AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › An Atheist Manifesto
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

An Atheist Manifesto - Page 2

post #41 of 295
6/13/10 at 2:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

This is why I can't take anything you say on this subject seriously. You still can't understand the simple fact that atheism is NOT a belief system. It's the default, the zero state, that exists before one fills in the gaps of his or her knowledge with fairy tales.

Zero state is the state before one actually tries to fill in the gaps of ones knowledge in any way. After that, it becomes a belief system. Just because an atheist does not believe in the existence of a all powerful force that created the universe or some other divine power does not make it any less of a belief system.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #42 of 295
6/13/10 at 2:16pm
Thread Starter 
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Very good points, Segovius, and I do agree with you.

However, I still think that C>K

Ditto. But Sego, you seem to be implying that it is the atheism that is responsible for Sam Harris being not 100% rational. I would go back to what you said earlier...it is his humanness that is responsible for whatever bits of irrationality he has. He can say that much of the world's violence is religious in nature. That doesn't mean ALL violence is religious nor does it mean that atheism is responsible for the rest. Again, since atheism is not a belief system, it's responsible for nothing. It's the baseline. Teach rational thought on top of the baseline and you get a pleasant society. Teach ignorance, fairy tales, and hate on top of the baseline, and the results will be different.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #43 of 295
6/13/10 at 2:22pm
Thread Starter 
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Zero state is the state before one actually tries to fill in the gaps of ones knowledge in any way. After that, it becomes a belief system. Just because an atheist does not believe in the existence of a all powerful force that created the universe or some other divine power does not make it any less of a belief system.

Not believing is not a belief.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #44 of 295
6/13/10 at 2:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

As I said, I'm not getting into this because it's off topic and it doesn't really interest me.

But the real reason I'm not getting into this is because, even though I positively went out of my way to avoid making this personal, I knew that you would, and predictably you have, and from this point on it's just going to be unpleasant.

If birthrate is off topic, then so is peace. You drag this off-topic (by your reasoning) claiming that 7 out of the top ten peace countries per the Global Peace Index are lacking in religion. This means two countries more than a coin flip of course and it is important until someone wants to note that they are too basically too fat to fight or to fuck. The fuck part is instantly off topic of course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

This is why I can't take anything you say on this subject seriously. You still can't understand the simple fact that atheism is NOT a belief system. It's the default, the zero state, that exists before one fills in the gaps of his or her knowledge with fairy tales.

You are correct that a belief the lack of belief in a a deity or deities is not a belief system. However your "manifesto" that you posted goes well beyond simply staying with the default state. Action is not a default state, and that manifesto demands action. It declares holding any view other than atheism to be an intellectual and moral failing. It declares faith INCOMPATIBLE with a good world. It also equates faith with cannibalism and slavery.

Do you think it does all this and then suggests in a manifesto a complete lack of action on this matter?

Sorry but while atheism can be a default, action against faith, declaring it the be a moral and intellectual failing, noting it cannot be part of a good world and that it must go the way of cannibalism and slavery is NOT a default state. Those are all logical leaps from the default state and they are ABSOLUTELY beliefs.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #45 of 295
6/13/10 at 2:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Not believing is not a belief.

This is a correct statement, but irrelevant. You claim that atheists are not believing something. This is false. They are believing something. They are believing that something (God) does not exist. There's a difference. This is as much a belief as believing there is a God. Whatever the basis for this belief, it is still a belief, not a non-belief.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #46 of 295
6/13/10 at 2:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

This is why I can't take anything you say on this subject seriously. You still can't understand the simple fact that atheism is NOT a belief system. It's the default, the zero state, that exists before one fills in the gaps of his or her knowledge with fairy tales.

Is it though?

If Atheism appeals to 'reason' then it should be easy to just win the argument with a proof - like science does. But this does not happen....no 'proofs' are forthcoming on either side, atheism or belief, and the argument continues.

For example, the argument you just used could equally be used for the opposite view, that of belief: it could be argued that BELIEF IN GOD is humanity's natural state, the default, and that 'sin' clouds the mind and enables false beliefs like Atheism.

As it happens I personally don't take either position which is why I can see they are the same thing - no proof on either side...just words and trying to convince by debate and propaganda.

What does that tell you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Ditto. But Sego, you seem to be implying that it is the atheism that is responsible for Sam Harris being not 100% rational. I would go back to what you said earlier...it is his humanness that is responsible for whatever bits of irrationality he has. He can say that much of the world's violence is religious in nature. That doesn't mean ALL violence is religious nor does it mean that atheism is responsible for the rest. Again, since atheism is not a belief system, it's responsible for nothing. It's the baseline. Teach rational thought on top of the baseline and you get a pleasant society. Teach ignorance, fairy tales, and hate on top of the baseline, and the results will be different.

I don't think that Atheism is responsible for Harris's atheism - that would be irrational !

I do think he finds some validation in it though and that's fine. He may even be correct in the final analysis, we'll find out I guess.

I think it is irrational to claim that much of the world's violence is religious though. Or ignorant...and that is tantamount to the same thing and someone who claims authority of something they are ignorant of is irrational by definition. I think Mr Harris probably falls into this category.

Another example: you say "Teach ignorance, fairy tales, and hate"....

Several points: is all religion teaching hate in your opinion? Did the founders? If you think the founders did then evidence? If they did not then surely the religion itself is what they taught and not what the followers think?

Because otherwise I could call myself an Atheist and set up a branch of the Catholic Church and you should then agree that Atheists are Catholics. This needs clarifying becase as of now, it smacks a little of the irrational. And we can't have that!!!

Fairy Tales: what's wrong with them? Many have wisdom in them. A problem occurs for sure if people take them literally but are you saying that? If so then why not be clearer? Or do you think that the 'fairy tales' (or parables) in religion HAVE to be taken literally?

Or do you just think that believers are so stupid they always do take them like this? I know SOME do but you seem to believe that all MUST DO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Not believing is not a belief.

This is slightly dishonest with respect.

Of course you are right but you dodge the issue. Not believing is fine as far as it goes but then we get 'manifestoes' and that's a different kettle of fish EDIT: just seen Trumpt said the same and better above... is quite obvious....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #47 of 295
6/13/10 at 3:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Not believing is not a belief.

uhm, I beg to differ....and so does my dictionary.

Atheism is, in fact, a belief system.

Belief in the all-mighty Flying Spaghetti Monster is a belief system.

at least one definition of a belief system is "a life stance."

edit: in fact, anything any of you say/write/think is reflective of a belief system. Most often, even our emotional responses to life are governed by belief in one thing or another. The problem, alas, arises when we each think our own system of belief is more important than that of another. Perhaps it is not religion that is the problem...perhaps it is ignorance of our very own nature & tendencies.


before one can be an atheist, one must first understand or have at least heard of theism.
I've never known of anyone who, by default, identifies as an atheist. Far as I understand the matter, atheism is a conscious choice (dare I say belief?) one enters into...typically, I imagine, as a result of finding dissatisfaction with structured religion.

This zero state people speak of exists only in the very, very young (like, under 3) or those who have practiced advanced meditation (or similar) for many, many years. We enter life in this "zero state", we acquire belief, we modify these acquisitions accordingly to our own individual natures, and then we exit life into a "zero state." <- that last bit is open for debate but that which proceeds it just seems obvious to me.
an aye for an eye, the truth is a lie; a fish cannot whistle & neither can I.
Reply
an aye for an eye, the truth is a lie; a fish cannot whistle & neither can I.
Reply
post #48 of 295
6/13/10 at 3:28pm
Thread Starter 
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

This is a correct statement, but irrelevant. You claim that atheists are not believing something. This is false. They are believing something. They are believing that something (God) does not exist. There's a difference. This is as much a belief as believing there is a God. Whatever the basis for this belief, it is still a belief, not a non-belief.

That is so fundamentally flawed it's ridiculous.

Religion makes a hypothesis. Religion doesn't support it with evidence. Atheists reject the hypothesis. It's not a belief. It's a lack of belief.

If everyone had to dance around so carefully to leave open the remotest possibility of anything, no matter how absurd, existing, we'd get nowhere. No god is the default state. If you could show real evidence there is a god, atheists would adjust. That evidence just flat out doesn't exist. So back to the default state until you can prove your claim.

It is not up to me to disprove the existence of something. You need to prove its existence in the first place.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #49 of 295
6/13/10 at 4:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

One could see your point if we were discussing why the birthrate is 6-8 children per couple versus 2.1. However we are talking about a rate below the rate of sustaining society. Is happiness measured as an impulse so selfish that there is complete disregard for the future of society itself?

What the heck are you talking about, trumpy? You've gone off the rails again. A birth rate of 2.0 for every two people is "sustaining society". Six to eight children per couple? That's fucking insane. People who have that many kids are just selfish and irresponsible. If you live in an affluent society and want more than 2, then adopt. It will greatly aid the global economy. If you live in a poor society, having tons of kids WILL NOT improve your lot.

There's adoption from out of the lower rate area. There is immigration. Negative birth to death ratio does not equal negative population growth. Call me when the world birth to death rate approaches parity and appears to be trending lower than that. Until then, you have no argument that the (local) birthrate cannot sustain (global) society. It's just dumb.

This is rational thinking, a la atheism. We have kids with rational thought in mind. We choose not to have kids with rational thought in mind.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 295
6/13/10 at 4:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

That is so fundamentally flawed it's ridiculous.

I understand that you see it that way. I won't hold this against you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Religion makes a hypothesis. Religion doesn't support it with evidence. Atheists reject the hypothesis. It's not a belief. It's a lack of belief.

Atheism makes a hypothesis also. It is a belief. Sorry to break it to you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

If everyone had to dance around so carefully to leave open the remotest possibility of anything, no matter how absurd, existing, we'd get nowhere.

That isn't what's being suggested here.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #51 of 295
6/13/10 at 4:31pm
Interesting discussion.

If any of you haven't read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis, I suggest you do so.

Here is the full text online.

A small excerpt relevant to this discussion:

Quote:
There is one thing, and only one, in the whole universe which we know more about than we could learn from external observation. That one thing is Man. We do not merely observe men, we are men. In this case we have, so to speak, inside information; we are in the know. And because of that, we know that men find themselves under a moral law, which they did not make, and cannot quite forget even when they try, and which they know they ought to obey. Notice the following point. Anyone studying Man from the outside as we study electricity or cabbages, not knowing our language and consequently not able to get any inside knowledge from us, but merely observing what we did, would never get the slightest evidence that we had this moral law. How could he? for his observations would only show what we did, and the moral law is about what we ought to do. In the same way, if there were anything above or behind the observed facts in the case of stones or the weather, we, by studying them from outside, could never hope to discover it.

The position of the question, then, is like this. We want to know whether the universe simply happens to be what it is for no reason or whether there is a power behind it that makes it what it is. Since that power, if it exists, would be not one of the observed facts but a reality which makes them, no mere observation of the facts can find it. There is only one case in which we can know whether there is anything more, namely our own case. And in that one case we find there is. Or put it the other way round. If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe- no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves. Surely this ought to arouse our suspicions? In the only case where you can expect to get an answer, the answer turns out to be Yes; and in the other cases, where you do not get an answer, you see why you do not. Suppose someone asked me, when I see a man in a blue uniform going down the street leaving little paper packets at each house, why I suppose that they contain letters? I should reply, "Because whenever he leaves a similar little packet for me I find it does contain a letter." And if he then objected, "But you've never seen all these letters which you think the other people are getting," I should say, "Of course not, and I shouldn't expect to, because they're not addressed to me. I'm explaining the packets I'm not allowed to open by the ones I am allowed to open." It is the same about this question. The only packet I am allowed to open is Man. When I do, especially when I open that particular man called Myself, I find that I do not exist on my own, that I am under a law; that somebody or something wants me to behave in a certain way. I do not, of course, think that if I could get inside a stone or a tree I should find exactly the same thing, just as I do not think all the other people in the street get the same letters as I do. I should expect, for instance, to find that the stone had to obey the law of gravity-that whereas the sender of the letters merely tells me to obey the law of my human nature, He compels the stone to obey the laws of its stony nature. But I should expect to find that there was, so to speak, a sender of letters in both cases, a Power behind the facts, a Director, a Guide.

Even if you don't believe in God, this book is a fascinating read.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #52 of 295
6/13/10 at 4:48pm
Come on Tonton, these things are like slow pitch softballs. It isn't fair to give me such easy stuff to hit out of the park.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

What the heck are you talking about, trumpy? You've gone off the rails again. A birth rate of 2.0 for every two people is "sustaining society".

Exactly! As you note roughly 2 (it's actually 2.1) is sustaining society.

Quote:
Six to eight children per couple? That's fucking insane. People who have that many kids are just selfish and irresponsible.

Actually they are just the opposite, especially in societies where there aren't social services to take care of them in their elderly years. However the big lie that everyone tried to buy is that you can have the government redistribute the wealth and somehow, magically you don't need the 6-8 adults per retiree to pay in to make it work. That is the big lie right now that is causing the Euro to crash and will have a host of other currencies and governments falling in line right behind it.

Quote:
If you live in an affluent society and want more than 2, then adopt. It will greatly aid the global economy. If you live in a poor society, having tons of kids WILL NOT improve your lot.

Again it largely depends upon where you live. In Western societies where taxes are high, children are a burden.

Quote:
There's adoption from out of the lower rate area. There is immigration. Negative birth to death ratio does not equal negative population growth. Call me when the world birth to death rate approaches parity and appears to be trending lower than that. Until then, you have no argument that the (local) birthrate cannot sustain (global) society. It's just dumb.

The issue here, much like printing money and adding debt, is merely kicking the can down the road. If you have two kids and allow in 6 immigrants to make up for the 8 kids a family would have had a few years prior, then those immigrants will assimilate and in doing so will adopt the same birthrate.

It's interesting to look at this because right now, several countries basically have demographic timebombs waiting to go off inside of them but back to the thread topic, we both agreed that 2.0-2.1 would be a healthy birthrate. What do we call it then when we have many Western nations who have birth rates of 1.2-1.5 and as a result their populations will decrease by millions.

Quote:
This is rational thinking, a la atheism. We have kids with rational thought in mind. We choose not to have kids with rational thought in mind.

How can allowing the rational to fail to continue on their thinking by failing to procreate and allowing those who are irrational to come in and take over all the institutions and cultural traits be rational? That is exactly what you just advocated. Take those who don't know better and plug in for those who do, but don't procreate. That is the height of irrationality.

Think about your exact statement there. We choose NOT to have kids with rational thought in mind. What are they replaced by? Kids with irrational thoughts in mind. How can that be rational?

Finally how can it be seen as healthy or happy? If it were one country we could label it as an outlier but it is a feature of all western democracies. It is no different than feminists who look at the glass ceiling and complain about CEO's but fail to look at glass cellars and note the prison populations, crimes and who they are committed against, etc. The winners are also big losers. The rich are so thrilled they don't want to stick around for another generation and the atheists are the default state so they need a manifesto of action to bring about change... to the default state....

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #53 of 295
6/13/10 at 9:49pm
Thread Starter 
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I understand that you see it that way. I won't hold this against you.




Atheism makes a hypothesis also. It is a belief. Sorry to break it to you.




That isn't what's being suggested here.

Atheism makes no hypothesis.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #54 of 295
6/14/10 at 12:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Atheism makes no hypothesis.

This is the fall-back position when atheists are cornered as you have just been....it is also dishonest I think.

Atheism has no hypothesis but INDIVIDUAL atheists do - atheism is merely the umbrella term for a disparate grouping.

But here is the dishonest bit:

Religion has no hypothesis but specific belief systems do - religion is merely the umbrella term for a disparate grouping.

Put simpler: RELIGION has no common factors - it is a word which is applied to thousands of differing beliefs.

Yet Atheists continue to claim all these beliefs have common factors - defined by the atheists of course not necessarily derived from the believers - and then go on to deride them.

It is patronising at best and outright deceptive at worst.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #55 of 295
6/14/10 at 12:52am
Thread Starter 
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
And I must vehemently disagree with you here. It has nothing to do with being backed into a corner. It's just a pure statement of fact.

Religions put forth ideas regarding god or gods to worship, the origin of the universe, or what happens in some sort of afterlife. These are all claims made by religions that are not backed up by a shred of evidence.

A true atheist does not make any claims. A naturalist will seek answers but requires evidence to support them.

The onus is not on the atheist to disprove anything. It is on religions to put up or shut up. And honestly, I wish all the Western religions that dominate this country would seriously shut the fuck up.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #56 of 295
6/14/10 at 12:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

And I must vehemently disagree with you here. It has nothing to do with being backed into a corner. It's just a pure statement of fact.

Religions put forth ideas regarding god or gods to worship, the origin of the universe, or what happens in some sort of afterlife. These are all claims made by religions that are not backed up by a shred of evidence.

A true atheist does not make any claims. A naturalist will seek answers but requires evidence to support them.

The onus is not on the atheist to disprove anything. It is on religions to put up or shut up. And honestly, I wish all the Western religions that dominate this country would seriously shut the fuck up.

But that is a claim you just made no?

Religions put forth ideas regarding god or gods to worship, the origin of the universe, or what happens in some sort of afterlife.

But is it true? Do religions do this? SOME do...but does religion as a whole?

I don't think so.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #57 of 295
6/14/10 at 1:14am
Thread Starter 
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

But that is a claim you just made no?

Religions put forth ideas regarding god or gods to worship, the origin of the universe, or what happens in some sort of afterlife.

But is it true? Do religions do this? SOME do...but does religion as a whole?

I don't think so.

Yes, religions do. I'm having a real hard time finding a single religion out there that doesn't profess some supernatural knowledge. Confucianism is the closest thing I could find to that and even with that there is some debate as to whether it does profess such knowledge or that it's even a religion at all.

The way you are speaking, you seem to be saying that religions professing supernatural knowledge is the exception, not the rule. I beg to differ, but please, enlighten me. What religions don't make unsupportable claims?

http://www.religionfacts.com/big_religion_chart.htm

Here's a nice big chart that shows every damn religion there to make these supernatural claims.


And for fuck's sake, atheists are not claiming supernatural knowledge. That's the whole point. I feel like you're playing a semantics game with me.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #58 of 295
6/14/10 at 1:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Yes, religions do. I'm having a real hard time finding a single religion out there that doesn't profess some supernatural knowledge. Confucianism is the closest thing I could find to that and even with that there is some debate as to whether it does profess such knowledge or that it's even a religion at all.

The way you are speaking, you seem to be saying that religions professing supernatural knowledge is the exception, not the rule. I beg to differ, but please, enlighten me. What religions don't make unsupportable claims?

http://www.religionfacts.com/big_religion_chart.htm

Here's a nice big chart that shows every damn religion there to make these supernatural claims.

And for fuck's sake, atheists are not claiming supernatural knowledge. That's the whole point. I feel like you're playing a semantics game with me.

You seem annoyed...why?

Let's address the points rationally.

Quote:
I'm having a real hard time finding a single religion out there that doesn't profess some supernatural knowledge.

'Supernatural Knowledge' was not the original point. You said:

Religions put forth ideas regarding god or gods to worship, the origin of the universe, or what happens in some sort of afterlife.


And I questioned this. There are many on that list that do not address some of those issues. Zen does not require worship of a deity for example, has no afterlife and no God. Taoism claims that we return to non-being etc...

But what is 'supernatural knowledge' ? Presumably you would agree that there are areas of knowledge that we do not currently know.

My personal view is that any area that we do not know is 'supernatural' until we know it. For example, in the Middle Ages Arabs knew that disease could be prevented by hygiene procedures and hence their recourse to extensive water-access and public baths. At the time of the Plague Europeans did not know this and when Arab doctors could treat people without catching the disease they were regarded as 'magical' until it became common knowledge.

I don't actually believe that there is such a thing as the 'supernatural' - there is

1) what we know scientifically (science)
2) what we don't know yet but may find out (life on other planets maybe)
3) rational beliefs (there might be a God)
4) superstitious irrational impossible beliefs (lead can turn into gold for example).

Our difference of opinion is one of classification I think. You think that belief in God is in Group #4 whereas I put it in Group #3. This is irrational imo because you cannot know - it is irrational to claim knowledge of God too for the same reason - both are irrational. We know Lead cannot turn into Gold but we CANNOT know a form iof intelligence higher than humanity does not exist. And that is all God would be.

Your issue is with certain (maybe all) religion's conceptions of God - and there I agree with you. But if you say that because Religion X's view of God is irrational then God does not exist it is the same as me saying that because Harris believes in reincarnation and thinks it's ok to kill Muslims Atheism is false. And that's silly.

Quote:
The way you are speaking, you seem to be saying that religions professing supernatural knowledge is the exception, not the rule. I beg to differ, but please, enlighten me. What religions don't make unsupportable claims?

I am saying that there are two phenomena that you are conflating or perhaps not aware of:

1) The Teaching of the founder of a Religion
2) The Structured Organized Religion as a Historical entity.

I think these two things are not the same and often opposites. I do not accept that the term 'religion' applies to them both unilaterally.

So if you think they are the same thing then we differ there. If you think they are different but your statement applies to both then we can easily prove that is not the case in many instances.

For me Religion is the thing that evolves out of an original teaching of a philosopher in given circumstances and is very often - almost always - as bad as you say and as negative in many ways. If you are talking about this Type #2 religion then we agree.....but you will still be left with the original teachings of Buddha, Muhammad and Jesus etc and will have to address them.

They are not the same thing at all.

Quote:
And for fuck's sake, atheists are not claiming supernatural knowledge. That's the whole point. I feel like you're playing a semantics game with me.

But they are. Implicitly.

Look at it this way. If I say to you that I know Horse 3 will win the Derby next week through psychic means then to be rational you must make one of the following responses:

1) Perhaps Horse 3 will win but you cannot know that
2) I do not believe Horse 3 will win based on my assessment of that horse.

If you say this:

1) I know Horse 3 will not win.

Then you are essentially saying the same as me. It is therefore just as irrational and you moreover cannot as a defence argue this:

It is not the same!!! I am not arguing that Horse #2 will win!!!!

It's not semantics. It's the philosophical weakness in the whole atheist position - which is why Dawkins is always careful to add 'probably' to his 'no God' comments.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #59 of 295
6/14/10 at 2:32am
Thread Starter 
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
And we're back to the invisible pink unicorn. I'm not going to leave it open as a reasonable possibility. Therefore I'm going to round down to no, it doesn't exist. Show me some real evidence that it does, and I'll adjust accordingly. Until then, 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000001 (and I think i'm being generous here) is for all intents and purposes 0.

I'll comment in more detail later as it's pretty late, but yes, we do have a fundamental difference in what we consider to be rational. Sure, there might be a god. There might be all sorts of things we don't know about or don't understand. What I am very, very sure of though is that the human constructs of god are all a fucking huge steaming festering load of bullshit.

With regard to Zen...

Quote:
For many, a chief selling point of Buddhism is its supposed de-emphasis of supernatural notions such as immortal souls and God. Buddhism "rejects the theological impulse," the philosopher Owen Flanagan declares approvingly in The Problem of the Soul. Actually, Buddhism is functionally theistic, even if it avoids the "G" word. Like its parent religion Hinduism, Buddhism espouses reincarnation, which holds that after death our souls are re-instantiated in new bodies, and karma, the law of moral cause and effect. Together, these tenets imply the existence of some cosmic judge who, like Santa Claus, tallies up our naughtiness and niceness before rewarding us with rebirth as a cockroach or as a saintly lama.

from http://www.slate.com/id/2078486


And for Taoism...

Quote:
The belief of supernatural being is the basic feature of Taoism. Taoism deems that common people may live forever and become supernatural beings as long as they can cultivate in earnest. After becoming supernatural beings, they can select to stay on the earth or live in the heaven. The supernatural being is preterhuman and has various magic powers.

from http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_ab...tent_24829.htm


So, more unsupportable claims. More irrationality. Atheism doesn't make these claims.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #60 of 295
6/14/10 at 3:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

And we're back to the invisible pink unicorn. I'm not going to leave it open as a reasonable possibility. Therefore I'm going to round down to no, it doesn't exist. Show me some real evidence that it does, and I'll adjust accordingly. Until then, 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000001 (and I think i'm being generous here) is for all intents and purposes 0.

Ok...let's assume you have the rational perspective.

What is the scientific basis for that figure/statistic? By what logical scientific process did you arrive at it and why, in your opinion, is it accurate.

I don't mean in reference to any Scriptural God we know traditionally from religions - we are in agreement there that pretty much - but assuming there is no organized religion at all, what is the basis for your contention that there is no God?

I'd like to see if it is a rational standpoint. If it is I may adopt it. Please don't say 'there is no evidence' - that would be irrational in this context...science is littered with discoveries of things for which there 'was no evidence'.

Wait....I've just grasped something......'evidence' is your 'God' isn't it??? It's not that you actually have thought it all through and derived your position from any form of analysis...... you're just passively waiting till evidence comes along for something and then you accept it.....wow.....



This changes things...

Btw; we are not back to the 'invisible pink unicorn'. You really need to grasp this if we are to continue.... there are two constructs we are discussing and you aren't addressing them. Again:

A) The belief that other creatures than Man exist
B) The belief that Pink Unicorns exist.

Because belief in B necessitates belief in A DOES NOT mean belief A = belief in B. You should stop arguing from a position that implies it does.

Quote:
I'll comment in more detail later as it's pretty late, but yes, we do have a fundamental difference in what we consider to be rational. Sure, there might be a god. There might be all sorts of things we don't know about or don't understand. What I am very, very sure of though is that the human constructs of god are all a fucking huge steaming festering load of bullshit.

Yep..I think you must have read above my agreement with that statement.

Quote:
With regard to Zen...

from http://www.slate.com/id/2078486

This is what I mean....you need to know about the religions to debate them and for that you need to not hate them.

That quote does not apply to Zen. Zen is a very late and separate development and cannot be compared to mainstream Buddhism. Clearly there is no emphasis on the soul or afterlife.

Quote:
So, more unsupportable claims. More irrationality. Atheism doesn't make these claims.

Maybe not...but you have made unsupportable claims and when called to substantiate them you avoid them in a very similar way.

And also bear in mind that it is YOU (or Atheism if you prefer) that sets this benchmark. In doing this you act in an exactly similar way to religions.

When a Fundie tells me I need to repent because I have sinned then my answer is "I don't think I have sinned - YOUR SYSTEM regards me as having sinned but I do not belong to your system"

And similarly my answer to you is the same - YOUR SYSTEM is the one that needs to have 'supported claims'.

Now the only thing we need to know is whether your subsequent answer is the same as the Fundies - ie "Well, my system is THE TRUTH".
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #61 of 295
6/14/10 at 3:14am
Thread Starter 
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
*sigh* The argument always gets turned around and tries to make the atheist disprove something...

If a "religion" makes no supernatural claims whatsoever, I would call it more of a philosophy than anything else. So, in the interest of defining the terms properly, and assuming you are correct about Zen, it's not a religion.

I'm not making claims of the supernatural or hidden knowledge. The atheist doesn't do this.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #62 of 295
6/14/10 at 3:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

*sigh* The argument always gets turned around and tries to make the atheist disprove something...

Not so.... religion makes some claims. I would say the rational thing to do is to try to disprove them and this is easily done in certain specific instances.

One can look for and find certain contradictions in the Bible that we know are historically inaccurate and from this we can disprove the claim that the Bible is the literal word of God.

Doing this does not DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

But anyway, Atheists never do this....Academics do it, historians do it...but as far as I can see Atheists content themselves with sweeping generalisations and writing best-selling books to sell to their flock.

They don't even very often QUOTE the research of academics that disproves specifics things. They're lazy and it is enough to just repeat the mantra "There is no God" and "religion is bad".

All unsupported claims and when challenged they fall back on 'we don't have to prove anything' and simultaneously worship at the altar of rationalism and Scientific method.

It's like someone cheating at cards who has one of each suit up his sleeve and produces whichever one is necessary at the time.

Quote:
If a "religion" makes no supernatural claims whatsoever, I would call it more of a philosophy than anything else. So, in the interest of defining the terms properly, and assuming you are correct about Zen, it's not a religion.

That's my point - you keep failing to address it. Religion is a corruption of a philosophy - that of the founders.

But you still have a problem because philosophy DOES actually deal with what you call 'supernatural' questions...it just does so in a logical and rational manner.

My point is that neither religionists not atheists seem to do the same.

Quote:
I'm not making claims of the supernatural or hidden knowledge. The atheist doesn't do this.

As I said, 'supernatural' is just a term. Science is about discovering unknown things and developing our knowledge.

You don't do that by denying the possibility of something because of a personal bias.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #63 of 295
6/14/10 at 4:16am
Thread Starter 
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Give hard evidence that a god exists and any rational atheist will give that evidence its due consideration. If it's compelling enough, the rational atheist will change his mind.

Give hard evidence that a religion makes false claims, the vast majority of the followers of said religion dismiss the evidence.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #64 of 295
6/14/10 at 5:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Religion is a corruption of a philosophy - that of the founders...

That would be valid only if philosophy came before religion; it did not. Mankind's faith in deity (religion) arose long before philosophic thought took hold. Later on philospophy was crafted based on religious roots (reference The Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas for example).
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 295
6/14/10 at 5:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

That would be valid only if philosophy came before religion; it did not. Mankind's faith in deity (religion) arose long before philosophic thought took hold. Later on philospophy was crafted based on religious roots (reference The Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas for example).

You misunderstand.

The founders - ie Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad etc - were in part philosophers in the classical mode and gave a teaching to their immediate students.

After their death their teachings became corrupted and grew into the phenomena we call 'religions'.

Obviously atheists and believers will deny this vehemently as one has a vested interest in claiming a dispensation from 'God' and the other a vested interest in denying the existence of 'God' but they are both idiots really.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #66 of 295
6/14/10 at 5:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

*sigh* The argument always gets turned around and tries to make the atheist disprove something...

If a "religion" makes no supernatural claims whatsoever, I would call it more of a philosophy than anything else. So, in the interest of defining the terms properly, and assuming you are correct about Zen, it's not a religion.

I'm not making claims of the supernatural or hidden knowledge. The atheist doesn't do this.

Actually what gets mixed up is the various types of proof and the fields people are citing when discussing topics like atheism and religion.

We do not have scientific proof that George Washington existed. We have historic proof. We do not have an experiment that proves George Washington existed. There was no George Washington control group, etc. There is no George Washington hypothesis.

Yet people will ask for "scientific proof" of God. The majority of people claim to believe in God or even to have had religious experiences. So are they all delusional? Perhaps but then to what degree do we dismiss or validate this delusion? Is love a delusion then as well? How about caring or empathy, how do you prove those scientifically?

If I ask you if you are allowed to be president of the United States or be allowed in this country, you aren't going to form a hypothesis about the matter nor test it in an array of trials. I'm asking for legal proof in this particular case and that is different from scientific proof as well.

It is important to understand these things because when people start talking about science and claiming default states, they often don't have the default state in other fields. No one issuing manifestos is talking about science. No one talking about good of society, or saying a belief is the same as slavery or cannibalism is talking about science because science wouldn't judge such things as right or wrong for it lacks the ability to do so. Science is predictive and nothing more. It is not a discipline about morals. It splits the atom, it doesn't tell us whether it is right or wrong to use it to generate energy or eradicate a billion people.

There is as much historical and religious proof for things like Jesus or Muhammad or other religious figures as there is for George Washington or King George. Does the history of these figures sometimes read more like mythology than history? Sure and is this not true of all such figures? Is Tiger Woods not a golf god who would never miss a putt by the time the writers are done with him? Is Michael Jordan the guy who would make every dunk and didn't magically seem to wander off in the middle of his NBA career, as rumor has it as sort of a timeout when rumor says his gambling problems got his dad killed?

Who isn't made into a mythological figure when the writers are spilling their enthusiasm onto the page? Does that mean you have to live their life by their code? Most seem to pick and choose and have no problem expressing their disagreements be it Catholicism or 1070 in Arizona.

This brings us back to the atheist now. Science isn't moral. It is predictive. Can an atheist declare that given the lack of experiencing the direct presence of a deity in their lives, that their hypothesis is that they will continue to experience that for the remainder of their lives. Sure.

However as a "default state" can they claim that society must be rid of people with beliefs that are religious and have a moral high ground? No they cannot because science gives no such thing. If they want that moral high ground, they have to prove they have claim to it and they must incorporate into those proofs, evidence that goes well beyond science and into other disciplines as well.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #67 of 295
6/14/10 at 6:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

*sigh* The argument always gets turned around and tries to make the atheist disprove something...

If a "religion" makes no supernatural claims whatsoever, I would call it more of a philosophy than anything else. So, in the interest of defining the terms properly, and assuming you are correct about Zen, it's not a religion.

I'm not making claims of the supernatural or hidden knowledge. The atheist doesn't do this.

Quote:
]*sigh* The argument always gets turned around and tries to make the atheist disprove something...

And if you'll notice around here this technique is used for almost any kind of argument by conservatives.

I know the universe ( or multiverse as most modern cosmologists prefer now days ) is big enough to have many things we don't or even can't know about. However if you're an atheist you're right in that you would want proof of any claim about things in life you can't perceive ( or detect as our eyes and ears are imperfect for everything out there ). I'm more of an agnostic. I'm willing to admit there's much we don't know but I do like proof.

However it's a curious thing to talk to those who do believe in ( especially christiantiy ) a god and such. If you try to talk about it immediatly they're on the defensive like you attacked them or something.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #68 of 295
6/14/10 at 6:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Actually what gets mixed up is the various types of proof and the fields people are citing when discussing topics like atheism and religion.

We do not have scientific proof that George Washington existed. We have historic proof. We do not have an experiment that proves George Washington existed. There was no George Washington control group, etc. There is no George Washington hypothesis.

Yet people will ask for "scientific proof" of God. The majority of people claim to believe in God or even to have had religious experiences. So are they all delusional? Perhaps but then to what degree do we dismiss or validate this delusion? Is love a delusion then as well? How about caring or empathy, how do you prove those scientifically?

If I ask you if you are allowed to be president of the United States or be allowed in this country, you aren't going to form a hypothesis about the matter nor test it in an array of trials. I'm asking for legal proof in this particular case and that is different from scientific proof as well.

It is important to understand these things because when people start talking about science and claiming default states, they often don't have the default state in other fields. No one issuing manifestos is talking about science. No one talking about good of society, or saying a belief is the same as slavery or cannibalism is talking about science because science wouldn't judge such things as right or wrong for it lacks the ability to do so. Science is predictive and nothing more. It is not a discipline about morals. It splits the atom, it doesn't tell us whether it is right or wrong to use it to generate energy or eradicate a billion people.

There is as much historical and religious proof for things like Jesus or Muhammad or other religious figures as there is for George Washington or King George. Does the history of these figures sometimes read more like mythology than history? Sure and is this not true of all such figures? Is Tiger Woods not a golf god who would never miss a putt by the time the writers are done with him? Is Michael Jordan the guy who would make every dunk and didn't magically seem to wander off in the middle of his NBA career, as rumor has it as sort of a timeout when rumor says his gambling problems got his dad killed?

Who isn't made into a mythological figure when the writers are spilling their enthusiasm onto the page? Does that mean you have to live their life by their code? Most seem to pick and choose and have no problem expressing their disagreements be it Catholicism or 1070 in Arizona.

This brings us back to the atheist now. Science isn't moral. It is predictive. Can an atheist declare that given the lack of experiencing the direct presence of a deity in their lives, that their hypothesis is that they will continue to experience that for the remainder of their lives. Sure.

However as a "default state" can they claim that society must be rid of people with beliefs that are religious and have a moral high ground? No they cannot because science gives no such thing. If they want that moral high ground, they have to prove they have claim to it and they must incorporate into those proofs, evidence that goes well beyond science and into other disciplines as well.

Quote:
We do not have scientific proof that George Washington existed. We have historic proof. We do not have an experiment that proves George Washington existed. There was no George Washington control group, etc. There is no George Washington hypothesis.

But we automatically have more evidence because we have remains. Belief in god in the classical sense is belief. Faith based and no evidence.

There's a difference here.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #69 of 295
6/14/10 at 7:17am
Without getting into a 10,000 word post here, the author states....

--Atheism is the "default position."
--Religion often causes conflict.
--If there was a God, why would He allow bad/terrible things to happen?


I have several problems with the main ideas in this article. First, let's examine the "default position." The issue here is that the statement is objectively false. We live in a world where the vast majority of the population believes in a supreme being. The author seems to imply that this is due to a lack of education and/or intelligence. There is a certain elitism on display here: "If only they understood, they wouldn't believe in God!" In reality, many highly educated, intelligent individuals believe in a supreme being. Many brilliant scientists do as well. One can understand the understandable, and still believe in a supreme being. As for having to explain one's self for being atheist ("there shouldn't even be a word for atheism"): I find it ironic that an author who claims that scientific understanding is the key would simply ignore that typically, the minority usually needs to explain itself to the majority (especially when we're talking about the VAST majority). I think that's really all it is. We don't have a term for "non-astrologer" because MOST people are not astrologers. It's human nature to label things as different when they vary from the majority.

Secondly, the author seems to confuse "religion" with "faith." In some ways, these ideas are very different. For example, I myself am a person of faith, but I'm not very "religious." This difference is very important, especially when we start talking about wars and other conflicts that start as result of "religion." I won't get into the various definitions here. Suffice it to say that in my experience, "religion" has much more of a "groupthink" component than does "faith." Now clearly, "religion" has caused (for lack of a better term) many wars, deaths, etc. I think the author is absolutely correct there. But I don't think it is the belief in God itself that was the contributing factor. It was the religious structure and legalism that did so.

The last point is the one I'm most surprised to see the author use, because it's such an obvious and tired attack on faith. Anyone who purports himself to be as intelligent as the author does knows the answer: Believers believe that God has a greater purpose for the event. Believers also believe that man has free will, and can do wrong if he chooses. Now, can believers prove the greater purpose? Not always. In fact, when they can, it's highly subjective. But does the atheist know why something may have happened? Does he offer any explanation whatsoever, other than things randomly sucking for humanity? So..who is the more scientific? The person who seeks to explain the reason for an event, or the person that merely explains the mechanics behind it? In other words, science cannot easily answer "why?" Yes, science will tell you how a hurricane is constructed. It will tell you what processes affect its path. But why are those processes present when they are present? Why did the prevailing winds and water temperature cause the hurricane to go North instead of West? One could easily assume the atheist, for all his claimed intellectual prowess, simply doesn't have the intellectual curiosity to attempt an explanation.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #70 of 295
6/14/10 at 7:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

You misunderstand. The founders - ie Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad etc - were in part philosophers in the classical mode and gave a teaching to their immediate students.

In reference to Christ, his 33 years of "teaching" gave rise to Christianity, one of the largest religions today and a belief that overshadows any faith before or since.

Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

After their death their teachings became corrupted and grew into the phenomena we call 'religions'.

Christ rose from the dead and his Apostles spread the good news throughout the world. There was no "corruption" as you suggest, but instead the phenomenal growth of Christianity as the largest single faith throughout the world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Obviously atheists and believers will deny this vehemently as one has a vested interest in claiming a dispensation from 'God' and the other a vested interest in denying the existence of 'God' but they are both idiots really.

Atheists are not content disbelieving deity on their own; they feel bound to attack others that believe in a faith and partake in a religion.
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 295
6/14/10 at 7:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

If you have two kids and allow in 6 immigrants to make up for the 8 kids a family would have had a few years prior, then those immigrants will assimilate and in doing so will adopt the same birthrate.

Yes. In your local society. Meanwhile the birthrate in the society from which you adopted will be reduced thanks to your actions.
Quote:
It's interesting to look at this because right now, several countries basically have demographic timebombs waiting to go off inside of them but back to the thread topic, we both agreed that 2.0-2.1 would be a healthy birthrate. What do we call it then when we have many Western nations who have birth rates of 1.2-1.5 and as a result their populations will decrease by millions.

And those countries don't have immigration to make up for it, or at least they wont, when the time comes? Riiight.
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 295
6/14/10 at 8:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

In reality, many highly educated, intelligent individuals believe in a supreme being. Many brilliant scientists do as well. One can understand the understandable, and still believe in a supreme being.

Exactly. I believe Einstein also came into this category. And of course the basis of Western Science stems from Islamic Scientific discoveries by (shock) Muslims.

Quote:
We don't have a term for "non-astrologer" because MOST people are not astrologers. It's human nature to label things as different when they vary from the majority.

Without labelling there can be no debate - of course in this case the Atheists don't really want a debate with believers as they feel it is beneath them.

Quote:
Secondly, the author seems to confuse "religion" with "faith."

Bingo. It's like color-blind people denying the existence of green.

Quote:
The last point is the one I'm most surprised to see the author use, because it's such an obvious and tired attack on faith.

It's very tired...and lazy too. There are many religious conceptions where the question of God allowing evil just is not an issue to the existence of the deity as postulated in the given faith. That does not make it true but it does mean this is a false problem in many religions.

even in religions where it IS an issue theologians have addressed it with varying degrees of success for centuries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Atheists are not content disbelieving deity on their own; they feel bound to attack others that believe in a faith and partake in a religion.

True....but many religionists do the same......
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #73 of 295
6/14/10 at 8:43am
In case god exists he/she/it can only be an atheist. Atheists therefore share god's religion.

There is no evidence that people who claim to believe in god have read the bible properly. Things like oil drilling or any disrespect for nature are categorically disallowed by the christian/jewish god. In genesis god clearly demands masterful care for all creatures and land from humans.
Mistreated land is a place for the damned.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #74 of 295
6/14/10 at 9:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

In case god exists he/she/it can only be an atheist. Atheists therefore share god's religion.

Good Example of Twisted Logic 101...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

There is no evidence that people who claim to believe in god have read the bible properly.

Despite the 100 million+ that used it just yesterday eh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Things like oil drilling or any disrespect for nature are categorically disallowed by the christian/jewish god.

Cite the passage in the Bible that disallows oil drilling?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

In genesis god clearly demands masterful care for all creatures and land from humans.

God gave man dominion over animality and all lesser creatures... "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth..." (Gen. 1:26)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Mistreated land is a place for the damned.

So is blasphemy. Worried?
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 295
6/14/10 at 9:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

In case god exists he/she/it can only be an atheist. Atheists therefore share god's religion.

There is no evidence that people who claim to believe in god have read the bible properly. Things like oil drilling or any disrespect for nature are categorically disallowed by the christian/jewish god. In genesis god clearly demands masterful care for all creatures and land from humans.
Mistreated land is a place for the damned.

A better response would be, not all people who believe in "god" are Christians and read the Bible. Your response is only to a portion of religious folks and does nothing to strengthen the position of Atheism. It does however show your own personal opinions quite strongly.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #76 of 295
6/14/10 at 10:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

In case god exists he/she/it can only be an atheist. Atheists therefore share god's religion.

Stop...you're killing me!

Quote:


There is no evidence that people who claim to believe in god have read the bible properly.

So ALL people that "claim to have read the bible" have done so improperly? Who determines how one does that?

Quote:
Things like oil drilling or any disrespect for nature are categorically disallowed by the christian/jewish god. In genesis god clearly demands masterful care for all creatures and land from humans.
Mistreated land is a place for the damned.

Ahh, the end of perhaps the most ignorant post I've ever read on AI.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #77 of 295
6/14/10 at 10:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So ALL people that "claim to have read the bible" have done so improperly? Who determines how one does that?

Wormhole.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #78 of 295
6/14/10 at 10:37am
This thread went into a twisted nosedive even sooner than I thought was inevitable....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #79 of 295
6/14/10 at 10:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Stop...you're killing me!



God believes in god?
Really?
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #80 of 295
6/14/10 at 10:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

God believes in god?
Really?

Do you believe in yourself?

I know I'm losing faith......
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › An Atheist Manifesto