the people opposed to abortion are religious- and this is no coincidence (to my knowledge- feel free to refute with evidence). Abortion is still a fairly Taboo topic, and because of religions power, Parliament still finds it difficult to legislate on such issues. Science is limited in its power as it is subject to scrutiny. To quote Spiderman; "with great power, comes great responsibility." Religion needs to be subject to similar scrutiny.
-
Faith can defy
I think these three words ultimately illustrate both the blessing and the fatal curse of religious belief. For those people for whom uncertainty is too scary, religion brings order out of the chaos that surrounds us.
Faith has answers. Why does the sun rise? God did it. Why do the tides turn? Why are there even tides? God did it. And then the ultimate, where did we come from and why are we here? God did it, and god knows but isn't telling us.
Since we began to develop inquisitive thought thousands of years ago, we asked these questions. And yet, up until recently, we did not have the means by which to investigate the vast majority of these questions empirically. Thus for those people for whom "I don't know" was too traumatising, "it was god" was, and is, such a nice, simple answer. It's not tangible, but it's warm and comforting. We want to know that we're being looked after. We don't want to feel the cold aloneness of an existential universe.
I did not come up with this rationale, but out of all the possible explanations for religion and god that I have read, this appears to me to be the most logical of all of them. It was, more than likely, an anthropological construct to provide the crutch to a fearful people.
And so, faith does not transcend logic as Chavi puts it. That is too nice a word for what it does. More, faith is the opposite of logic. It has no axioms, it does not follow any rational progression. Faith is the equivalent of logic's step brother who buries his head in the sand during a fight and says "LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA LA"
And that is why it is so comfortable to so many, because it takes away all the difficult questioning and investigation of what actually happened. We can bury our heads in the sand and pretend that there is no complexity to all of the difficult questions that we ask.
I am comfortable with not knowing. I am agnostic because I do not feel the compulsion to guess the answer. And I hope that one day, as human beings, we may all be comfortable with uncertainty. Because fear of uncertainty, that is at the root of all the evils in this world. Why do people become so defensive of religious beliefs? It is because once the safety blanket is removed, your entire worldview comes crashing down and with it, comes back your crushing fear of uncertainty.
And you can trace fear of uncertainty to every other problem that we face in this vein. Will the Muslims take over our country and convert us all to Sharia? We don't know, but let's fear them and hate them anyway! Rinse and repeat for any other problem you can think of.
I think that for humanity to progress forward, we must inevitably shed faith - a process which rewards ignorance, and close-mindedness. It's interesting that you all say that shedding religion will not solve our problems. I agree 100%. I believe that shedding our fear of uncertainty will ultimately be the solution to our problems. That is not to say that ridding ourselves of uncertainty is the solution - for that could well be impossible. But the fear of uncertainty, that is what weighs us down.
Uncertainty is nothing to fear. It is something to master with Scientific process and logic. Maybe there is a god. Maybe we are all alone. Maybe we're one of many millions of races throughout the universe. I am excited by the scientific chase of these answers, not by fanciful guesses.
-
To quote Spiderman; "with great power, comes great responsibility."
LOL, I love this quote. I use it all the time. :)
+1
-
side by side time?
The comment about the jewish school was directed at you since you DO go to a jewish school.
a private jewish school where 90% of students are snobby.
Disregarding the fact that this observation is entirely ludicrous (and you are in no position to comment - spending a couple of years in one primary school doesn't give you the legitimacy to extend your observation to all Jewish school children), it has whiffs of antisemitism to it. A purely ignorant person would assume by extent that all Jews are condescending or overbearing to others, in which case you would be guilty of propagating an age-old antisemitic canard - which you now attempt to mask over and trivialize. Luckily most of the members here are smarter than believing such posts on face value.
I believe when you're surrounded by people just like you, you tend to think alike. Now I'm not saying every single person, but a majority.
Peer pressure and conformity are common everywhere, and by rule of thumb, I can extend this observation onto you. However not everyone is a basket case. In the same way that it is unfair of me to say that all Atheists are money-hungry goldless back-stabbing so and so's, well, you get the point
Now answer my question.
Or else? If you have experience dealing with small children, you might find it useful to note that impertinence rarely ever achieves it's aims
What do you have against muslims,
Absolutely nothing. I am of the belief that the majority of Muslims in the Arab world are ordinary people who just want to go about their daily lives: live, eat, go to the shuk, meet the habibis, smoke nargila and go home to the wife(s). There is a very vocal minority (how large - depends on the stats), that adopts a radical, fundamentalist view that stands in antithesis to my own - so much so, that they want me and my people dead. My response is purely reactionary. I don't come into frequent contact with Muslims because the area of Melbourne in which I live has a very minute population, so they aren't very visible here (ditto for Muslim suburbs re: Caucasians).
Working with Somali and Darfurian refugees has certainly dispelled any of the crazier theories that I've heard. I am a firm believer in nurture and education (the father of one of the refugees became alarmed once he realized a Jew was teacher his daughter English. They're evil! he protested adamantly, despite never having met one. . .) . Nobody is born a terrorist. Only through inculcation and a culture of hatred, which is quite evidently occurs in the Arab world, do children adopt radical Islam as their worldview. Like Gert Wilders says - Muslims aren't the problem. Radical Islam is.
-
Now answer my question.
What do you have against muslims, that drives you to go insane in every single thread about islam, constantly portraying them as terrorists, linking to terrorist natures?
Do you have any good friends who are muslim that you see regularly? (non of this fb crap)
I can't speak for Chavi, but I assume this question applies to me too, so I'll answer it: The reason I 'go insane', as you put it, regarding Muslims is because I think the world needs to wake up to the huge danger posed by radical Islam, and the widespread support it enjoys in the Muslim world. Too often we hear the myth, the lie, that radical Islam is practiced by a tiny minority of Muslims. (I once had an argument with a Muslim who claimed that there were only ~10,000 such people in the world). Additionally, we are told that support for radical Islam amongst other Muslims is non-existent. This too, is a lie. Support, or the lack of condemnation which comes to the exact same thing, of terrorism, is, I believe, widespread to the point where it may be considered the majority view among Muslims. Now Muslims will always deny this, but as we ourselves have seen, you'd be hard-pressed to find one who'd actually condemn Hamas, a terrorist group.
Given this situation, I think it is imperative that people realise the danger we all face, and hence I am eager to point it out given the opportunity.
Additionally, I will admit I have a personal connection to the whole situation, having myself experienced Islamic terrorism in the form of deadly rocket fire on southern Israel. Crouching under a table as you wait for an incoming rocket to land, hoping and praying that it won't kill you or anyone else, as I have, tends to make one passionate about a subject.
enwiabe - I've tried my best not to cross any lines in this post, please tell me I've been successful..
-
enwiabe - I've tried my best not to cross any lines in this post, please tell me I've been successful..
I actually agree with most of what you wrote (except that radical islam is majority view... I *highly* doubt that) and none of it crossed any boundaries. Controversial, sure, but not against the rules. So yep, successful++
Actually, this is really not on:
Now Muslims will always deny this, but as we ourselves have seen, you'd be hard-pressed to find one who'd actually condemn Hamas, a terrorist group.
That's patently untrue and paints Muslims as condoning terrorism. You need to understand that that *is* racist, as you are implying that the vast majority of muslims condone terrorism, a debasing and thoroughly unhelpful sentiment.
-
Faith can defy
And so, faith does not transcend logic as Chavi puts it. That is too nice a word for what it does. More, faith is the opposite of logic. It has no axioms, it does not follow any rational progression. Faith is the equivalent of logic's step brother who buries his head in the sand during a fight and says "LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA LA"
And that is why it is so comfortable to so many, because it takes away all the difficult questioning and investigation of what actually happened. We can bury our heads in the sand and pretend that there is no complexity to all of the difficult questions that we ask.
Why do you assume that all faith = blind faith?
-
Faith can defy
And so, faith does not transcend logic as Chavi puts it. That is too nice a word for what it does. More, faith is the opposite of logic. It has no axioms, it does not follow any rational progression. Faith is the equivalent of logic's step brother who buries his head in the sand during a fight and says "LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA LA"
And that is why it is so comfortable to so many, because it takes away all the difficult questioning and investigation of what actually happened. We can bury our heads in the sand and pretend that there is no complexity to all of the difficult questions that we ask.
Why do you assume that all faith = blind faith?
Faith of that variety is blind by definition.
-
This mention of Islam and Radical Islam does make one consider the topic again; it would appear that unanimous Atheism would put a stop to such conflicts- while on the contrary, a unanimous religion would merely lead to an endless circle, probably entering a similar state to the one which we witness around us now.
I will however acknowledge the dangers of unanimous beliefs; it tends to make one all powerful, and in the words of Baron Acton: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." We would more than likely see something similar to the Dark Ages- but perhaps opposite with more technological advancements and philosophic repression.
-
Faith can defy
And so, faith does not transcend logic as Chavi puts it. That is too nice a word for what it does. More, faith is the opposite of logic. It has no axioms, it does not follow any rational progression. Faith is the equivalent of logic's step brother who buries his head in the sand during a fight and says "LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA LA"
And that is why it is so comfortable to so many, because it takes away all the difficult questioning and investigation of what actually happened. We can bury our heads in the sand and pretend that there is no complexity to all of the difficult questions that we ask.
Why do you assume that all faith = blind faith?
Faith of that variety is blind by definition.
I've battled my fare share of crazy "LA LA LA CAN"T HEAR YOU" fundamentalists as well, but these are often the radical minority. How can you be so quick to judge 3000 years of religious thought as absolutely illogical and incompatible with modern science? If this is indeed your belief, then it is presumptuous to say the least.
-
Abortion is still a fairly Taboo topic, and because of religions power, Parliament still finds it difficult to legislate on such issues.
Did you ever consider that this may in fact be a good thing? If religion is holding the slipping (or changing) of moral standards in check, that is not a bad thing. And yes, legalising abortion would absolutely represent a slipping in moral standards.
-
I will however acknowledge the dangers of unanimous beliefs; it tends to make one all powerful, and in the words of Baron Acton: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
I used this quote when comparing VN to an oligarchy. Needless to say, the oligarchs were not impressed. . . :)
-
Abortion is still a fairly Taboo topic, and because of religions power, Parliament still finds it difficult to legislate on such issues.
Did you ever consider that this may in fact be a good thing? If religion is holding the slipping (or changing) of moral standards in check, that is not a bad thing. And yes, legalising abortion would absolutely represent a slipping in moral standards.
Poor attitude. You reject the obvious mental and physiological concerns in respect to the mothers wellbeing that must be considered when deciding what should be on such an issue.
-
Faith can defy
And so, faith does not transcend logic as Chavi puts it. That is too nice a word for what it does. More, faith is the opposite of logic. It has no axioms, it does not follow any rational progression. Faith is the equivalent of logic's step brother who buries his head in the sand during a fight and says "LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA LA"
And that is why it is so comfortable to so many, because it takes away all the difficult questioning and investigation of what actually happened. We can bury our heads in the sand and pretend that there is no complexity to all of the difficult questions that we ask.
Why do you assume that all faith = blind faith?
Faith of that variety is blind by definition.
I've battled my fare share of crazy "LA LA LA CAN"T HEAR YOU" fundamentalists as well, but these are often the radical minority. How can you be so quick to judge 3000 years of religious thought as absolutely illogical and incompatible with modern science? If this is indeed your belief, then it is presumptuous to say the least.
You cannot prove religion in any meaningful way. You have admitted yourself that faith is illogical, so why are you now so quick to defend it as somehow logical or scientific? It isn't. You cannot logically prove god (as it currently stands) so belief in god is faith. And it is blind.
-
How can you be so quick to judge 3000 years of religious thought as absolutely illogical and incompatible with modern science?
Faith transcends logic because it does not require logic. You can believe in whatever you like, and in can be completely irrational to everybody else but yourself. Faith can defy scientific theory, because belief and thought do not require the scientific theory to operate.
Contradictory
-
How can you be so quick to judge 3000 years of religious thought as absolutely illogical and incompatible with modern science?
Faith transcends logic because it does not require logic. You can believe in whatever you like, and in can be completely irrational to everybody else but yourself. Faith can defy scientific theory, because belief and thought do not require the scientific theory to operate.
Contradictory
thx
-
How can you be so quick to judge 3000 years of religious thought as absolutely illogical and incompatible with modern science?
Faith transcends logic because it does not require logic. You can believe in whatever you like, and in can be completely irrational to everybody else but yourself. Faith can defy scientific theory, because belief and thought do not require the scientific theory to operate.
Contradictory
I don't see a contradiction here if you make a distinction between 'faith' and 'religious thought', which can at times work independently
-
Faith can defy
And so, faith does not transcend logic as Chavi puts it. That is too nice a word for what it does. More, faith is the opposite of logic. It has no axioms, it does not follow any rational progression. Faith is the equivalent of logic's step brother who buries his head in the sand during a fight and says "LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA LA"
And that is why it is so comfortable to so many, because it takes away all the difficult questioning and investigation of what actually happened. We can bury our heads in the sand and pretend that there is no complexity to all of the difficult questions that we ask.
Why do you assume that all faith = blind faith?
Faith of that variety is blind by definition.
I don't believe my faith to be 'blind'. Sure, there are things that I believe in which I cannot prove, but nonetheless, I don't believe in Judaism simply because I am told to. (Something you've suggested numerous times). I suggest you read the book Permission to Believe, which provides an excellent case for G-d's existence.
-
I think we need to make a distinction between 'faith' and 'religious thought', which can at times work independently
I think you mean you can interchange them to manipulate your arguments to suit your foregone conclusion rather than any meaningful inquisition into the truth.
-
Faith can defy
And so, faith does not transcend logic as Chavi puts it. That is too nice a word for what it does. More, faith is the opposite of logic. It has no axioms, it does not follow any rational progression. Faith is the equivalent of logic's step brother who buries his head in the sand during a fight and says "LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA LA"
And that is why it is so comfortable to so many, because it takes away all the difficult questioning and investigation of what actually happened. We can bury our heads in the sand and pretend that there is no complexity to all of the difficult questions that we ask.
Why do you assume that all faith = blind faith?
Faith of that variety is blind by definition.
I don't believe my faith to be 'blind'. Sure, there are things that I believe in which I cannot prove, but nonetheless, I don't believe in Judaism simply because I am told to. (Something you've suggested numerous times). I suggest you read the book Permission to Believe, which provides an excellent case for G-d's existence.
You have been indoctrinated with religion since you could first understand English. So as much as you are unwilling to admit it, you have had very little choice in your religious faith.
Secondly, I am sure that book provides an argument. But it is an argument which is not backed by any solid evidence (hearsay and circumstantial at *best*) and cannot prove god with any shred of conclusivity.
-
Abortion is still a fairly Taboo topic, and because of religions power, Parliament still finds it difficult to legislate on such issues.
Did you ever consider that this may in fact be a good thing? If religion is holding the slipping (or changing) of moral standards in check, that is not a bad thing. And yes, legalising abortion would absolutely represent a slipping in moral standards.
Poor attitude. You reject the obvious mental and physiological concerns in respect to the mothers wellbeing that must be considered when deciding what should be on such an issue.
I'm not saying that there are never cases where abortion should be allowed, but every case must be examined on it's own merits. But the general attitude of 'Well I didn't wear a condom, and I don't really want a baby right now' should not be a legal reason for terminating a foetus.
-
I think we need to make a distinction between 'faith' and 'religious thought', which can at times work independently
I think you mean you can interchange them to manipulate your arguments to suit your foregone conclusion rather than any meaningful inquisition into the truth.
Let faith be the belief in a diety - God, mother nature, the cookie monster
Let religious thought be the accumulation of thousand of years of literature relating to the set of laws and lifestyles that have developed parallel to (and often in consequence to) faith.
Where is the contradiction here?
-
I suggest you read the book Permission to Believe, which provides an excellent case for G-d's existence.
No reliable case can exist for either side. While a scientist can claim that evolution explains life as it is today. A person who believes in religion could simply claim "evolution is the work of god."
-
I think we need to make a distinction between 'faith' and 'religious thought', which can at times work independently
I think you mean you can interchange them to manipulate your arguments to suit your foregone conclusion rather than any meaningful inquisition into the truth.
Let faith be the belief in a diety - God, mother nature, the cookie monster
Let religious thought be the accumulation of thousand of years of literature relating to the set of laws and lifestyles that have developed parallel to (and often in consequence to) faith.
Where is the contradiction here?
They are ultimately the same thing. Religious thought is just another word for religious faith and that which supports it. You have descended this argument into silly semantics, which greatly indicates the fragility of your stance.
-
Secondly, I am sure that book provides an argument. But it is an argument which is not backed by any evidence and cannot prove god with any shred of conclusivity.
The book doesn't claim to provide conclusivity. All it claims to do is present a rational argument for G-d's existence, an argument which even an intellectual would appreciate.
-
Secondly, I am sure that book provides an argument. But it is an argument which is not backed by any evidence and cannot prove god with any shred of conclusivity.
The book doesn't claim to provide conclusivity. All it claims to do is present a rational argument for G-d's existence, an argument which even an intellectual would appreciate.
But a rational argument for god would lead to conclusivity... otherwise it's not a rational argument. Rational arguments end in rational conclusions.
-
It's funny how Yitzi and Chavi have picked one tiny semantic bit of my entire page long argument to grab at, and yet are unwilling to acknowledge the wider implications of my argument to do with the fear of uncertainty. Are neither of you game to have a go?
-
I'm not saying that there are never cases where abortion should be allowed, but every case must be examined on it's own merits. But the general attitude of 'Well I didn't wear a condom, and I don't really want a baby right now' should not be a legal reason for terminating a foetus.
I have a female friend who's pro-choice, and is strictly against abortion for such reasons. As males I suppose our opinions on this topic are not as valid as a females; we lack an obvious understanding. But personally, I don't think that the amount of people who would abuse abortions would outnumber those who genuinely need them.
-
Secondly, I am sure that book provides an argument. But it is an argument which is not backed by any evidence and cannot prove god with any shred of conclusivity.
The book doesn't claim to provide conclusivity. All it claims to do is present a rational argument for G-d's existence, an argument which even an intellectual would appreciate.
But a rational argument for god would lead to conclusivity... otherwise it's not a rational argument. Rational arguments end in rational conclusions.
I don't agree that rational => conclusive. Rational simply means not adopting a head-in-the-sand, 'LA LA LA LA I can't hear you' approach.
-
I don't agree that rational => conclusive. Rational simply means not adopting a head-in-the-sand, 'LA LA LA LA I can't hear you' approach.
I doubt it Yitzi. It sounds as if the author is trying to present a reasoned point of view, and convince you of their stance rather than have you mull over the content and reach your own conclusion. When you want to sway someone to your view of thinking, you have to offer a conclusion.
-
Secondly, I am sure that book provides an argument. But it is an argument which is not backed by any evidence and cannot prove god with any shred of conclusivity.
The book doesn't claim to provide conclusivity. All it claims to do is present a rational argument for G-d's existence, an argument which even an intellectual would appreciate.
But a rational argument for god would lead to conclusivity... otherwise it's not a rational argument. Rational arguments end in rational conclusions.
I don't agree that rational => conclusive. Rational simply means not adopting a head-in-the-sand, 'LA LA LA LA I can't hear you' approach.
A rational argument leads to a rational conclusion... That is a given. 30% of apples have bruises -> the conclusion that only 2 in 3 apples are favourable for picking in your shopping basket etc.
Similarly if genuinely rational arguments were given for god's existence, you would be able to say god exists. If they were rational arguments for god MAYBE existing, then you could draw the conclusion that god MAYBE exists which is what I suspect the book has done.
But to then draw the conclusion that god definitely exists from arguments that god maybe exists is still blind faith
-
I think we need to make a distinction between 'faith' and 'religious thought', which can at times work independently
I think you mean you can interchange them to manipulate your arguments to suit your foregone conclusion rather than any meaningful inquisition into the truth.
Let faith be the belief in a diety - God, mother nature, the cookie monster
Let religious thought be the accumulation of thousand of years of literature relating to the set of laws and lifestyles that have developed parallel to (and often in consequence to) faith.
Where is the contradiction here?
They are ultimately the same thing. Religious thought is just another word for religious faith and that which supports it. You have descended this argument into silly semantics, which greatly indicates the fragility of your stance.
No I have maintained the same stance throughout which has been:
1) Faith is by definition a belief which does not require logic
2) Faith and belief cannot be conclusively proven, hence logically the safest position is the agnostic one, as both sides of the faith debate have the burden of proof.
3) This does not mean that a particular faith is untrue or wrong - or even may explain the fundamental example of our existence. There is simply no proof either way to know that.
4) Religious thought (not theological thought), are the commentaries and laws that comprise it, have dictated cultural traditions, societal norms and laws. These are very much temporal studies and laws, rather than theological ones.
-
It's funny how Yitzi and Chavi have picked one tiny semantic bit of my entire page long argument to grab at, and yet are unwilling to acknowledge the wider implications of my argument to do with the fear of uncertainty. Are neither of you game to have a go?
All right, I'll bite.
Sure, religion provides refuge from uncertainty, and yes, without it there'd be many unable to cope with the questions posed. Clearly you believe that a long time ago, someone said, 'well shit, I haven't a clue why we're here and that scares me. Let's just say that some Being put us here for a purpose, that makes me feel much better'.
Now I agree that's a reasonable-sounding claim to put forward. But why does that have to be the case?
-
I think we need to make a distinction between 'faith' and 'religious thought', which can at times work independently
I think you mean you can interchange them to manipulate your arguments to suit your foregone conclusion rather than any meaningful inquisition into the truth.
Let faith be the belief in a diety - God, mother nature, the cookie monster
Let religious thought be the accumulation of thousand of years of literature relating to the set of laws and lifestyles that have developed parallel to (and often in consequence to) faith.
Where is the contradiction here?
They are ultimately the same thing. Religious thought is just another word for religious faith and that which supports it. You have descended this argument into silly semantics, which greatly indicates the fragility of your stance.
No I have maintained the same stance throughout which has been:
1) Faith is by definition a belief which does not require logic
2) Faith and belief cannot be conclusively proven, hence logically the safest position is the agnostic one, as both sides of the faith debate have the burden of proof.
3) This does not mean that a particular faith is untrue or wrong - or even may explain the fundamental example of our existence. There is simply no proof either way to know that.
4) Religious thought (not theological thought), are the commentaries and laws that comprise it, have dictated cultural traditions, societal norms and laws. These are very much temporal studies and laws, rather than theological ones.
In the absence of knowledge, blind faith only obfuscates.
-
It's funny how Yitzi and Chavi have picked one tiny semantic bit of my entire page long argument to grab at, and yet are unwilling to acknowledge the wider implications of my argument to do with the fear of uncertainty. Are neither of you game to have a go?
All right, I'll bite.
Sure, religion provides refuge from uncertainty, and yes, without it there'd be many unable to cope with the questions posed. Clearly you believe that a long time ago, someone said, 'well shit, I haven't a clue why we're here and that scares me. Let's just say that some Being put us here for a purpose, that makes me feel much better'.
Now I agree that's a reasonable-sounding claim to put forward. But why does that have to be the case?
I never said it was the case. I said it was the most reasonable sounding of the bunch.
-
Here's my go:
I am comfortable with not knowing. I am agnostic because I do not feel the compulsion to guess the answer. And I hope that one day, as human beings, we may all be comfortable with uncertainty. Because fear of uncertainty, that is at the root of all the evils in this world. Why do people become so defensive of religious beliefs? It is because once the safety blanket is removed, your entire worldview comes crashing down and with it, comes back your crushing fear of uncertainty.
And you can trace fear of uncertainty to every other problem that we face in this vein. Will the Muslims take over our country and convert us all to Sharia? We don't know, but let's fear them and hate them anyway! Rinse and repeat for any other problem you can think of.
I think that for humanity to progress forward, we must inevitably shed faith - a process which rewards ignorance, and close-mindedness. It's interesting that you all say that shedding religion will not solve our problems. I agree 100%. I believe that shedding our fear of uncertainty will ultimately be the solution to our problems. That is not to say that ridding ourselves of uncertainty is the solution - for that could well be impossible. But the fear of uncertainty, that is what weighs us down.
Uncertainty is nothing to fear. It is something to master with Scientific process and logic. Maybe there is a god. Maybe we are all alone. Maybe we're one of many millions of races throughout the universe. I am excited by the scientific chase of these answers, not by fanciful guesses.
Well Freud, short of conducting a psycho-analysis on 3 billion faithful, I have to say that I don't believe that religious people are motivated into faith by uncertainty.
Like was mentioned earlier, religious people are either
1) born into a religion
2) adopt the religion as their own
In case 1), uncertainty will almost certainly lead one into seeking an alternative belief or faith, i.e. case 2). Once someone is content with their faith (be it blind or rational to them), then they are not uncertain on any terms. If you choose your faith with certainty and with belief that this is the correct path for you (case 2), what do you have to fear? This is where your entire argument breaks down.
-
It's funny how Yitzi and Chavi have picked one tiny semantic bit of my entire page long argument to grab at, and yet are unwilling to acknowledge the wider implications of my argument to do with the fear of uncertainty. Are neither of you game to have a go?
All right, I'll bite.
Sure, religion provides refuge from uncertainty, and yes, without it there'd be many unable to cope with the questions posed. Clearly you believe that a long time ago, someone said, 'well shit, I haven't a clue why we're here and that scares me. Let's just say that some Being put us here for a purpose, that makes me feel much better'.
Now I agree that's a reasonable-sounding claim to put forward. But why does that have to be the case?
I never said it was the case. I said it was the most reasonable sounding of the bunch.
I'm not going to argue with that point. But it doesn't make you right and me wrong. Have you never watched a murder mystery? The most obvious answer is never the correct one :P
Edit: 770 posts yay
-
How many people on here believe in an afterlife?
-
I think we need to make a distinction between 'faith' and 'religious thought', which can at times work independently
I think you mean you can interchange them to manipulate your arguments to suit your foregone conclusion rather than any meaningful inquisition into the truth.
Let faith be the belief in a diety - God, mother nature, the cookie monster
Let religious thought be the accumulation of thousand of years of literature relating to the set of laws and lifestyles that have developed parallel to (and often in consequence to) faith.
Where is the contradiction here?
They are ultimately the same thing. Religious thought is just another word for religious faith and that which supports it. You have descended this argument into silly semantics, which greatly indicates the fragility of your stance.
No I have maintained the same stance throughout which has been:
1) Faith is by definition a belief which does not require logic
2) Faith and belief cannot be conclusively proven, hence logically the safest position is the agnostic one, as both sides of the faith debate have the burden of proof.
3) This does not mean that a particular faith is untrue or wrong - or even may explain the fundamental example of our existence. There is simply no proof either way to know that.
4) Religious thought (not theological thought), are the commentaries and laws that comprise it, have dictated cultural traditions, societal norms and laws. These are very much temporal studies and laws, rather than theological ones.
In the absence of knowledge, blind faith only obfuscates.
But religious thought provides the academic rigours of knowledge that enable a faith to be rationally perceived by its adherents (i.e. when blind faith becomes a solid understanding from a religious perspective). The act of faith in itself is still a belief, yes - but once a believer has the foundation of belief, the entire cultural lifestyle is then built on from that.
-
How many people on here believe in an afterlife?
I do
-
It's funny how Yitzi and Chavi have picked one tiny semantic bit of my entire page long argument to grab at, and yet are unwilling to acknowledge the wider implications of my argument to do with the fear of uncertainty. Are neither of you game to have a go?
All right, I'll bite.
Sure, religion provides refuge from uncertainty, and yes, without it there'd be many unable to cope with the questions posed. Clearly you believe that a long time ago, someone said, 'well shit, I haven't a clue why we're here and that scares me. Let's just say that some Being put us here for a purpose, that makes me feel much better'.
Now I agree that's a reasonable-sounding claim to put forward. But why does that have to be the case?
I never said it was the case. I said it was the most reasonable sounding of the bunch.
I'm not going to argue with that point. But it doesn't make you right and me wrong. Have you never watched a murder mystery? The most obvious answer is never the correct one :P
Edit: 770 posts yay
You have misunderstood what I am about. I do not know if god exists or not. If you are 'wrong' or not. I have never laboured under the pretensions that I have a belief, or that it is correct. My hope is that we can find the answer. But I do not for a second believe that I have the answer, and will not accept an answer without conclusive proof.
What I do know to be true is that human nature is not helped by fear of uncertainty, which manifests itself in one form as blind faith.
-
But I ... will not accept an answer without conclusive proof.
Well fair enough, this is where you and I differ. G-d requires of us that we take a leap of faith, and I'm prepared to do so and you're not.
In all seriousness, I think your problem is that you have too many questions and not enough answers. No doubt you've read the Bible, and, being an intelligent person, you must have had hundereds if not thousands of questions. What you have to understand is that every single one of those questions has been asked, and answered. And I believe that you are doing your intellectual self a huge disservice by not trying to find those answers. As someone who is a great believer in progress, I'm sure you'll appreciate that progress is achieved by trying to find the answers to questions, not by being content with the question itself.
-
[What I do know to be true is that human nature is not helped by fear of uncertainty, which manifests itself in one form as blind faith.
Uncertainty is an agnostic position, not so much a religious one. On the fear factor, uncertainty in religion probably rates a 2.5. There are multiple reasons for blind faith - the most common one is that people fail to question their surroundings and come to accept a dogma. This is not the byproduct of uncertainty, but rather that of nonchalance, or zealousness.
-
But I ... will not accept an answer without conclusive proof.
Well fair enough, this is where you and I differ. G-d requires of us that we take a leap of faith, and I'm prepared to do so and you're not.
In all seriousness, I think your problem is that you have too many questions and not enough answers. No doubt you've read the Bible, and, being an intelligent person, you must have had hundereds if not thousands of questions. What you have to understand is that every single one of those questions has been asked, and answered. And I believe that you are doing your intellectual self a huge disservice by not trying to find those answers. As someone who is a great believer in progress, I'm sure you'll appreciate that progress is achieved by trying to find the answers to questions, not by being content with the question itself.
But they're not answers. They're guesses. I'm interested in answers, not guesswork.
-
[What I do know to be true is that human nature is not helped by fear of uncertainty, which manifests itself in one form as blind faith.
Uncertainty is an agnostic position, not so much a religious one. On the fear factor, uncertainty in religion probably rates a 2.5. There are multiple reasons for blind faith - the most common one is that people fail to question their surroundings and come to accept a dogma. This is not the byproduct of uncertainty, but rather that of nonchalance, or zealousness.
Most people are too troubled by uncertainty to question it, and therefore opt for the easy answer which is 'god did it'. And then, at the root of zealousness is also fear of uncertainty, so it all ties together into a big ball of fail that inevitably helps individual people in the short term, but hinders humanity in the long term.
-
But I ... will not accept an answer without conclusive proof.
Well fair enough, this is where you and I differ. G-d requires of us that we take a leap of faith, and I'm prepared to do so and you're not.
In all seriousness, I think your problem is that you have too many questions and not enough answers. No doubt you've read the Bible, and, being an intelligent person, you must have had hundereds if not thousands of questions. What you have to understand is that every single one of those questions has been asked, and answered. And I believe that you are doing your intellectual self a huge disservice by not trying to find those answers. As someone who is a great believer in progress, I'm sure you'll appreciate that progress is achieved by trying to find the answers to questions, not by being content with the question itself.
But they're not answers. They're guesses. I'm interested in answers, not guesswork.
The you resign yourself to the agnostic position for life. . .
-
I hope this thread isn't locked, but maybe it could be split from about the middle of page 4 onwards, where the debate shifted from ethics to epistemology?
-
Well fair enough, this is where you and I differ. G-d requires of us that we take a leap of faith, and I'm prepared to do so and you're not.
This statement brought to mind a scene from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade where Indiana has to take a leap of faith to cross the chasm into the grail room, and then it is revealed that there is a walkway beneath Indiana's feet. Sort of like the whole "does God exist?" debate- while a 'leap of faith' is required, it appears there is a logical explanation behind God's miracles.
(haha, I sort of butchered my point. Sounded better inside my head :P)
-
[What I do know to be true is that human nature is not helped by fear of uncertainty, which manifests itself in one form as blind faith.
Uncertainty is an agnostic position, not so much a religious one. On the fear factor, uncertainty in religion probably rates a 2.5. There are multiple reasons for blind faith - the most common one is that people fail to question their surroundings and come to accept a dogma. This is not the byproduct of uncertainty, but rather that of nonchalance, or zealousness.
And at the root of zealousness is the fear of uncertainty.
Sit a zealot down with a lie detector, sedate him with enough to keep him still for a few hours, and then ask him: "Do you want to kill people and propagate your beliefs because you are afraid?"
*tears welling up*
"Yes"
"Of what?"
"Uncertainty". Such a comical situation would not occur,
Clearly this is not what motivates zealots - but in a quest to develop a model for their root motivation, you have presented a personal psychoanalysis that you have logically deduced as the perfect explanation (see, one man's logic is another man's faith). It's quite the opposite - absolute certainty in the correctness of their position.
-
But I ... will not accept an answer without conclusive proof.
Well fair enough, this is where you and I differ. G-d requires of us that we take a leap of faith, and I'm prepared to do so and you're not.
In all seriousness, I think your problem is that you have too many questions and not enough answers. No doubt you've read the Bible, and, being an intelligent person, you must have had hundereds if not thousands of questions. What you have to understand is that every single one of those questions has been asked, and answered. And I believe that you are doing your intellectual self a huge disservice by not trying to find those answers. As someone who is a great believer in progress, I'm sure you'll appreciate that progress is achieved by trying to find the answers to questions, not by being content with the question itself.
But they're not answers. They're guesses. I'm interested in answers, not guesswork.
The you resign yourself to the agnostic position for life. . .
False assumption. I am not agnostic about 1+1=2. This I know to be true. If it could be proven to me either way whether or not god exists, then I would accept it. I probably will remain agnostic for life though, you are correct. I really hope we can find the answer in my lifetime. That would be incredibly exciting, but I'm not going to be lazy and guess it because I have this great need for an answer of any kind, true or not...
-
[What I do know to be true is that human nature is not helped by fear of uncertainty, which manifests itself in one form as blind faith.
Uncertainty is an agnostic position, not so much a religious one. On the fear factor, uncertainty in religion probably rates a 2.5. There are multiple reasons for blind faith - the most common one is that people fail to question their surroundings and come to accept a dogma. This is not the byproduct of uncertainty, but rather that of nonchalance, or zealousness.
And at the root of zealousness is the fear of uncertainty.
Sit a zealot down with a lie detector, sedate him with enough to keep him still for a few hours, and then ask him: "Do you want to kill people and propagate your beliefs because of are afraid?"
*tears welling up*
"Yes"
"Of what"
"Uncertainty".
This is to what motivates zealots. It's quite the opposite - absolute certainty in the correctness of their position.
Precisely, and trying to move him from the certainty of his position frightens him. He has found that elusive certainty and is clinging to it. Threats to his dogma must be expunged, because if the threat comes to fruition, it means the shattering of his entire worldview and everything he holds dear. It is this fear that drives him to commit the murders.
-
[What I do know to be true is that human nature is not helped by fear of uncertainty, which manifests itself in one form as blind faith.
Uncertainty is an agnostic position, not so much a religious one. On the fear factor, uncertainty in religion probably rates a 2.5. There are multiple reasons for blind faith - the most common one is that people fail to question their surroundings and come to accept a dogma. This is not the byproduct of uncertainty, but rather that of nonchalance, or zealousness.
And at the root of zealousness is the fear of uncertainty.
Sit a zealot down with a lie detector, sedate him with enough to keep him still for a few hours, and then ask him: "Do you want to kill people and propagate your beliefs because of are afraid?"
*tears welling up*
"Yes"
"Of what"
"Uncertainty".
This is to what motivates zealots. It's quite the opposite - absolute certainty in the correctness of their position.
Precisely, and trying to move him from the certainty of his position frightens him. It means shattering his entire worldview and everything he holds dear. It is this fear that he may be wrong, that his certainty was all for nought that drives him to commit the murders.
And then, as I stated in my previous post, he moves on to position 2). This is why the whole fear of uncertainty argument sounds like baloney.
-
[What I do know to be true is that human nature is not helped by fear of uncertainty, which manifests itself in one form as blind faith.
Uncertainty is an agnostic position, not so much a religious one. On the fear factor, uncertainty in religion probably rates a 2.5. There are multiple reasons for blind faith - the most common one is that people fail to question their surroundings and come to accept a dogma. This is not the byproduct of uncertainty, but rather that of nonchalance, or zealousness.
And at the root of zealousness is the fear of uncertainty.
Sit a zealot down with a lie detector, sedate him with enough to keep him still for a few hours, and then ask him: "Do you want to kill people and propagate your beliefs because of are afraid?"
*tears welling up*
"Yes"
"Of what"
"Uncertainty".
This is to what motivates zealots. It's quite the opposite - absolute certainty in the correctness of their position.
Precisely, and trying to move him from the certainty of his position frightens him. It means shattering his entire worldview and everything he holds dear. It is this fear that he may be wrong, that his certainty was all for nought that drives him to commit the murders.
And then, as I stated in my previous post, he moves on to position 2). This is why the whole fear of uncertainty argument sounds like baloney.
Remind me what was position 2?
-
Position 1 + 2 on the argument of uncertainty:
Here's my go:
I am comfortable with not knowing. I am agnostic because I do not feel the compulsion to guess the answer. And I hope that one day, as human beings, we may all be comfortable with uncertainty. Because fear of uncertainty, that is at the root of all the evils in this world. Why do people become so defensive of religious beliefs? It is because once the safety blanket is removed, your entire worldview comes crashing down and with it, comes back your crushing fear of uncertainty.
And you can trace fear of uncertainty to every other problem that we face in this vein. Will the Muslims take over our country and convert us all to Sharia? We don't know, but let's fear them and hate them anyway! Rinse and repeat for any other problem you can think of.
I think that for humanity to progress forward, we must inevitably shed faith - a process which rewards ignorance, and close-mindedness. It's interesting that you all say that shedding religion will not solve our problems. I agree 100%. I believe that shedding our fear of uncertainty will ultimately be the solution to our problems. That is not to say that ridding ourselves of uncertainty is the solution - for that could well be impossible. But the fear of uncertainty, that is what weighs us down.
Uncertainty is nothing to fear. It is something to master with Scientific process and logic. Maybe there is a god. Maybe we are all alone. Maybe we're one of many millions of races throughout the universe. I am excited by the scientific chase of these answers, not by fanciful guesses.
Well Freud, short of conducting a psycho-analysis on 3 billion faithful, I have to say that I don't believe that religious people are motivated into faith by uncertainty.
Like was mentioned earlier, religious people are either
1) born into a religion
2) adopt the religion as their own
In case 1), uncertainty will almost certainly lead one into seeking an alternative belief or faith, i.e. case 2). Once someone is content with their faith (be it blind or rational to them), then they are not uncertain on any terms. If you choose your faith with certainty and with belief that this is the correct path for you (case 2), what do you have to fear? This is where your entire argument breaks down.
-
But I ... will not accept an answer without conclusive proof.
Well fair enough, this is where you and I differ. G-d requires of us that we take a leap of faith, and I'm prepared to do so and you're not.
In all seriousness, I think your problem is that you have too many questions and not enough answers. No doubt you've read the Bible, and, being an intelligent person, you must have had hundereds if not thousands of questions. What you have to understand is that every single one of those questions has been asked, and answered. And I believe that you are doing your intellectual self a huge disservice by not trying to find those answers. As someone who is a great believer in progress, I'm sure you'll appreciate that progress is achieved by trying to find the answers to questions, not by being content with the question itself.
But they're not answers. They're guesses. I'm interested in answers, not guesswork.
The you resign yourself to the agnostic position for life. . .
False assumption. I am not agnostic about 1+1=2. This I know to be true. If it could be proven to me either way whether or not god exists, then I would accept it. I probably will remain agnostic for life though, you are correct. I really hope we can find the answer in my lifetime. That would be incredibly exciting, but I'm not going to be lazy and guess it because I have this great need for an answer of any kind, true or not...
Well we're all going to find out tomorrow.
"I believe with a complete belief, in the coming of the Messiah. And even though he tarries, nevertheless I await him every day that he should come"
- Maimonides' Principles of Faith #12
-
Position 1 + 2 on the argument of uncertainty:
Here's my go:
I am comfortable with not knowing. I am agnostic because I do not feel the compulsion to guess the answer. And I hope that one day, as human beings, we may all be comfortable with uncertainty. Because fear of uncertainty, that is at the root of all the evils in this world. Why do people become so defensive of religious beliefs? It is because once the safety blanket is removed, your entire worldview comes crashing down and with it, comes back your crushing fear of uncertainty.
And you can trace fear of uncertainty to every other problem that we face in this vein. Will the Muslims take over our country and convert us all to Sharia? We don't know, but let's fear them and hate them anyway! Rinse and repeat for any other problem you can think of.
I think that for humanity to progress forward, we must inevitably shed faith - a process which rewards ignorance, and close-mindedness. It's interesting that you all say that shedding religion will not solve our problems. I agree 100%. I believe that shedding our fear of uncertainty will ultimately be the solution to our problems. That is not to say that ridding ourselves of uncertainty is the solution - for that could well be impossible. But the fear of uncertainty, that is what weighs us down.
Uncertainty is nothing to fear. It is something to master with Scientific process and logic. Maybe there is a god. Maybe we are all alone. Maybe we're one of many millions of races throughout the universe. I am excited by the scientific chase of these answers, not by fanciful guesses.
Well Freud, short of conducting a psycho-analysis on 3 billion faithful, I have to say that I don't believe that religious people are motivated into faith by uncertainty.
Like was mentioned earlier, religious people are either
1) born into a religion
2) adopt the religion as their own
In case 1), uncertainty will almost certainly lead one into seeking an alternative belief or faith, i.e. case 2). Once someone is content with their faith (be it blind or rational to them), then they are not uncertain on any terms. If you choose your faith with certainty and with belief that this is the correct path for you (case 2), what do you have to fear? This is where your entire argument breaks down.
But they're not thinking rationally. If you've been brainwashed into "this is correct, believe it or god will smite you", then people trying to change your beliefs are your sworn enemy and you must kill them or you may die... Once more, fear of uncertainty etc.
And on and on the cycle goes. And answer me this, if it's not this fear of uncertainty, then why do people kill in the name of religion?
-
[What I do know to be true is that human nature is not helped by fear of uncertainty, which manifests itself in one form as blind faith.
Uncertainty is an agnostic position, not so much a religious one. On the fear factor, uncertainty in religion probably rates a 2.5. There are multiple reasons for blind faith - the most common one is that people fail to question their surroundings and come to accept a dogma. This is not the byproduct of uncertainty, but rather that of nonchalance, or zealousness.
And at the root of zealousness is the fear of uncertainty.
Sit a zealot down with a lie detector, sedate him with enough to keep him still for a few hours, and then ask him: "Do you want to kill people and propagate your beliefs because of are afraid?"
*tears welling up*
"Yes"
"Of what"
"Uncertainty".
This is to what motivates zealots. It's quite the opposite - absolute certainty in the correctness of their position.
Precisely, and trying to move him from the certainty of his position frightens him. He has found that elusive certainty and is clinging to it. Threats to his dogma must be expunged, because if the threat comes to fruition, it means the shattering of his entire worldview and everything he holds dear. It is this fear that drives him to commit the murders.
Left wing ideology: The murder is a victim of society. Cruel society causes him to commit murders
Your position: Zealots are victims of fear and uncertainty. It is this fear that drives him to commit the murders.
Blame it on the "X" is a real cop out. A Zealot is motivated by a inherent belief that he is correct/supreme/immortal and he will achieve an afterlife/the epitome of martyrdom.
How many times can I go on repeating: your model does not work, because uncertainty will almost certainly lead one to question his/her beliefs and to seek new ones to satisfy the need for faith.
-
Position 1 + 2 on the argument of uncertainty:
Here's my go:
I am comfortable with not knowing. I am agnostic because I do not feel the compulsion to guess the answer. And I hope that one day, as human beings, we may all be comfortable with uncertainty. Because fear of uncertainty, that is at the root of all the evils in this world. Why do people become so defensive of religious beliefs? It is because once the safety blanket is removed, your entire worldview comes crashing down and with it, comes back your crushing fear of uncertainty.
And you can trace fear of uncertainty to every other problem that we face in this vein. Will the Muslims take over our country and convert us all to Sharia? We don't know, but let's fear them and hate them anyway! Rinse and repeat for any other problem you can think of.
I think that for humanity to progress forward, we must inevitably shed faith - a process which rewards ignorance, and close-mindedness. It's interesting that you all say that shedding religion will not solve our problems. I agree 100%. I believe that shedding our fear of uncertainty will ultimately be the solution to our problems. That is not to say that ridding ourselves of uncertainty is the solution - for that could well be impossible. But the fear of uncertainty, that is what weighs us down.
Uncertainty is nothing to fear. It is something to master with Scientific process and logic. Maybe there is a god. Maybe we are all alone. Maybe we're one of many millions of races throughout the universe. I am excited by the scientific chase of these answers, not by fanciful guesses.
Well Freud, short of conducting a psycho-analysis on 3 billion faithful, I have to say that I don't believe that religious people are motivated into faith by uncertainty.
Like was mentioned earlier, religious people are either
1) born into a religion
2) adopt the religion as their own
In case 1), uncertainty will almost certainly lead one into seeking an alternative belief or faith, i.e. case 2). Once someone is content with their faith (be it blind or rational to them), then they are not uncertain on any terms. If you choose your faith with certainty and with belief that this is the correct path for you (case 2), what do you have to fear? This is where your entire argument breaks down.
But they're not thinking rationally. If you've been brainwashed into "this is correct, believe it or god will smite you", then people trying to change your beliefs are your sworn enemy and you must kill them or you may die... Once more, fear of uncertainty etc.
Or alternatively: "this is correct, believe it or god will smite you",
"okay, i'll discover that for myself"
"Do I believe that?" Yes (proceed to step 1). No (proceed to step 2)
1. Continue as you are
2. Time to find new beliefs that fit your worldview.
And on and on the cycle goes. And answer me this, if it's not this fear of uncertainty, then why do people kill in the name of religion?
Lust for power, belief in martyrdom and/or afterlife, land, women, money, nationalism (in the ME at least for now) and much, much more
-
[What I do know to be true is that human nature is not helped by fear of uncertainty, which manifests itself in one form as blind faith.
Uncertainty is an agnostic position, not so much a religious one. On the fear factor, uncertainty in religion probably rates a 2.5. There are multiple reasons for blind faith - the most common one is that people fail to question their surroundings and come to accept a dogma. This is not the byproduct of uncertainty, but rather that of nonchalance, or zealousness.
And at the root of zealousness is the fear of uncertainty.
Sit a zealot down with a lie detector, sedate him with enough to keep him still for a few hours, and then ask him: "Do you want to kill people and propagate your beliefs because of are afraid?"
*tears welling up*
"Yes"
"Of what"
"Uncertainty".
This is to what motivates zealots. It's quite the opposite - absolute certainty in the correctness of their position.
Precisely, and trying to move him from the certainty of his position frightens him. He has found that elusive certainty and is clinging to it. Threats to his dogma must be expunged, because if the threat comes to fruition, it means the shattering of his entire worldview and everything he holds dear. It is this fear that drives him to commit the murders.
Left wing ideology: The murder is a victim of society. Cruel society causes him to commit murders
Your position: Zealots are victims of fear and uncertainty. It is this fear that drives him to commit the murders.
Blame it on the "X" is a real cop out. A Zealot is motivated by a inherent belief that he is correct/supreme/immortal in the afterlife/the epitome of martyrdom.
How many times can I go on repeating: your model does not work, because uncertainty will almost certainly lead one to question his/her beliefs and to seek new ones to satisfy the need for faith.
Understanding the motives of a killer does not exonerate him. Your use of labels and hyperbole belies your own ignorance. The wrong reaction to uncertainty is violence. Just because he cannot deal with it does not give him the right to kill, and I never said the converse to be true in any way.
And you can repeat it however many times you like, but the weight of evidence from history lies on my side. If not for fear of uncertainty, and to expunge threats to the validity (certainty) of one's own religion, why then does one kill in the name of his religion?
-
Lust for power, belief in martyrdom and/or afterlife, land, women, money, nationalism (in the ME at least for now) and much, much more
Lust for power is only enjoyed by the puppetmasters pulling the strings. And lust for power again stems from fear of uncertainty. What we cannot control, we have historically tended to fear. Power means control -> certainty.
But what of the serfs sacrificing their lives?
Martyrdom is couched in their certain belief that if they die, they will be taken care of in the afterlife because they have protected the validity of their religious beliefs...
-
[What I do know to be true is that human nature is not helped by fear of uncertainty, which manifests itself in one form as blind faith.
Uncertainty is an agnostic position, not so much a religious one. On the fear factor, uncertainty in religion probably rates a 2.5. There are multiple reasons for blind faith - the most common one is that people fail to question their surroundings and come to accept a dogma. This is not the byproduct of uncertainty, but rather that of nonchalance, or zealousness.
And at the root of zealousness is the fear of uncertainty.
Sit a zealot down with a lie detector, sedate him with enough to keep him still for a few hours, and then ask him: "Do you want to kill people and propagate your beliefs because of are afraid?"
*tears welling up*
"Yes"
"Of what"
"Uncertainty".
This is to what motivates zealots. It's quite the opposite - absolute certainty in the correctness of their position.
Precisely, and trying to move him from the certainty of his position frightens him. He has found that elusive certainty and is clinging to it. Threats to his dogma must be expunged, because if the threat comes to fruition, it means the shattering of his entire worldview and everything he holds dear. It is this fear that drives him to commit the murders.
Left wing ideology: The murder is a victim of society. Cruel society causes him to commit murders
Your position: Zealots are victims of fear and uncertainty. It is this fear that drives him to commit the murders.
Blame it on the "X" is a real cop out. A Zealot is motivated by a inherent belief that he is correct/supreme/immortal in the afterlife/the epitome of martyrdom.
How many times can I go on repeating: your model does not work, because uncertainty will almost certainly lead one to question his/her beliefs and to seek new ones to satisfy the need for faith.
Understanding the motives of a killer does not exonerate him. Your use of labels and hyperbole belies your own ignorance. The wrong reaction to uncertainty is violence. Just because he cannot deal with it does not give him the right to kill, and I never said the converse to be true in any way.
And you can repeat it however many times you like, but the weight of evidence from history lies on my side. If not for fear of uncertainty, and to expunge threats to the validity (certainty) of one's own religion, why then does one kill in the name of his religion?
This has nothing to do with history lying on anyone's 'side'. The entire 'uncertainty' theory is simply a model that you have presented which you now attempt to accommodate to societal examples.
Protip: Just like with faith, you can't be sure that your model is absolutely 100% correct and applies in every case all of the time. You might be taking the religious stance in this regard of 'blind faith'. Your model may contain merits, and it may contain flaws. So, count me out of this one. I'll be taking the agnostic train home 2night, Freud.
-
This has nothing to do with history lying on anyone's 'side'. The entire 'uncertainty' theory is simply a model that you have presented which you now attempt to accommodate to societal examples.
Protip: Just like with faith, you can't be sure that your model is absolutely 100% correct and applies in every case all of the time. You might be taking the religious stance in this regard of 'blind faith'. Your model may contain merits, and it may contain flaws. So, count me out of this one. I'll be taking the agnostic train home 2night, Freud.
This has everything to do with history lying to one side or the other. This is an analysis of why blind faith is a hindrance to society. Examples, historical evidence, that is the majority of what can be used to debate the issue.
The other crux of the argument is analysing a root cause. And so far, fear of uncertainty appears to be the root cause of all of it. I believe I had provided a very rational argument as to why, to which you have grasped at straws and offered little of value in return.
I asked you why, if not for fear of uncertainty, people killed in the name of religion? You offered up your reasons and then I logically linked them back to fear of uncertainty. So now tell me why this line of argument is logically wrong other than a vague "it has merits but it has flaws" because that sir, is a copout of epic proportions.
-
This has nothing to do with history lying on anyone's 'side'. The entire 'uncertainty' theory is simply a model that you have presented which you now attempt to accommodate to societal examples.
Protip: Just like with faith, you can't be sure that your model is absolutely 100% correct and applies in every case all of the time. You might be taking the religious stance in this regard of 'blind faith'. Your model may contain merits, and it may contain flaws. So, count me out of this one. I'll be taking the agnostic train home 2night, Freud.
This has everything to do with history lying to one side or the other. This is an analysis of why blind faith is a hindrance to society. Examples, historical evidence, that is the majority of what can be used to debate the issue.
The other crux of the argument is analysing a root cause. And so far, fear of uncertainty appears to be the root cause of all of it. I believe I had provided a very rational argument as to why, to which you have grasped at straws and offered little of value in return.
I asked you why, if not fear of uncertainty people killed in the name of religion? You offered up your reasons and then I logically linked them back to fear of uncertainty. So now tell me why this line of argument is logically wrong other than a vague "it has merits but it has flaws" because that sir, is a copout of epic proportions.
Because all the 'evidence' that you have presented is purely empirical. Remember 'Female Hysteria' back in the 19th century? It was - like your model - just a theory. Widely accepted, backed up by scientific evidence, and of course, logical, only to be later disproven regarded as a sham.
And I don't think this model brings anything new to the debate.
We have already settled on the fact that:
Belief does not require logic. 'Taking a leap of faith' - can provide certainty (and uncertainty), but at it's core, it remains just that - faith.
Monotheists have faith in one God. Atheists have faith in none. Agnostics lack any faith either way until proof is provided. By definition, Agnostics are the only uncertain group from those three.
-
This has nothing to do with history lying on anyone's 'side'. The entire 'uncertainty' theory is simply a model that you have presented which you now attempt to accommodate to societal examples.
Protip: Just like with faith, you can't be sure that your model is absolutely 100% correct and applies in every case all of the time. You might be taking the religious stance in this regard of 'blind faith'. Your model may contain merits, and it may contain flaws. So, count me out of this one. I'll be taking the agnostic train home 2night, Freud.
This has everything to do with history lying to one side or the other. This is an analysis of why blind faith is a hindrance to society. Examples, historical evidence, that is the majority of what can be used to debate the issue.
The other crux of the argument is analysing a root cause. And so far, fear of uncertainty appears to be the root cause of all of it. I believe I had provided a very rational argument as to why, to which you have grasped at straws and offered little of value in return.
I asked you why, if not fear of uncertainty people killed in the name of religion? You offered up your reasons and then I logically linked them back to fear of uncertainty. So now tell me why this line of argument is logically wrong other than a vague "it has merits but it has flaws" because that sir, is a copout of epic proportions.
Because all the 'evidence' that you have presented is purely empirical. Remember 'Female Hysteria' back in the 19th century? It was - like your model - just a theory. Widely accepted, backed up by scientific evidence, and of course, logical, only to be later disproven regarded as a sham.
And I don't think this model brings anything new to the debate.
We have already settled on the fact that:
Belief does not require logic. 'Taking a leap of faith' - can provide certainty (and uncertainty), but at it's core, it remains just that - faith.
Monotheists have faith in one God. Atheists have faith in none. Agnostics lack any faith either way until proof is provided. By definition, Agnostics are the only uncertain group from those three.
Agnostics are the only ones comfortable with uncertainty. And you're still yet to provide a reason for why people kill in the name of religion, if not for fear of uncertainty. I honestly do not think you could provide a single one.
-
This has nothing to do with history lying on anyone's 'side'. The entire 'uncertainty' theory is simply a model that you have presented which you now attempt to accommodate to societal examples.
Protip: Just like with faith, you can't be sure that your model is absolutely 100% correct and applies in every case all of the time. You might be taking the religious stance in this regard of 'blind faith'. Your model may contain merits, and it may contain flaws. So, count me out of this one. I'll be taking the agnostic train home 2night, Freud.
This has everything to do with history lying to one side or the other. This is an analysis of why blind faith is a hindrance to society. Examples, historical evidence, that is the majority of what can be used to debate the issue.
The other crux of the argument is analysing a root cause. And so far, fear of uncertainty appears to be the root cause of all of it. I believe I had provided a very rational argument as to why, to which you have grasped at straws and offered little of value in return.
I asked you why, if not fear of uncertainty people killed in the name of religion? You offered up your reasons and then I logically linked them back to fear of uncertainty. So now tell me why this line of argument is logically wrong other than a vague "it has merits but it has flaws" because that sir, is a copout of epic proportions.
Because all the 'evidence' that you have presented is purely empirical. Remember 'Female Hysteria' back in the 19th century? It was - like your model - just a theory. Widely accepted, backed up by scientific evidence, and of course, logical, only to be later disproven regarded as a sham.
And I don't think this model brings anything new to the debate.
We have already settled on the fact that:
Belief does not require logic. 'Taking a leap of faith' - can provide certainty (and uncertainty), but at it's core, it remains just that - faith.
Monotheists have faith in one God. Atheists have faith in none. Agnostics lack any faith either way until proof is provided. By definition, Agnostics are the only uncertain group from those three.
Agnostics are the only ones comfortable with uncertainty. And you're still yet to provide a reason for why people kill in the name of religion, if not for fear of uncertainty. I honestly do not think you could provide a single one.
I provided multiple examples, which you impatiently brushed aside with your 'all-superseding theory'. Regardless of how many example I may provide (and there are heaps), you will most probably link it back somehow to 'uncertainty'. So I've focused instead in breaking apart the logic behind the theory to expose it for what it is - just an model; an observation that you believe to be true, but may or may not hold up in the fact of erudition.
-
I provided multiple examples, which you impatiently brushed aside with your 'all-superseding theory'. Regardless of how many example I may provide (and there are heaps), you will most probably link it back somehow to 'uncertainty'. So I've focused instead in breaking apart the logic behind the theory to expose it for what it is - just an model; an observation that you believe to be true, but may or may not hold up in the fact of erudition.
But you haven't done that. You haven't even rebutted my logical linking of your reasons back to 'my theory' (which, by the way, is not my theory as I explicitly stated in the first post).
You haven't even broken anything apart at the theory level. All you've said is "IT'S NOT TRUE" and vague things like "it has merits but it has flaws" but at no point have you actually provided logical argument as to why it is false.
-
I did not come up with this rationale, but out of all the possible explanations for religion and god that I have read, this appears to me to be the most logical of all of them. It was, more than likely, an anthropological construct to provide the crutch to a fearful people.
This is your theory in a nutshell. Merely one attempt to explain why people believe. When there are in fact multiple reasons. Referring back to the religious debate - you have yet to provide proof (i.e. scientific evidence), like a non-edited picture, a mathematical sequence or an irrefutable statement that backs up these claims. That's why my position vis a vis this theory remains (ironically) uncertain, unsure, and agnostic.
-
I did not come up with this rationale, but out of all the possible explanations for religion and god that I have read, this appears to me to be the most logical of all of them. It was, more than likely, an anthropological construct to provide the crutch to a fearful people.
This is your theory in a nutshell. Merely one attempt to explain why people believe. When there are in fact multiple reasons. Referring back to the religious debate - you have yet to provide proof (i.e. scientific evidence), like a non-edited picture, a mathematical sequence or an irrefutable statement that backs up these claims. That's why my position vis a vis this theory remains (ironically) uncertain, unsure, and agnostic.
I presented two theories. That one I explicitly stated to Yitzi that I was not sure of.
It was the secondary one that we use religion as a crutch for uncertainty that I am quite sure of (but would be more than happily be proven wrong, were I actually wrong and you could prove it).
And I made my argument about fear of uncertainty from logic, a logic that you are yet to refute. I refer you back to my original post for the full argument for why the fear of uncertainty argument works.
-
You know you're right though... It goes one layer deeper than fear of uncertainty... and that is self-preservation. We want to minimise risk and danger. And these risks and dangers are minimised when we are certain of our surroundings and ourselves. To us, risk and danger go hand in hand with the unknown (why are we so afraid of the dark? it's instinctive that we do not know what lurks in wait behind a darkened corner).
So ultimately, you can trace fear of uncertainty to the absolute base biological instinct of self-preservation... but the way to override it is to present the argument that fear of the unknown in fact results in a greater risk and danger to us as a species, and that appeals to our self-preservation on an even greater scale. That instead of not going near the dark places and letting an evil bad person lie there in wait for opportunity, to shine a light on them and find out what's really going on.
And that is why we can choose to be agnostic, because it is logical and rational to minimise the risk posed to our self-preservation.
-
Faith can defy
I think these three words ultimately illustrate both the blessing and the fatal curse of religious belief. For those people for whom uncertainty is too scary, religion brings order out of the chaos that surrounds us.
Faith has answers. Why does the sun rise? God did it. Why do the tides turn? Why are there even tides? God did it. And then the ultimate, where did we come from and why are we here? God did it, and god knows but isn't telling us.
Since we began to develop inquisitive thought thousands of years ago, we asked these questions. And yet, up until recently, we did not have the means by which to investigate the vast majority of these questions empirically. Thus for those people for whom "I don't know" was too traumatising, "it was god" was, and is, such a nice, simple answer. It's not tangible, but it's warm and comforting. We want to know that we're being looked after. We don't want to feel the cold aloneness of an existential universe.
I did not come up with this rationale, but out of all the possible explanations for religion and god that I have read, this appears to me to be the most logical of all of them. It was, more than likely, an anthropological construct to provide the crutch to a fearful people.
And so, faith does not transcend logic as Chavi puts it. That is too nice a word for what it does. More, faith is the opposite of logic. It has no axioms, it does not follow any rational progression. Faith is the equivalent of logic's step brother who buries his head in the sand during a fight and says "LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA LA"
And that is why it is so comfortable to so many, because it takes away all the difficult questioning and investigation of what actually happened. We can bury our heads in the sand and pretend that there is no complexity to all of the difficult questions that we ask.
I am comfortable with not knowing. I am agnostic because I do not feel the compulsion to guess the answer. And I hope that one day, as human beings, we may all be comfortable with uncertainty. Because fear of uncertainty, that is at the root of all the evils in this world. Why do people become so defensive of religious beliefs? It is because once the safety blanket is removed, your entire worldview comes crashing down and with it, comes back your crushing fear of uncertainty.
And you can trace fear of uncertainty to every other problem that we face in this vein. Will the Muslims take over our country and convert us all to Sharia? We don't know, but let's fear them and hate them anyway! Rinse and repeat for any other problem you can think of.
I think that for humanity to progress forward, we must inevitably shed faith - a process which rewards ignorance, and close-mindedness. It's interesting that you all say that shedding religion will not solve our problems. I agree 100%. I believe that shedding our fear of uncertainty will ultimately be the solution to our problems. That is not to say that ridding ourselves of uncertainty is the solution - for that could well be impossible. But the fear of uncertainty, that is what weighs us down.
Uncertainty is nothing to fear. It is something to master with Scientific process and logic. Maybe there is a god. Maybe we are all alone. Maybe we're one of many millions of races throughout the universe. I am excited by the scientific chase of these answers, not by fanciful guesses.
Nicely said.
-
What do you have against muslims,
Absolutely nothing. I am of the belief that the majority of Muslims in the Arab world are ordinary people who just want to go about their daily lives: live, eat, go to the shuk, meet the habibis, smoke nargila and go home to the wife(s). There is a very vocal minority (how large - depends on the stats), that adopts a radical, fundamentalist view that stands in antithesis to my own - so much so, that they want me and my people dead. My response is purely reactionary. I don't come into frequent contact with Muslims because the area of Melbourne in which I live has a very minute population, so they aren't very visible here (ditto for Muslim suburbs re: Caucasians).
Working with Somali and Darfurian refugees has certainly dispelled any of the crazier theories that I've heard. I am a firm believer in nurture and education (the father of one of the refugees became alarmed once he realized a Jew was teacher his daughter English. They're evil! he protested adamantly, despite never having met one. . .) . Nobody is born a terrorist. Only through inculcation and a culture of hatred, which is quite evidently occurs in the Arab world, do children adopt radical Islam as their worldview. Like Gert Wilders says - Muslims aren't the problem. Radical Islam is.
I'm going to defend Chavi here by saying that he is right here. The same applies to us (in a different way) in that these people also want the western world dead. Looking at their attacks on Israel it is patent of how genocidal they are.
Enwiabie is right in saying that this 'faith' can be a dangerous thing. Don't get me wrong Islam isn't the only religion that has 'produced' these people. Christianity has also had it's share of dangerous stuff. With cults, a lot of very vocal (you could call them extremists) anti-abortionists, their attitudes to sexuality and finally there attitude to people of a different race. Just look at the Southern part of North America!
-
Abortion is still a fairly Taboo topic, and because of religions power, Parliament still finds it difficult to legislate on such issues.
Did you ever consider that this may in fact be a good thing? If religion is holding the slipping (or changing) of moral standards in check, that is not a bad thing. And yes, legalising abortion would absolutely represent a slipping in moral standards.
Poor attitude. You reject the obvious mental and physiological concerns in respect to the mothers wellbeing that must be considered when deciding what should be on such an issue.
I'm not saying that there are never cases where abortion should be allowed, but every case must be examined on it's own merits. But the general attitude of 'Well I didn't wear a condom, and I don't really want a baby right now' should not be a legal reason for terminating a foetus.
@Spreadbury: This is why I'm pro-choice. You have to consider the mothers wellbeing. These vocal anti-abortionists standing outside of clinics really piss me off. I even lol when some are women with like 6 kids and their only reason is for well-fare support (we knew one, I tried to limit the times I would go with my mum because I was disgusted).
@Yitzi: Valid point, but can you really see those people being good parents? Forcing that child to be born would be detrimental to the child.
-
Sure, religion provides refuge from uncertainty, and yes, without it there'd be many unable to cope with the questions posed. Clearly you believe that a long time ago, someone said, 'well shit, I haven't a clue why we're here and that scares me. Let's just say that some Being put us here for a purpose, that makes me feel much better'.
Now I agree that's a reasonable-sounding claim to put forward. But why does that have to be the case?
I could not stop laughing at this.
How many people on here believe in an afterlife?
I don't believe in an afterlife. Maybe string theory will prove otherwise that when you die you can exist in another dimension.
-
Absolutely nothing. I am of the belief that the majority of Muslims in the Arab world are ordinary people who just want to go about their daily lives: live, eat, go to the shuk, meet the habibis, smoke nargila and go home to the wife(s). There is a very vocal minority (how large - depends on the stats), that adopts a radical, fundamentalist view that stands in antithesis to my own - so much so, that they want me and my people dead.
Since when have you believed this Chavi? Your stance on the Islam problem seems to have changed.
but in my view the majority of muslims are peaceful and are willing to follow the norms in other countries as well as follow their religion and its not islam per se
You'll actually find that a sizeable proportion of Muslim denizens throughout the Arab world believe that suicide bombings against unarmed civilians are justified, so your hypothesis seems more like a gut feeling, rather than anything based on facts: (A thorough analysis by the independent Pew research center here: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/26/where-terrorism-finds-support-in-the-muslim-world).
This means that there is a large proportion in the Muslim world who are passively willing to support terror, so stating that the majority of Muslims are really peaceful is utter nonsense and sounds like appeasement masked by political correctness..
-
Whoa a lot went on whilst I was asleep.
-
Whoa a lot went on whilst I was asleep.
Well, this was from a different thread: http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,28867.msg296398.html#msg296398
Just pointing out that it's a little hard for others to debate if you have constantly changing views.
-
Now answer my question.
What do you have against muslims, that drives you to go insane in every single thread about islam, constantly portraying them as terrorists, linking to terrorist natures?
Do you have any good friends who are muslim that you see regularly? (non of this fb crap)
Additionally, we are told that support for radical Islam amongst other Muslims is non-existent. This too, is a lie. Support, or the lack of condemnation which comes to the exact same thing, of terrorism, is, I believe, widespread to the point where it may be considered the majority view among Muslims.
You have no idea how wrong you are....how can you take that stance knowing very well that it absolutely makes no sense!!
-
Kdgamz, do you unequivocally condemn Hamas for their actions? Would you donate to an appeal for Gaza if you knew that the money would end up with Hamas?
-
Kdgamz, do you unequivocally condemn Hamas for their actions? Would you donate to an appeal for Gaza if you knew that the money would end up with Hamas?
i dont know anything about these groups but the killing of innocent people I do condemn, all im saying is dont make wild statements that arent true
-
I'm going to change the topic a little. A number of pages ago, someone asked if you can be atheist and spiritual. I would say yes, certainly, though I don't think that I'm spiritual as such.
I think enwiabe's points about uncertainty are very good, but you also have to keep in mind that many atheists are certain about how the world works. It started with the big bang, it's comprised of atoms and energy and such. When you die there is nothing. While I disagree with the way religion gives certainty to the universe, I also disagree that we can speculate what happens after we die. And further, while I definitely believes in the findings of science, I don't think it gives us a full illustration of the world.
Although I don't identify myself as a spiritual person, I am interested in the intangible. In ideas, in metaphysics, I'm interested in things that aren't directly observable. God could be one of those things, but I personally believe that the idea of God is much more important then his or her literal existence. What character, (in one form or another or many) boasts quite so much influence over human civilisation? We can see God everywhere in churches and synagogues and mosques, but God gets to the heart of our laws, our beliefs, our idea of what's right and wrong. God is in the Declaration of Human Rights as much as he is in the church. Even those who don't believe in God are so deeply influenced by the idea of God, because this idea has so much to do with out culture. Putting on my anthropologist hat here, many of our ideas, particularly pertaining to morality, are based on Judeo-Christian sentiment. God is very real (maybe not literally though).
But anyway, I think that my interest in the humanities, in philosophy, in art, etc. means that I don't see the world in a reductionist kind of way. There's more to the world than its physical/biological/chemical nature. There's beauty and power and emotions and lots of over abstract stuff. For me, this abstract level of intellectual inquiry replaces spirituality for me. That's why I actually identify myself as a Secular Humanist before I see myself as an atheist. I think that there is more to the world than what we can observe, but I don't think that necessarily means that there is a literal God out there who created us and watches over us.
-
When you die there is nothing. While I disagree with the way religion gives certainty to the universe, I also disagree that we can speculate what happens after we die.
Before you were born there was nothing (that you are aware of/ can recall) and I see this as an indication of what happens after death.
-
Absolutely nothing. I am of the belief that the majority of Muslims in the Arab world are ordinary people who just want to go about their daily lives: live, eat, go to the shuk, meet the habibis, smoke nargila and go home to the wife(s). There is a very vocal minority (how large - depends on the stats), that adopts a radical, fundamentalist view that stands in antithesis to my own - so much so, that they want me and my people dead.
Since when have you believed this Chavi? Your stance on the Islam problem seems to have changed.
but in my view the majority of muslims are peaceful and are willing to follow the norms in other countries as well as follow their religion and its not islam per se
You'll actually find that a sizeable proportion of Muslim denizens throughout the Arab world believe that suicide bombings against unarmed civilians are justified, so your hypothesis seems more like a gut feeling, rather than anything based on facts: (A thorough analysis by the independent Pew research center here: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/26/where-terrorism-finds-support-in-the-muslim-world).
This means that there is a large proportion in the Muslim world who are passively willing to support terror, so stating that the majority of Muslims are really peaceful is utter nonsense and sounds like appeasement masked by political correctness..
*according to the stats. Also on a side note, there are varying degrees of radicalization and terrorism. The vocal minority are the ones willing to go out into the caves and shoot the invaders. The silent majority lends it's support from a distance. This is what I clearly stated in the previous thread, so saying that the Majority of Muslims in the Arab world have higher priorities than assembling IEDs shows that there is absolutely no contradiction here.
-
I think enwiabe's points about uncertainty are very good, but you also have to keep in mind that many atheists are certain about how the world works. It started with the big bang,
Atheism can't explain what came before the big bang. Monotheism can.
-
I think enwiabe's points about uncertainty are very good, but you also have to keep in mind that many atheists are certain about how the world works. It started with the big bang,
Atheism can't explain what came before the big bang. Monotheism can.
(http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3336/facepalml.png)
-
Atheism can't explain what came before the big bang. Monotheism can.
I have never heard more fail. How does monotheism claim God came to exist then? He just created himself?
-
I think enwiabe's points about uncertainty are very good, but you also have to keep in mind that many atheists are certain about how the world works. It started with the big bang,
Atheism can't explain what came before the big bang. Monotheism can.
(http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3336/facepalml.png)
hahahah. Just saying
-
Monotheism makes a guess. It doesn't explain shit
-
Atheism can't explain what came before the big bang. Monotheism can.
I have never heard more fail. How does monotheism claim God came to exist then? He just created himself?
G-d was never created. He always has existed, and always will.
-
Eriny, a lot of your post needs to be corrected.
I'm going to change the topic a little. A number of pages ago, someone asked if you can be atheist and spiritual. I would say yes, certainly, though I don't think that I'm spiritual as such.
Incoherent statement, I have no idea what you mean when you say the word 'spiritual'.
I think enwiabe's points about uncertainty are very good, but you also have to keep in mind that many atheists are certain about how the world works. It started with the big bang, it's comprised of atoms and energy and such. When you die there is nothing.
Flat out incorrect. By definition, an atheist is merely one who is not persuaded by the claims of theism, nowhere does this view assert certainty, nowhere does it make claims about the big bang, atoms or the possibility of an afterlife. The postulation that 'it all started with the big bang, it's all comprised of atoms, etc" has nothing to do with atheism. nothing.
While I disagree with the way religion gives certainty to the universe, I also disagree that we can speculate what happens after we die. And further, while I definitely believes in the findings of science, I don't think it gives us a full illustration of the world.
Although I don't identify myself as a spiritual person, I am interested in the intangible. In ideas, in metaphysics, I'm interested in things that aren't directly observable.
Terribly weak minded thoughts here, you clearly don't understand the nature of science discovery, things don't need to be directly observable or 'tangible', and ideas are not equivalent to 'metaphysics', ideas may be falsifiable, while metaphysical postulations are by definition unfalsifiable.
God could be one of those things, but I personally believe that the idea of God is much more important then his or her literal existence.
White noise statement, typical of a muddled mind.
What character, (in one form or another or many) boasts quite so much influence over human civilisation? We can see God everywhere in churches and synagogues and mosques,
yes..the interaction between the neuroscience of our infantile desert cult ancestors and their environment produced this (and still does), this is not a mystery, the validity of an immaterial deity is not strengthen by this observation.
but God gets to the heart of our laws, our beliefs, our idea of what's right and wrong. God is in the Declaration of Human Rights as much as he is in the church. Even those who don't believe in God are so deeply influenced by the idea of God, because this idea has so much to do with out culture. Putting on my anthropologist hat here, many of our ideas, particularly pertaining to morality, are based on Judeo-Christian sentiment. God is very real (maybe not literally though).
rather vile babble, 'Judeo-Christian' 'values' where largely plagiarized from ancient, even more arcane peasant religions, they are not the basis of our society or culture or moral system. Humans brains are evolved organs and it follows that our morals are evolved mechanisms, we nee-dent appeal to immaterial or 'spiritual' systems to construct a moral framework.
But anyway, I think that my interest in the humanities, in philosophy, in art, etc. means that I don't see the world in a reductionist kind of way. There's more to the world than its physical/biological/chemical nature.
Pardon? this demarcation between 'humanities' and 'hard sciences' is entirely the product of your own confused little mind, the obvious fact that we are made of material, i.e. the materialist viewpoint, does not necessitate that we cannot appreciate art or literature.
The irony of course is the science you dismiss as 'insuffienct' can explain exactly why you believe that 'there's something more to life than its chemical nature'.
There's beauty and power and emotions and lots of over abstract stuff. For me, this abstract level of intellectual inquiry replaces spirituality for me. That's why I actually identify myself as a Secular Humanist before I see myself as an atheist. I think that there is more to the world than what we can observe, but I don't think that necessarily means that there is a literal God out there who created us and watches over us.
Please don't confuse abstract inquiry with incoherent wishful thinking. Of course there's more to the universe that humans can observe, by our very nature we are imperfectly evolved animals, we are made of, and governed by, atoms, there is no mystery if you do not make one.
-
well that's quite some first post...
-
well that's quite some first post...
Who was a previously lifebanned member, and has been re-banned. Showed no signs of reform and is still an insulting, condescending person who had previously made far more egregiously insulting comments to other members.
-
I think enwiabe's points about uncertainty are very good, but you also have to keep in mind that many atheists are certain about how the world works. It started with the big bang,
Atheism can't explain what came before the big bang. Monotheism can.
(http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3336/facepalml.png)
I just had to after seeing this by /0.
This guy looks like my group theory lecturer.
Anyway I accept that atheism can't explain what happened before the Big Bang. Pretty much because all atheists aren't physicists and all physicists aren't atheists. You claim monotheism explains it, but I claim that this is simply a guess since their is no way you can prove this without any counterclaims lowering the validity of this answer.
But seriously facepalm at this answer.
-
My opinion ( a bit late lol )
1. When people think of the "big killers" such as cigarettes and car accidents, they fail to recognise religion as the BIGGEST killer. That being said, it would be acceptable (imo at least) to say that without religion, we would rid of the world's largest killer. However you could raise the argument that the lack of ethics religion provides would cause an increase in hostility and violence, resulting in more deaths. This is most likely correct, but i simply do not believe that an atheistic would surpass the millions of deaths claimed in the name of religion.
2. There are many kind souls out there who do not believe in a god, claiming that religion is the ONLY source of ethics which people abide by would be a grand generalization and shitty argument.
3. Chavi on page 4 or something stated that he finds it strange that atheists who denounce a deity believe in superstitious things such as ghosts etc. I for one believe in supernatural occurrences and am an atheist. This is because religion is so much more in depth in trusting the unknown (faith) than something superstitious. To say "i believe in the human soul remaining on earth" (which i dont believe) is not tantamount to saying "i believe in some God who was invented 50,000 years after human existence with no evidence, always existed and was the creator of this awesome universe because a book says so." So basically all im saying is that religion is such a grand story that requires a great amount of faith in something we have no evidence of whereas believing in something superstitious is perhaps more basic to comprehend.
4. Furthermore on the topic of Chavi's comments, for such an educated and intelligent individual, saying that "Atheism can't explain what came before the big bang. Monotheism can." is arguably the most retarded thing ive read on this site. Lets use christianity for an example. The good ol' catholics said that the world was created in 7 days, with god taking a rest on sunday (stupid considering he is omnipotent and wouldnt need a rest, but is convenient for those wanting a day off). but oh shit! They were wrong. They said the world was flat (some quote about the 4 corners of the earth in one of the gospels), but oh they were wrong! And it continues. Religion takes a guess, a guess made by people living in 300 A.D. If people were totally religious we wouldnt have discovered the origin of this universe, and we would still be scared of falling off the edge of the earth.
5. Lastly, i think the human intellect would be so much more advanced. People were subservient to their religious masters, unwilling to question authority in fear that they would be questioning god. Christianity did a lot to fuck up the progress of the human intellect. This is also relevant in strict islamic nations today.
anyways, thats my opinion.
-
4. Furthermore on the topic of Chavi's comments, for such an educated and intelligent individual, saying that "Atheism can't explain what came before the big bang. Monotheism can." is arguably the most retarded thing ive read on this site. Lets use christianity for an example. The good ol' catholics said that the world was created in 7 days, with god taking a rest on sunday (stupid considering he is omnipotent and wouldnt need a rest, but is convenient for those wanting a day off). but oh shit! They were wrong. They said the world was flat (some quote about the 4 corners of the earth in one of the gospels), but oh they were wrong! And it continues. Religion takes a guess, a guess made by people living in 300 A.D. If people were totally religious we wouldnt have discovered the origin of this universe, and we would still be scared of falling off the edge of the earth.
My education doesn't extend beyond VCE level, so contrary to the level of my writing style, I am no more educated than most of the posters here.
Secondly, I don't see why the comment is met with such skepticism. Science has no answers beyond the Big Bang - and even that is a relatively new discovery (until the next discovery discredits this one). Monotheism at least provides a theory for the creation of the universe: intelligent design by an omnipotent being unconstrained by time. Keeping in with this thread, obviously faith is require to accept the beliefs mandated in this theory - but it nonetheless provides an answer where science does not (how tenuous that answer is, can be debated).
-
i appreciate the modesty.
Well it is met which such skepticism because that is the way in which i see it.
The perfect response to that comment however is this:
"Faith is not wanting to know what is true." - Nietzsche. Obviously not the most reliable source considering the guy was as much of a pessimist as one can be, but still reflects my views.
And i understand you completely, i was once as religious as any person could be (and believed that theory), but in the words of Martin Luther, "I did not leave the Church, the Church left me." So i get where you are coming from. However, i would rather trust highly intelligent scientists who went to Harvard or whatever and conducted strenuous tests on the origins of the universe based on fact than believing a bunch of animal-sacrificing primitives who lived ~2000 years ago.
Whilst many "factual" theories have been discredited over the ages, at least they are founded with at least a modicum of rationalization and logic (e.g. Aristotle believing the world to be the center of the universe based on the apparentness of the planets rotating around earth and that the world is stable and not moving.)
While that is essentially crap, at least there was some logic involved. This is where religion fails, it has such a lack of proof, "just because a book says so" is perhaps a weak argument.
-
Kotza, I take offence to your avatar/picture-thingy.
If I was to post something anti-Semite on the forum and question the authenticity of their religion, I would be thrown off the forum, so you should be thrown off. I haven't read this thread but your picture is anti-Christianity and is not respecting everybody's right to a religion.
-
4. Furthermore on the topic of Chavi's comments, for such an educated and intelligent individual, saying that "Atheism can't explain what came before the big bang. Monotheism can." is arguably the most retarded thing ive read on this site. Lets use christianity for an example. The good ol' catholics said that the world was created in 7 days, with god taking a rest on sunday (stupid considering he is omnipotent and wouldnt need a rest, but is convenient for those wanting a day off). but oh shit! They were wrong. They said the world was flat (some quote about the 4 corners of the earth in one of the gospels), but oh they were wrong! And it continues. Religion takes a guess, a guess made by people living in 300 A.D. If people were totally religious we wouldnt have discovered the origin of this universe, and we would still be scared of falling off the edge of the earth.
My education doesn't extend beyond VCE level, so contrary to the level of my writing style, I am no more educated than most of the posters here.
Secondly, I don't see why the comment is met with such skepticism. Science has no answers beyond the Big Bang - and even that is a relatively new discovery (until the next discovery discredits this one). Monotheism at least provides a theory for the creation of the universe: intelligent design by an omnipotent being unconstrained by time. Keeping in with this thread, obviously faith is require to accept the beliefs mandated in this theory - but it nonetheless provides an answer where science does not (how tenuous that answer is, can be debated).
Curiously, does one have to expressly believe in God in order to go to your (old) school?
-
I went to a strict Catholic school and there were a couple of Buddhists and many non-religious individuals.
So no. However it would definitely vary according to the specific school.
-
Food for thought. Consider our present time as a 0 on a number line. If we look to the positive and negative of the spectrum, we would see an endless amount of possibilities. Perhaps our existence is constructed in such a fashion?
;D
Actually, the Maxin chap sounds quite interesting
-
Eriny, a lot of your post needs to be corrected.
I'm going to change the topic a little. A number of pages ago, someone asked if you can be atheist and spiritual. I would say yes, certainly, though I don't think that I'm spiritual as such.
Incoherent statement, I have no idea what you mean when you say the word 'spiritual'.
I think enwiabe's points about uncertainty are very good, but you also have to keep in mind that many atheists are certain about how the world works. It started with the big bang, it's comprised of atoms and energy and such. When you die there is nothing.
Flat out incorrect. By definition, an atheist is merely one who is not persuaded by the claims of theism, nowhere does this view assert certainty, nowhere does it make claims about the big bang, atoms or the possibility of an afterlife. The postulation that 'it all started with the big bang, it's all comprised of atoms, etc" has nothing to do with atheism. nothing.
While I disagree with the way religion gives certainty to the universe, I also disagree that we can speculate what happens after we die. And further, while I definitely believes in the findings of science, I don't think it gives us a full illustration of the world.
Although I don't identify myself as a spiritual person, I am interested in the intangible. In ideas, in metaphysics, I'm interested in things that aren't directly observable.
Terribly weak minded thoughts here, you clearly don't understand the nature of science discovery, things don't need to be directly observable or 'tangible', and ideas are not equivalent to 'metaphysics', ideas may be falsifiable, while metaphysical postulations are by definition unfalsifiable.
God could be one of those things, but I personally believe that the idea of God is much more important then his or her literal existence.
White noise statement, typical of a muddled mind.
What character, (in one form or another or many) boasts quite so much influence over human civilisation? We can see God everywhere in churches and synagogues and mosques,
yes..the interaction between the neuroscience of our infantile desert cult ancestors and their environment produced this (and still does), this is not a mystery, the validity of an immaterial deity is not strengthen by this observation.
but God gets to the heart of our laws, our beliefs, our idea of what's right and wrong. God is in the Declaration of Human Rights as much as he is in the church. Even those who don't believe in God are so deeply influenced by the idea of God, because this idea has so much to do with out culture. Putting on my anthropologist hat here, many of our ideas, particularly pertaining to morality, are based on Judeo-Christian sentiment. God is very real (maybe not literally though).
rather vile babble, 'Judeo-Christian' 'values' where largely plagiarized from ancient, even more arcane peasant religions, they are not the basis of our society or culture or moral system. Humans brains are evolved organs and it follows that our morals are evolved mechanisms, we nee-dent appeal to immaterial or 'spiritual' systems to construct a moral framework.
But anyway, I think that my interest in the humanities, in philosophy, in art, etc. means that I don't see the world in a reductionist kind of way. There's more to the world than its physical/biological/chemical nature.
Pardon? this demarcation between 'humanities' and 'hard sciences' is entirely the product of your own confused little mind, the obvious fact that we are made of material, i.e. the materialist viewpoint, does not necessitate that we cannot appreciate art or literature.
The irony of course is the science you dismiss as 'insuffienct' can explain exactly why you believe that 'there's something more to life than its chemical nature'.
There's beauty and power and emotions and lots of over abstract stuff. For me, this abstract level of intellectual inquiry replaces spirituality for me. That's why I actually identify myself as a Secular Humanist before I see myself as an atheist. I think that there is more to the world than what we can observe, but I don't think that necessarily means that there is a literal God out there who created us and watches over us.
Please don't confuse abstract inquiry with incoherent wishful thinking. Of course there's more to the universe that humans can observe, by our very nature we are imperfectly evolved animals, we are made of, and governed by, atoms, there is no mystery if you do not make one.
I never said that atheism made claims to truth. Many atheists do though. Besides, I think scientific knowledge is crucial, I just think hat there is more to life/the world than that. Meanwhile, while you are of course entitled to disagree with me, you have no right to insult me, particularly since you didn't seem to read my post. How about you clearly elucidate your view rather than simply dismiss mine as 'incoherent' or 'nonsense' without ever offering a good reason as to why? You certainly aren't winning anyone over with that dogmatic, condescending attitude.
-
Food for thought. Consider our present time as a 0 on a number line. If we look to the positive and negative of the spectrum, we would see an endless amount of possibilities. Perhaps our existence is constructed in such a fashion?
;D
Actually, the Maxin chap sounds quite interesting
This reminds me of a question I asked myself.
"Why did we pick year 0 to be where it was?"
Anyway if you look at it, year 0 is supposed to be when Jesus was born. But according to some sources, Jesus wasn't born till 4 AD (Having said that, I don't know how accurately you can age someone who was around 2000 years ago).
Where you put year 0 is arbitrary, our dates are just relative to this date. Having said that, there must be a true year 0 (I.e. The start of our universe). Religious people say this is the time when god 'created' the universe. String theorists say that violent collisions between membranes in higher dimensions are producing several universes at a time. To "me" both sound a bit "out-there". Both are plausible considering who you target as your audience. Can either be proven to show "beyond any doubt" that they are true? No.
Ok so a few of you are probably saying: "An atheist believes Jesus existed?". I'm pretty sure I pointed this out in the first few pages that I believe Jesus is as real as Plato, Galileo or Archimedes. Do I believe he is the son of god? No (well if I don't believe in god, how can I believe "he" has a son?). Do I believe Jesus was a normal human being? Yes.
-
I consider myself atheist, is that bad?
-
^ lol wtf no
-
"I long for the day when men will turn away from invisible monsters and once more embrace a more rational view of the world. But these new religions are so convenient - and promise such terrible punishment should one reject them - I worry that fear shall keep us stuck to what is surely the greatest lie ever told." Assassins Creed II
I seriously couldn't say this any better.
-
Made by a multicultural team of diverse faiths and beliefs
-
Kotza, I take offence to your avatar/picture-thingy.
If I was to post something anti-Semite on the forum and question the authenticity of their religion, I would be thrown off the forum, so you should be thrown off. I haven't read this thread but your picture is anti-Christianity and is not respecting everybody's right to a religion.
I really couldnt give a shit less. I am expressing my belief in the form of my avatar (which is awesome). It isnt Jesus for a specific reason, it is merely convenient as he is the most known thing in the Western World. If you are so sensitive about 18 year old's avatars on forums, crawl up in a ball, listen to Anberlin and live inside the confessional booth in a Church.
Also to Quantum's post, i dont remember that quote, that is insanely awesome.
-
The quote comes from the codex pages in the game. I'm pretty sure the codex pages are from Altäir talking about what life in the 1100's in the middle east is like.
-
Kotza, I take offence to your avatar/picture-thingy.
If I was to post something anti-Semite on the forum and question the authenticity of their religion, I would be thrown off the forum, so you should be thrown off. I haven't read this thread but your picture is anti-Christianity and is not respecting everybody's right to a religion.
I really couldnt give a shit less. I am expressing my belief in the form of my avatar (which is awesome). It isnt Jesus for a specific reason, it is merely convenient as he is the most known thing in the Western World. If you are so sensitive about 18 year old's avatars on forums, crawl up in a ball, listen to Anberlin and live inside the confessional booth in a Church.
+1
-
i appreciate the modesty.
Well it is met which such skepticism because that is the way in which i see it.
The perfect response to that comment however is this:
"Faith is not wanting to know what is true." - Nietzsche. Obviously not the most reliable source considering the guy was as much of a pessimist as one can be, but still reflects my views.
And i understand you completely, i was once as religious as any person could be (and believed that theory), but in the words of Martin Luther, "I did not leave the Church, the Church left me." So i get where you are coming from. However, i would rather trust highly intelligent scientists who went to Harvard or whatever and conducted strenuous tests on the origins of the universe based on fact than believing a bunch of animal-sacrificing primitives who lived ~2000 years ago.
Whilst many "factual" theories have been discredited over the ages, at least they are founded with at least a modicum of rationalization and logic (e.g. Aristotle believing the world to be the center of the universe based on the apparentness of the planets rotating around earth and that the world is stable and not moving.)
While that is essentially crap, at least there was some logic involved. This is where religion fails, it has such a lack of proof, "just because a book says so" is perhaps a weak argument.
logic is overrated. highly intelligent scientists are overrated. indeed theres no logic in trusting science and doubting religion. at least doubt both, or at least trust both. if you think about the most intelligent ant in the world, how close would its IQ be to a human? And then what are humans to god?
-
Please check the date of the last post before you make a reply, when it's so far back it's good not to reawaken the thread :)
If you feel your contribution is quite important, you're always free to make a new topic =]
-
solidnecro/10 mate
(http://www.minerwars.com/ForumUploads/20100916023519_217_Necromancy.jpg)
NEW USERS: Forum Necromancy. (Revival of Dead Threads) MUST READ
Cheers.